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

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

More ethics

"... the main thing members of the movement want is ethics in gaming journalism—there aren’t enough ethics, and so, one way or another, there will have to be more ethics. They might want other things too, but we had a hard time figuring out what they were."
http://www.clickhole.com/article/summary-gamergate-movement-we-will-immediately-cha-1241

"There's no such thing as rational numbers !", declares moron

I appear to have encountered someone who does not believe in rational numbers...

" You are following non-division able mathematics as 2 cannot be properly divided by 3 and answer will be got 0.6666666666666…………….. no ending solution. We need solution and accept the answer as 0.66. You should be practical. "

What this country needs...

This is what plays in my head every single time I read an article about how scientists are not trusted. Enough of the bleak dystopian futures !

(okay, it's ironic that it's given by an arch-villain, but never mind)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKP-00yaEg

Doctor Who season 8

The thing that's bugging me about season 8 of Dr Who... [spoilers]

Spoiler-free introduction
This season so far is absolutely solid stuff. Gone are the days of the weird jaunty camera angles and strange purple backlighting of the Russel T. Davies era. Gone too are the manically rushed, EVERYTHING'S EXPLODING, massively overly-complicated stories of the previous Moffat seasons. We also lose the "children are mysteriously disappearing" default plotline which was happening almost every other episode in previous seasons.

Instead, we have relatively grown-up plotlines (still mental as hell, otherwise it wouldn't be Dr Who) developed at a sensible place and shot with sensible cinemetography. Children are barely present; this is probably a good thing as the last time we saw a kids-oriented episode in the Moffat era it had child acting so bad it could induce dysentery in those of a nervous disposition. Many of the stories are now too adult and scary for children, which is a shame because generations of British kids have grown up hiding behind the sofa, but also a good thing because stories for kids are necessarily more limited.

Spoiler-prone assessment
But what's actually bothering me is Clara. Yes, Jenna Coleman's performance has improved by about twenty orders of magnitude, and this is a Very Good Thing. And Clara's character is also about nine thousand times more interesting than previously, and this is a Very Good Thing too. The problem is staggering, overpowering inconsistency with the established character. The prime example being the question, "Am I a good man ?", to which Clara's answer is, "I... don't know."

YOU WHAT ?????

This is coming from someone who has hopelessly idolized the Doctor probably more than any other recent companion, who scattered herself throughout the whole of time and space to save him. The answer just doesn't make any sense.

The latest episode "Kill the Moon" saw the Doctor magnificently doing nothing and letting Clara make a Big Decision. Big. And of course, she makes the correct decision. After which the Doctor gives an inspiring speech, and Clara attacks him for letting her make the decision. Makes. No. Sense. Now, there has always been an element of moral ambiguity surrounding the Doctor, but never expressed this directly by a companion. Much worse, though, is that Clara would never ever have said this to Matt Smith (with whom she faced down a planet-sized God with a leaf). Peter Capaldi's Doctor may be infinitely more acerbic and insulting, but his actions are absolutely consistent with the previous Doctors. It comes across as being grossly unfair and more than a little cruel ("go back to your lonely Tardis !" - WTF did he do to deserve that ?).

Revising Clara's character to be less unnaturally competent and more human (e.g. frightened every once in a while) was a massive improvement, but this is offset considerably by making her stroppy. The Doctor gave her a choice to make without him; instead of feeling gratified that he has that much faith in her (for once, rather than the other way around) she feels insulted he wouldn't help. And that's not something I can get my head around.

Conclusion
The latest Doctor is very much in the post-heroic phase. Still absolutely fundamentally good (whatever nonsense Clara might say, this is unequivocal), still doing whatever it takes to save the day, but now also taking a step back when appropriate. Clara, however, is not able to accept this. It seems that despite the excellent speeches of the first episode, she hasn't moved past the Doctor's regeneration. I much preferred the way Martha (an otherwise extremely uninteresting character) was written out of the show; a character enriched by the experience who goes on to improve her own life without the Doctor. I don't really see any value in having a character who suddenly stops being able to handle the lifestyle. A more gradual realization of the dangers might have been more convincing; Clara's occasional but massive doubts are very jarring.

The blatant next-companion looks more interesting, possibly someone who will stand up to the Doctor from the word go, rather than falling head over heels for the pretty man in the box. I also approve of taking a failing student instead of someone as hopelessly professional as Clara. But we shall see.

A message from the headmaster

"I’m not a complicated man. Yes, I may be much more sophisticated than you, but, believe me, I am still amused by your simple little ways.
And I care deeply about people who struggle to get by.
Those who can’t afford a third car, a holiday home in France, or that halfway-decent case of claret."

Genuinely good satire from the absurdly right-wing Daily Mail. MIND. BLOWN.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2777244/Little-people-I-proud-leader-That-Cameron-Speech-Full-First-Draft-told-CRAIG-BROWN.html

Nothing good on TV

Nothing good on TV ? Watch this instead. A classic debate on science and religion, but about as moderate as it's possible to get. Choice highlights (somewhat paraphrased) :

The greatest atrocities of the 20th century occurred in societies which had officially abolished religion... what we see is a tendency of any fundamentalism towards evil.

The people shouting against dogmatism are themselves the most dogmatic... when you set up
an ideology as the enemy, the danger is you become your enemy. In the name of freedom, you set up prison camps in Guantanamo.

Religion is dangerous... science is dangerous. Anything that is powerful has the power to do great evil.

Physics figures out the laws of nature, not where they come from.

The faith in science is based on evidence; the faith in religion is based on a complete lack of evidence.

When it comes to my religion, I can't let my experience define your lives. What I hear [from the other panel members] is a description of religion that you guys have rejected that I would reject as well. And if that's what you think religion is, then by all means, get rid of it.

The problem isn't religion, it's ignorance...

... but if you educate a thug, you have an educated thug.

Christians have almost a religious duty to support the scientific enterprise.

There's only one dogma in science, and that is that it has no dogma. Religious education should be conducted in the same way.

It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are; the Big Bang happened. The Universe is the way it is, I don't care what you believe about it... or what you need to feel comfortable and safe, and I won't dismiss anyone's need to believe in God if it makes them better... they have to interpret the world on the basis that this happened and use it make the world a better place.

Originally shared by Jenny Winder

Science Faith and Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8xxIhMbnA

Making sci-fi happy again

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28974943

Quack quack

Adventures in Pseudoscience, part 3/3

Long-winded rant about why people believe science is dogmatic despite the fact that it just isn't. Summary :
- There are lots of things science doesn't know, and we probably need to say this a bit more often.
- Most pseudoscience is simply wrong. The fact that occasionally some seemingly outlandish ideas turn out to be correct doesn't avoid the fact that most "alternative" models are at odds with pretty well-tested ideas (and, sometimes, established facts).
- Saying "it's arrogant to think such-and-such" (like, "we can't be the only intelligent life in the Universe") is wrong - evidence, not opinions, determines what's arrogant and what's not.
- Actually, it IS only a theory. Attempts to define theory as being the same as fact are completely wrong. This only serves to confuse everybody. You can't disprove facts.
- Evidence is not the same as proof. Skepticism is not the same as denial. Science is generally skeptical of new results even when it supports mainstream ideas.
- In general, the media like to say, "science proves X" while in reality this is rarely the case. Never trust new results.
- Unfortunately genuinely arrogant scientists are very popular in the media, and can give the wrong impression of the way science is done.

There, that should do it.