Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby
Thursday, 31 December 2015
Rebooted franchises
I remembered a quote that summarises how I feel about rebooted movies franchises when the director doesn't really get it : the alleged last oracle of Delphi to Justinian the Apostate. Justinian tried with a vengeance to reinstate worship of the old Roman gods. He may even have really believed in them, few others did. The old gods were effectively dead, and no amount of effort could ever bring them back. It's an uneasy sense of tragedy, like seeing fake Roman ruins in the grounds of an English stately home, or an 18th century painting showing the old myths with modern eyes. The artists were trying desperately to capture a sense of lost mysticism that they could never really understand at more than a superficial level. The vital essence of what the old beliefs meant has been lost forever.
Melodrama over, that's what I think when I watch the latest attempts to reboot almost all TV and especially movie franchises. Notable exceptions : Doctor Who, which if not exactly like the original does feel like a logical evolution from it, the fundamental morality of the show remains unchanged; Spectre, which feels to me like a modern version of the classic Bond films (unlike Casino Royale, haven't seen the other Craig films yet) - not exactly the same, but still fundamentally Bond. Also the Nolan Batman films, though those are remakes rather than attempting to continue the story.
Abrams, for me, is the worst offender. I rather enjoyed Super 8, which was his own original work, but when he tries doing Star Trek and Star Wars it really is like he's trying to hear the voice of a dead god. The soul of the films has gone. This was also true of Indiana Jones IV, Terminator IV (and to a lesser extent Terminator III), Stargate Universe and in some ways also The Hobbit (although I might attribute that to poor management rather than the director(s) not really getting it).
Rant over, you may go about your business now.
Solar Sahara
The short version : yes, except wars and politicians.
The last comment is silly though. If you can generate all the energy needed through renewables, reducing energy consumption makes no sense. Renewables aren't a "stopgap", they're the whole point. Low carbon sources would be a stopgap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34987467
The last comment is silly though. If you can generate all the energy needed through renewables, reducing energy consumption makes no sense. Renewables aren't a "stopgap", they're the whole point. Low carbon sources would be a stopgap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34987467
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
Haters gonna hate
For those who were wondering about the status of the UK petition to ban Donald Trump, the official response is now available.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.
The Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good.
The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values.
Exclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence.
The Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong.
The Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.
Doesn't really say much. It will still be considered for a debate in Parliament, but my guess is that it won't happen. However, "does not routinely comment" does not mean, "never comments". With over half a million signatuure, a more direct response as to whether Donald will be barred or not is warranted.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
For good reasons the Government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions.
The Home Secretary may exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be non-conducive to the public good.
The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right and she will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values.
Exclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly. The Home Secretary will use these powers when justified and based on all available evidence.
The Prime Minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with Donald Trump’s remarks. The Home Secretary has said that Donald Trump’s remarks in relation to Muslims are divisive, unhelpful and wrong.
The Government recognises the strength of feeling against the remarks and will continue to speak out against comments which have the potential to divide our communities, regardless of who makes them. We reject any attempts to create division and marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect.
Doesn't really say much. It will still be considered for a debate in Parliament, but my guess is that it won't happen. However, "does not routinely comment" does not mean, "never comments". With over half a million signatuure, a more direct response as to whether Donald will be barred or not is warranted.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
The Force Awak... well, not really
Spoiler-free review of The Force Awakens. I'm not sure it's possible to spoil a bad film though.
Jar Jar Abrahams Wants To Kill My Childhood And This Is Odd Because I Never Did Anything To Him As Far As I Know
OK, that's enough of the "virtues of critical thinking" and "oh isn't moderation just wonderful" posts. Nope, I'm going on a merciless ad hominem attack rant that will achieve precisely nothing but I don't care, you can't stop me, and it's Christmas. So there. J. J. Abrams knows diddly-squat about good storytelling.
Billie Piper's music video was a prelude to Doctor Who
OK, this is too much of a coincidence....
Billie Piper first shot to fame with a mercifully short-lived singing career. In this video she's brought to Earth by a (presumably Dalek) saucer and proceeds to splash what is quite clearly regeneration energy all over the place. Trash cans (albeit metal, not plastic) and drawings come to life. THEN A JUDOON APPEARS I KID THEE NOT.
I therefore move that this musical catastrophe (I watched it on mute and I suggest you do the same) must be accepted as Doctor Who canon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_XI_290cfw
Billie Piper first shot to fame with a mercifully short-lived singing career. In this video she's brought to Earth by a (presumably Dalek) saucer and proceeds to splash what is quite clearly regeneration energy all over the place. Trash cans (albeit metal, not plastic) and drawings come to life. THEN A JUDOON APPEARS I KID THEE NOT.
I therefore move that this musical catastrophe (I watched it on mute and I suggest you do the same) must be accepted as Doctor Who canon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_XI_290cfw
Monday, 28 December 2015
River Song's SPOILERS
SPOILERS
... if you haven't watched the latest Christmas special, don't watch this !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-wgLFj6bbI
... if you haven't watched the latest Christmas special, don't watch this !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-wgLFj6bbI
Sunday, 27 December 2015
Those cheeky Welsh
Genius, via a certain Gregg Taylor but G+ won't let me select the correct Gregg.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/24/460558347/a-cheeky-welsh-town-goes-offshore-to-avoid-british-taxes
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/24/460558347/a-cheeky-welsh-town-goes-offshore-to-avoid-british-taxes
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
J. J. Abrahams, I've got words for you...
J. J. Abrahams, you are now dead to me. This time, I'm spelling your name incorrectly deliberately.
Monday, 21 December 2015
Why are people stupid ?
On Stupidity
Feeling ambitious, I've decided to attempt to tackle the chronic question : why are people so stupid ? If it's a case of TLDR, you can probably skip to the summary section safely enough.
The super-short version is that evolution has not exactly favoured the development of general, overall intelligence. It favoured those who were good at solving specific problems, which is not quite the same thing. Those who appeared confident of their ability to kill a mammoth probably did know quite a lot about mammoth-killing, because if they didn't they wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce. Confidence and knowledge once went hand in hand - in the modern world, there is far less selection pressure against over-confident idiots.
But evolution has given us a capacity for general problem-solving, and it is possible at least to some extent to be taught critical thinking. It doesn't always come naturally to us for very good evolutionary reasons, but one can become more intelligent through good teaching, though perhaps only to a point. People sometimes reach stupid conclusions even though they are genuinely very intelligent, so it's important to consider their thought processes before deciding if they are truly stupid or not.
Finally, expertise should be regarded as a sign of ability, not actual intelligence. In the same way you wouldn't regard a professional sports player as necessarily all that smart, so, perhaps, you shouldn't regard scientists as being particularly intelligent. People simply have different abilities and different areas of expertise.
Absolutely none of which has helped me to explain why this guy is biting a tiger's tail, so some work remains.
Drawing this to the particular attention of Christopher Butler and William Black, who I know spend a lot of time dealing with (possibly) very stupid people.
Feeling ambitious, I've decided to attempt to tackle the chronic question : why are people so stupid ? If it's a case of TLDR, you can probably skip to the summary section safely enough.
The super-short version is that evolution has not exactly favoured the development of general, overall intelligence. It favoured those who were good at solving specific problems, which is not quite the same thing. Those who appeared confident of their ability to kill a mammoth probably did know quite a lot about mammoth-killing, because if they didn't they wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce. Confidence and knowledge once went hand in hand - in the modern world, there is far less selection pressure against over-confident idiots.
But evolution has given us a capacity for general problem-solving, and it is possible at least to some extent to be taught critical thinking. It doesn't always come naturally to us for very good evolutionary reasons, but one can become more intelligent through good teaching, though perhaps only to a point. People sometimes reach stupid conclusions even though they are genuinely very intelligent, so it's important to consider their thought processes before deciding if they are truly stupid or not.
Finally, expertise should be regarded as a sign of ability, not actual intelligence. In the same way you wouldn't regard a professional sports player as necessarily all that smart, so, perhaps, you shouldn't regard scientists as being particularly intelligent. People simply have different abilities and different areas of expertise.
Absolutely none of which has helped me to explain why this guy is biting a tiger's tail, so some work remains.
Drawing this to the particular attention of Christopher Butler and William Black, who I know spend a lot of time dealing with (possibly) very stupid people.
Sunday, 20 December 2015
Early regulations
They're going to need a man walking in front of them waving a red flag, in case they scare the horses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35131538
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35131538
Monday, 14 December 2015
Moderation Squared
A little while ago I wrote about my general philosophy on life, which is simply : all things in moderation, including moderation itself. That post somewhat got away from me, so this time I'd like to focus more on the actual philosophy. Since my last post was all about why extreme positions are popular, I want to make the strongest, most violent case I possibly can for the virtues of being moderate. Yeah, I like irony. If being extreme is more popular than being a moderate, what about being extremely moderate ?
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Trump doesn't go far enough !
I didn't really want to bring up Trump again, but this is just too good not to share.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trumps-problem-he-doesnt-go-far-enough-a6768491.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trumps-problem-he-doesnt-go-far-enough-a6768491.html
Saturday, 12 December 2015
A special kind of stupid : claiming to know things you can't
New type of stupid discovered !
Sort of, maybe. As well as stupid people not being intelligent enough to realise that they're stupid, we now have experts claiming to know things they can't possibly know. Perhaps this is an extreme example of the phenomena noted by Socrates :
Last of all I turned to the skilled craftsmen. I knew quite well that I had practically no technical qualifications myself, and I was sure that I should find them full of impressive knowledge. In this I was not disappointed. They understood things which I did not, and to that extent they were wiser than I was. But, gentlemen, these professional experts seemed to share the same failing which I had noticed in the poets. I mean that on the strength of their technical proficiency they claimed a perfect understanding of every other subject, however important, and I felt that this error more than outweighed their positive wisdom. So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was--neither wise with their wisdom nor stupid with their stupidity--or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.
The difference here, I guess, is that the experts are claiming an understanding of their own subject that's literally beyond perfect. They are claiming to understand things that don't actually exist.
Unfortunately, the original study is behind a paywall. I wonder if this was simply the experts making very quick snap judgements, or a more sinister form of argument from self-authority. Or perhaps they didn't want to appear stupid in front of the researchers ? More details needed !
I'm tempted to slip in a few nonsense terms at my next group meeting, just to see what happens. I think I could probably slip one or two things past a few people, but not others. I know with certainty that there are people in my group who if I make up a term, they will ask me what it means (because this has happened in the past when I've used an unfamiliar term). So I'm very curious why this didn't happen in this particular study.
Originally shared by Miguel Angel
Dunning has now conducted a new study with colleagues Stav Atir and Emily Rosenzweig, finding that expertise has its own pitfalls. In a series of experiments conducted at Cornell University, the researchers found that people with greater knowledge in a particular domain were more likely to claim knowledge that they could not possibly know.
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-atir-rosenzweig-dunning-effect-when-experts-claim-to-know-the-unknowable
Sort of, maybe. As well as stupid people not being intelligent enough to realise that they're stupid, we now have experts claiming to know things they can't possibly know. Perhaps this is an extreme example of the phenomena noted by Socrates :
Last of all I turned to the skilled craftsmen. I knew quite well that I had practically no technical qualifications myself, and I was sure that I should find them full of impressive knowledge. In this I was not disappointed. They understood things which I did not, and to that extent they were wiser than I was. But, gentlemen, these professional experts seemed to share the same failing which I had noticed in the poets. I mean that on the strength of their technical proficiency they claimed a perfect understanding of every other subject, however important, and I felt that this error more than outweighed their positive wisdom. So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was--neither wise with their wisdom nor stupid with their stupidity--or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.
The difference here, I guess, is that the experts are claiming an understanding of their own subject that's literally beyond perfect. They are claiming to understand things that don't actually exist.
Unfortunately, the original study is behind a paywall. I wonder if this was simply the experts making very quick snap judgements, or a more sinister form of argument from self-authority. Or perhaps they didn't want to appear stupid in front of the researchers ? More details needed !
I'm tempted to slip in a few nonsense terms at my next group meeting, just to see what happens. I think I could probably slip one or two things past a few people, but not others. I know with certainty that there are people in my group who if I make up a term, they will ask me what it means (because this has happened in the past when I've used an unfamiliar term). So I'm very curious why this didn't happen in this particular study.
Originally shared by Miguel Angel
Dunning has now conducted a new study with colleagues Stav Atir and Emily Rosenzweig, finding that expertise has its own pitfalls. In a series of experiments conducted at Cornell University, the researchers found that people with greater knowledge in a particular domain were more likely to claim knowledge that they could not possibly know.
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-atir-rosenzweig-dunning-effect-when-experts-claim-to-know-the-unknowable
The more you research...
[This is correct. The problem is that crazy people also sound crazy, and will be the first to use this to try and convince people that they are not.]
Friday, 11 December 2015
That sunny dome, those caves of ice !
Annoyingly this article won't let me change the displayed picture, and there are much better photos inside.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151211-the-impossible-ice-caves-that-stay-frozen-through-summer
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151211-the-impossible-ice-caves-that-stay-frozen-through-summer
Rational thinking is not enough to save you from stupidity
Rational thinking is not enough to save you from stupidity
Some more thoughts on statistics and why people do apparently very stupid things despite not actually being very stupid.
The difficulty with thinking statistically is that our own personal experiences are always true. When someone says something that's in flat contradiction to what we've seen with our own eyes, there is a certain logic in denying it. "You can't possibly have seen a black swan, you must be a very stupid person." The problem is that that's equally true from their perspective, but remembering this isn't easy - instinct takes over. It's even more difficult to realise that your experiences will have been influenced by a thousand different factors, and there's no reason to suppose that those will be the same everywhere.
When we find an anomaly, we don't automatically say, "All my previous observations were unusual, this new thing is normal." Instead we assume that it's the new thing that's the anomaly...Thinking about what sort of selection effects are at work does not come naturally, and it's difficult. Because we tend to say that anything unusual to us is unusual overall (rather than assuming we've been in an unusual position), things that don't fit the pattern don't necessarily challenge our ideologies. If we find more examples, we just say there are more exceptions, more mitigating factors.
A cult of ignorance probably doesn't look like that to its followers. It probably looks like someone is finally being honest enough to say what they're really thinking (despite the fact that that is not a virtue), to have the courage to agree with their entirely rational but uninformed conclusions, to circumvent the apparently highly contrived excuses of an intellectual elite. It does not necessarily happen simply because people are stupid.
Some more thoughts on statistics and why people do apparently very stupid things despite not actually being very stupid.
The difficulty with thinking statistically is that our own personal experiences are always true. When someone says something that's in flat contradiction to what we've seen with our own eyes, there is a certain logic in denying it. "You can't possibly have seen a black swan, you must be a very stupid person." The problem is that that's equally true from their perspective, but remembering this isn't easy - instinct takes over. It's even more difficult to realise that your experiences will have been influenced by a thousand different factors, and there's no reason to suppose that those will be the same everywhere.
When we find an anomaly, we don't automatically say, "All my previous observations were unusual, this new thing is normal." Instead we assume that it's the new thing that's the anomaly...Thinking about what sort of selection effects are at work does not come naturally, and it's difficult. Because we tend to say that anything unusual to us is unusual overall (rather than assuming we've been in an unusual position), things that don't fit the pattern don't necessarily challenge our ideologies. If we find more examples, we just say there are more exceptions, more mitigating factors.
A cult of ignorance probably doesn't look like that to its followers. It probably looks like someone is finally being honest enough to say what they're really thinking (despite the fact that that is not a virtue), to have the courage to agree with their entirely rational but uninformed conclusions, to circumvent the apparently highly contrived excuses of an intellectual elite. It does not necessarily happen simply because people are stupid.
Thursday, 10 December 2015
The importance of experimental testing
Originally shared by Ethan Siegel
"It is a pressing and timely question. As physics has matured, experimental test of new, more fundamental theories have become increasingly difficult. Many existing theories are so difficult to test that they are widely believed to be untestable in the foreseeable future. The methods from the past are not working any more. “We are in a different era of science,” says Nobel Laureate David Gross."
One of the most damning, albeit accurate, condemnations of String Theory that has been leveled at it is that it’s untestable, non-empirical, and offers no concrete predictions or methods of falsification. Yet some have attempted to address this failing not by coming up with concrete predictions or falsifiable tests, but by redefining what is meant by theory confirmation. Many physicists and philosophers have jumped into this debate, and a recently completed workshop has produced no agreements, but lots of interesting perspectives, opinions, and a few notable fights and quips.
Sabine Hossenfelder recounts her experience at the Munich workshop, only on Forbes!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/10/why-trust-a-theory-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-scientific-method/
"It is a pressing and timely question. As physics has matured, experimental test of new, more fundamental theories have become increasingly difficult. Many existing theories are so difficult to test that they are widely believed to be untestable in the foreseeable future. The methods from the past are not working any more. “We are in a different era of science,” says Nobel Laureate David Gross."
One of the most damning, albeit accurate, condemnations of String Theory that has been leveled at it is that it’s untestable, non-empirical, and offers no concrete predictions or methods of falsification. Yet some have attempted to address this failing not by coming up with concrete predictions or falsifiable tests, but by redefining what is meant by theory confirmation. Many physicists and philosophers have jumped into this debate, and a recently completed workshop has produced no agreements, but lots of interesting perspectives, opinions, and a few notable fights and quips.
Sabine Hossenfelder recounts her experience at the Munich workshop, only on Forbes!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/10/why-trust-a-theory-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-scientific-method/
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
Fighting immigration bans with MORE immigration bans !
BWAHAHAHAHAH !!!!
"A petition calling for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be barred from entering UK has passed 100,000, meaning MPs will have to consider debating the issue.
Labour's Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, also called for Mr Trump to be banned from the UK after he claimed that parts of London were "so radicalised" that police were "afraid for their own lives". "I would say to him you are not welcome in our country in the same way that you want to ban people like me going into your country," Ms Siddiq told BBC Radio London."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35052505
"A petition calling for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be barred from entering UK has passed 100,000, meaning MPs will have to consider debating the issue.
Labour's Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, also called for Mr Trump to be banned from the UK after he claimed that parts of London were "so radicalised" that police were "afraid for their own lives". "I would say to him you are not welcome in our country in the same way that you want to ban people like me going into your country," Ms Siddiq told BBC Radio London."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35052505
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
Hate begets hate
Definitely more appropriate in the Politics collection than Sci-fi collection right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPxWlS5Wmy4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPxWlS5Wmy4
Even the worst British politicians despise Trump
Even Nigel "Let's Allow Racial Discrimination" Farage doesn't like Donald Trump
And while I may not agree with Boris Johnson on many things at all, I have to hand it to him on this one :
"I would welcome the opportunity to show Mr Trump first hand some of the excellent work our police officers do every day in local neighbourhoods throughout our city. Crime has been falling steadily both in London and in New York - the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."
Well said, that man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35037553
And while I may not agree with Boris Johnson on many things at all, I have to hand it to him on this one :
"I would welcome the opportunity to show Mr Trump first hand some of the excellent work our police officers do every day in local neighbourhoods throughout our city. Crime has been falling steadily both in London and in New York - the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."
Well said, that man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35037553
Headline of the year
Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?
https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/08/donald-trump-is-a-bad-person
https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/08/donald-trump-is-a-bad-person
We're too critical to have a genuinely open government
Originally shared by Assia Alexandrova
This self-serving over-critical-ness is a symptom of the overall phenomenon whereby people perceive government as something entirely external to them, and not a product of their agency and choices.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-want-an-open-government-but-were-far-too-critical-for-it/article27639975
This self-serving over-critical-ness is a symptom of the overall phenomenon whereby people perceive government as something entirely external to them, and not a product of their agency and choices.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-want-an-open-government-but-were-far-too-critical-for-it/article27639975
Have I, personally, actually changed my mind on major issues ?
I decided to put my money where my mouth is and see if I really have changed my mind or not, and more importantly, why. When I was writing this I realised that I was subconsciously selecting only the most rational, evidenced-based reasons as to why I'd changed stance on various issues. So then I forced myself to ask, "What's the least rational reason why I changed my opinion ?". Which made it into a far more interesting exercise to actually do. I don't know if it also makes for anything worth reading, but I'd encourage everyone to try and do this for themselves.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Guns. The problem is guns.
There are many complex issues in the world today. This isn't one of them.
Originally shared by God Emperor Lionel Lauer
How banning guns stopped mass killings in Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html?smid=go-share
Originally shared by God Emperor Lionel Lauer
How banning guns stopped mass killings in Australia
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html?smid=go-share
My melodrama is better than your melodrama
I have to admit, the line :
“Opposed to freedom of speech?” protested one delegate. “What a hateful smear. We should have them all shut down.”
did make me laugh.
Originally shared by Laura
“What breathtaking cis white male arrogance. How can you stand there, complacently calling it a ‘good’ evening, at a time when the Sun newspaper continues to be published, the Conservative Party is allowed to govern the country merely because it was elected to do so, and the notorious misogynist Germaine Greer is permitted on to university property for no better reason than she’s been invited to speak there?”
>cis white male
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12021620/How-dare-you-say-students-are-melodramatic.-Thats-one-of-my-triggers.html
“Opposed to freedom of speech?” protested one delegate. “What a hateful smear. We should have them all shut down.”
did make me laugh.
Originally shared by Laura
“What breathtaking cis white male arrogance. How can you stand there, complacently calling it a ‘good’ evening, at a time when the Sun newspaper continues to be published, the Conservative Party is allowed to govern the country merely because it was elected to do so, and the notorious misogynist Germaine Greer is permitted on to university property for no better reason than she’s been invited to speak there?”
>cis white male
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12021620/How-dare-you-say-students-are-melodramatic.-Thats-one-of-my-triggers.html
A sequel to War of the Worlds
For a horrible three seconds I thought it meant a movie sequel to that Tom Cruise vomit. Fortunately :
"Written by Stephen Baxter, The Massacre of Mankind will see the Martians from Wells's story invading Earth once more, having learned from the mistakes they made first time around. The author of more than 20 novels previously penned The Time Ships, a sequel to Wells's 1895 story The Time Machine."
And I did enjoy The Time Ships very much, but in a completely different way to the original. Baxter is better at hard s.f. than Wells (so he should be, he's had more than a hundred years of extra scientific advancements to draw on), but he doesn't hold a candle to him as a social commentator.
I still don't understand why no-one has made a good movie version of the original book. Vampire aliens riding astride huge steampunk tripods smashing up Victorian London ? Why would this not make money ??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35004565
"Written by Stephen Baxter, The Massacre of Mankind will see the Martians from Wells's story invading Earth once more, having learned from the mistakes they made first time around. The author of more than 20 novels previously penned The Time Ships, a sequel to Wells's 1895 story The Time Machine."
And I did enjoy The Time Ships very much, but in a completely different way to the original. Baxter is better at hard s.f. than Wells (so he should be, he's had more than a hundred years of extra scientific advancements to draw on), but he doesn't hold a candle to him as a social commentator.
I still don't understand why no-one has made a good movie version of the original book. Vampire aliens riding astride huge steampunk tripods smashing up Victorian London ? Why would this not make money ??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35004565
Saturday, 5 December 2015
Statistically safe
Though the number of people killed by coconuts has been exaggerated, it is true that it does happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
See also http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/sense-and-sensible-statistics.html
Originally shared by Ciro Villa
Terrorist? schmterrorist, mass killer? shcmass killer, supremacists, criminals? schsupremacists, and schcriminals.. None of these more lethal than your dresser, armoire and blood thirsty credenzas!
" What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
See also http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/sense-and-sensible-statistics.html
Originally shared by Ciro Villa
Terrorist? schmterrorist, mass killer? shcmass killer, supremacists, criminals? schsupremacists, and schcriminals.. None of these more lethal than your dresser, armoire and blood thirsty credenzas!
" What accounts for the fear that terrorism inspires, considering that its actual risk in the United States and other Western countries is so low? The answer lies in basic human psychology. Scholars have repeatedly found that individuals have strong tendencies to miscalculate risk likelihood in predictable ways.
For instance, individuals’ sense of control directly influences their feeling about whether they are susceptible to a given risk. Thus, for instance, although driving is more likely to result in deadly accidents than flying, individuals tend to feel that the latter is riskier than the former. Flying involves giving up control to the pilot. The resulting sense of vulnerability increases the feeling of risk, inflating it far beyond the actual underlying risks.
When people dread a particular hazard, and when it can harm large numbers at once, it’s far more likely that someone will see it as riskier than it is–and riskier than more serious hazards without those characteristics. For instance, people have been found to estimate that the number killed each year by tornadoes and floods are about the same as those killed by asthma and diabetes. But the latter (diabetes, in particular) account for far more deaths each year than the former. In fact, in the year that study was conducted, actual annual diabetes deaths were estimated in the tens of thousands while fewer than 1,000 people died in tornadoes. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist
Friday, 4 December 2015
Same-sex marriage was once acceptably Christian
Originally shared by Andres Soolo
Once upon a time, Christian authorities were not deadbent against same-sex marriage.
How could these marriages have been forgotten by history? One easy answer is that — as Boswell argues — the Church reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century to be for the purposes of procreation. And this slammed the door on gay marriage. Church scholars and officials worked hard to suppress the history of these marriages in order to justify their new definition.
Of course, history is more complicated than that. Boswell claims that part of the problem is that we define marriage so differently today that it's almost impossible for historians to recognize 1800-year-old gay marriage documents when they see them. Often, these documents refer to uniting "brothers," which at the time would have been a way of describing same-sex partners whose lifestyles were tolerated in Rome. Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
The underlying book is Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell.
http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108
Once upon a time, Christian authorities were not deadbent against same-sex marriage.
How could these marriages have been forgotten by history? One easy answer is that — as Boswell argues — the Church reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century to be for the purposes of procreation. And this slammed the door on gay marriage. Church scholars and officials worked hard to suppress the history of these marriages in order to justify their new definition.
Of course, history is more complicated than that. Boswell claims that part of the problem is that we define marriage so differently today that it's almost impossible for historians to recognize 1800-year-old gay marriage documents when they see them. Often, these documents refer to uniting "brothers," which at the time would have been a way of describing same-sex partners whose lifestyles were tolerated in Rome. Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
The underlying book is Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell.
http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108
The value of nothing
What's the point of all this useless "science" anyway ? Who cares about anything that doesn't lead to immediate financial gain ? How can we possibly be building spaceships when there are still starving children in the world ?
Yeah, I know there are probably umpteen better posts on the values and virtues of pure research, but I don't care - here's one more.
Yeah, I know there are probably umpteen better posts on the values and virtues of pure research, but I don't care - here's one more.
Hibernation for space travel and avoiding horrible summers
I can't imagine why I'd want to hibernate in winter. Summer, now, that would be useful.
Some interesting comments about the benefits of hibernation for space travel, other than astronauts needing less food :
One of the most annoying things for astronauts in space stations is they have to do physical exercise for 6 hours a day," says Henning. Otherwise, their muscles and bones atrophy. But exercise in space is unpleasant, thanks to temperatures above 30 °C and air thick with carbon dioxide. If astronauts could hibernate, they would not have to do it. "Hibernators that lay down half a year do not suffer from any muscle waste or osteoporosis," says Henning.
"There are reports that hibernators are protected from radiation damage, and this is really a big issue in space," says Henning. At the moment people can only stay in space for about a yea: beyond that, the radiation damage starts to significantly increase their risk of cancer. "If you were to hibernate people and they were to be protected, this would enable much longer missions," says Henning.
It might also help with long-term colonisation. "In reality, it is not possible to have children in space, [because] eggs and sperm will be damaged so much that you will never get proper offspring."
I'm guessing this last one refers to radiation damage ?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151203-here-are-all-the-reasons-you-cant-hibernate-in-winter
Some interesting comments about the benefits of hibernation for space travel, other than astronauts needing less food :
One of the most annoying things for astronauts in space stations is they have to do physical exercise for 6 hours a day," says Henning. Otherwise, their muscles and bones atrophy. But exercise in space is unpleasant, thanks to temperatures above 30 °C and air thick with carbon dioxide. If astronauts could hibernate, they would not have to do it. "Hibernators that lay down half a year do not suffer from any muscle waste or osteoporosis," says Henning.
"There are reports that hibernators are protected from radiation damage, and this is really a big issue in space," says Henning. At the moment people can only stay in space for about a yea: beyond that, the radiation damage starts to significantly increase their risk of cancer. "If you were to hibernate people and they were to be protected, this would enable much longer missions," says Henning.
It might also help with long-term colonisation. "In reality, it is not possible to have children in space, [because] eggs and sperm will be damaged so much that you will never get proper offspring."
I'm guessing this last one refers to radiation damage ?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151203-here-are-all-the-reasons-you-cant-hibernate-in-winter
Now just find me a master wizard of the house Telvanni...
Now just find me a master wizard of the house Telvanni...
Originally shared by Eli Fennell
Meet the Giant Mushroom 'Trees' of Ancient Earth
Before tall trees covered the Earth, there was fungus, and it turns out, some of those fungi grew to a remarkable height. There were mushrooms taller than your house dotting the landscape.
Basically, the primordial Earth looked a lot like that Giant World level in Nintendo's Super Mario. And you thought you were just trying to rescue a princess.
#FungusAreAmongUs #Science
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-before-trees-overtook-the-land-earth-was-covered-by-giant-mushrooms-13709647/
Originally shared by Eli Fennell
Meet the Giant Mushroom 'Trees' of Ancient Earth
Before tall trees covered the Earth, there was fungus, and it turns out, some of those fungi grew to a remarkable height. There were mushrooms taller than your house dotting the landscape.
Basically, the primordial Earth looked a lot like that Giant World level in Nintendo's Super Mario. And you thought you were just trying to rescue a princess.
#FungusAreAmongUs #Science
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-before-trees-overtook-the-land-earth-was-covered-by-giant-mushrooms-13709647/
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Measuring misconceptions
Well worth taking the quiz before you read the article. Via Michael J. Coffey.
Originally shared by Betsy McCall
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2015/dec/02/what-americans-get-wrong-survey-reveals-biggest-misconceptions
Originally shared by Betsy McCall
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2015/dec/02/what-americans-get-wrong-survey-reveals-biggest-misconceptions
Digging to the mantle
"Scientists will set out this week to drill a hole into the Indian Ocean floor to try to get below the Earth's crust for the first time. They want to sample rock from the planet's mantle - its deep interior. In the process, the researchers hope to check their assumptions about the materials from which the crust itself is made. It will probably take several years to drop the full 5 to 5.5km, says co-team leader, Prof Chris MacLeod."
I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen here :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591789/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34967750
I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen here :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591789/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34967750
Appeal to authority versus appeal to stupidity
Just a short follow-up to yesterdays "appeal to authority" post, mainly for the sake of having a go-to link, and the equally important "appeal to stupidity" fallacy.
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Suggested rules for modern living
Suggested rules for modern living :
1) It doesn't count as theft if you were using a selfie stick.
2) Trying to fill in the missing parts of the conversation if someone is using a hands-free kit on the street should be considered a sport.
3) If a complete stranger hands you a card telling you that they hate you because of your appearance, you're allowed to punch 'em in the nose.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-34969424
1) It doesn't count as theft if you were using a selfie stick.
2) Trying to fill in the missing parts of the conversation if someone is using a hands-free kit on the street should be considered a sport.
3) If a complete stranger hands you a card telling you that they hate you because of your appearance, you're allowed to punch 'em in the nose.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-34969424
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Review : Pagan Britain
Having read a good chunk of the original stories, I turn away slightly from mythological themes and back to something more academical : the ...
-
"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack o...
-
I've noticed that some people care deeply about the truth, but come up with batshit crazy statements. And I've caught myself rationa...
-
"The price quoted by Tesla does not include installation of the unit. To this needs to be added the cost of installing solar panels to ...