As of tonight, I am proud of my nation.
I can -- and will -- fly our flag without doubt. Without qualm. Because tonight, my nation elected a man whom I believe will truly -- truly -- do his best to follow and fulfill the ideals that this country once represented.
Once again we can be a beacon to the world. Thank you, president-elect Obama.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Confirmed: 70% of Americans are misguided buffoons
[Yes, I know I haven't posted anything in forever -- it takes something like this to get me here these days]
Dietram Scheufele recently (Feb 15) made a presentation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison which has truly horrifying implications. Here's the article: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology.
And here's the nut: "In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable."
What. The. FUUUUUUUUUDGE is WRONG with these people? Okay, some of the credit has to go to either the ones who composed the questions or the folks who are summarizing the results, but -- technology is not, in and of itself, morally ANYTHING! It's only the USE of technology that can be subjected to moral discussion! Otherwise, the entire scientific method is out the window!
And to quote Scheufele: "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
No, they AREN'T informed. They (SEVENTY PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS) fail to understand that all of human existence has been about creating things that don't occur in nature! A human being is a TOOL-MAKING animal. "God" didn't touch the dust and give us the spear, the seed bag OR the combine harvester. And it's not about drawing the line, either -- we've been manipulating genetics since WAY before we understood them, so obviously THAT'S okay. Or is the AKC morally unacceptable? [Actually, I think they are, but not for the same reasons that I'm suggesting that the survey respondents are. And that's for another post.]
So: Two-thirds of this country I live in believe that an entire realm of technology -- an area of STUDY, not an application of that study -- is morally wrong. No wonder we have the idiot in the White House that we do -- and that we elected him not once but TWICE. I had my doubts, but I was giving Diebold and a biased Supreme Court more credit than they were due, apparently.
Talk about a slippery slope. "Nanotech? Nope, can't study that. Solar power? Against God's will. Electricity? Work of the Devil. Did you know Thomas Edison was a satan-worshipper? And Tesla! Satan incarnate!"
Okay -- I've managed to talk some sense into myself: obviously 70% of us aren't THAT stupid. But they're still wrong.
Dietram Scheufele recently (Feb 15) made a presentation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison which has truly horrifying implications. Here's the article: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology.
And here's the nut: "In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable."
What. The. FUUUUUUUUUDGE is WRONG with these people? Okay, some of the credit has to go to either the ones who composed the questions or the folks who are summarizing the results, but -- technology is not, in and of itself, morally ANYTHING! It's only the USE of technology that can be subjected to moral discussion! Otherwise, the entire scientific method is out the window!
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
And to quote Scheufele: "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."
No, they AREN'T informed. They (SEVENTY PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS) fail to understand that all of human existence has been about creating things that don't occur in nature! A human being is a TOOL-MAKING animal. "God" didn't touch the dust and give us the spear, the seed bag OR the combine harvester. And it's not about drawing the line, either -- we've been manipulating genetics since WAY before we understood them, so obviously THAT'S okay. Or is the AKC morally unacceptable? [Actually, I think they are, but not for the same reasons that I'm suggesting that the survey respondents are. And that's for another post.]
So: Two-thirds of this country I live in believe that an entire realm of technology -- an area of STUDY, not an application of that study -- is morally wrong. No wonder we have the idiot in the White House that we do -- and that we elected him not once but TWICE. I had my doubts, but I was giving Diebold and a biased Supreme Court more credit than they were due, apparently.
Talk about a slippery slope. "Nanotech? Nope, can't study that. Solar power? Against God's will. Electricity? Work of the Devil. Did you know Thomas Edison was a satan-worshipper? And Tesla! Satan incarnate!"
Okay -- I've managed to talk some sense into myself: obviously 70% of us aren't THAT stupid. But they're still wrong.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Yet more hypocrisy
I don't mean to turn this into a political NOR a hypocrisy blog, but politicians are pissing me off to no end. From MSNBC's News Hole: Mitt Romney paid $300 for a haircut... after slamming John Edwards for paying $400.
Quoth the Mitt-man:
No, Mitt, you're wrong. There are THREE USA's: people who pay $100 or more, people who pay less, and the rest of us, who cut our own hair.
Quoth the Mitt-man:
You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else.
No, Mitt, you're wrong. There are THREE USA's: people who pay $100 or more, people who pay less, and the rest of us, who cut our own hair.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Most hypocritical statement ever.
As verified by the official white house transcript, President Bush said in remarks yesterday that "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us."
What a pity he didn't say that before invading Iraq.
Don't even get me started on trying to reconcile this with his stand on executions (including the mentally retarded) while he was Governor of Texas. I don't understand why the man's head doesn't spontaneously explode.
What a pity he didn't say that before invading Iraq.
Don't even get me started on trying to reconcile this with his stand on executions (including the mentally retarded) while he was Governor of Texas. I don't understand why the man's head doesn't spontaneously explode.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The 5-Minute-Method Man
[Kudos to those who got the Irving reference.]
Disclaimer: I'm sure that either a) this is an old idea I've unconsciously lifted or b) someone else will publish it soon -- but I don't care, because it works. For me, at least.
I have a problem with procrastination. In my experience, lots of creative people do -- there's probably a correlation there, and it may even be a survival mechanism: if you start something at the last minute, you can't spend weeks and weeks on it to the exclusion of other minor details such as, e.g., eating. [yes, I realize that was redundant, it was for comic effect --a6]
But recently I've had a little breakthrough. Here it is: No matter how insurmountable or insignicant the task, if it occurs to you that it needs doing, take 5 minutes and do something about it. 5 minutes works for me -- maybe for others it might be 10, or 3. But in 5 minutes, either 1) you'll get it done (if it's small), 2) you'll have spent 5 minutes on it that you wouldn't have otherwise or (and here's the biggie) 3) you'll decide "oh, hell, I've started this, I may as well finish it!"
A few caveats: obviously, this could be a method of procrastination in itself; I accept no responsibility should that prove the case for you. Also, one's attitude must be "I'll do the best job at this as I can for 5 minutes" not "I need to finish this in 5 minutes, I'll just do a really crappy job of it." In other words, better you should clean one dish or pan really well than get them ALL done but have to redo them because they all have dried food on them.
This post (which took more than five minutes, I'm sorry to say) is an example of the success of this method. Yay me!
[edit] Something else that just came up: if you have two tasks of equal importance, and one of them takes less time... do that one first. You'll be able to relax about the second one sooner.
Disclaimer: I'm sure that either a) this is an old idea I've unconsciously lifted or b) someone else will publish it soon -- but I don't care, because it works. For me, at least.
I have a problem with procrastination. In my experience, lots of creative people do -- there's probably a correlation there, and it may even be a survival mechanism: if you start something at the last minute, you can't spend weeks and weeks on it to the exclusion of other minor details such as, e.g., eating. [yes, I realize that was redundant, it was for comic effect --a6]
But recently I've had a little breakthrough. Here it is: No matter how insurmountable or insignicant the task, if it occurs to you that it needs doing, take 5 minutes and do something about it. 5 minutes works for me -- maybe for others it might be 10, or 3. But in 5 minutes, either 1) you'll get it done (if it's small), 2) you'll have spent 5 minutes on it that you wouldn't have otherwise or (and here's the biggie) 3) you'll decide "oh, hell, I've started this, I may as well finish it!"
A few caveats: obviously, this could be a method of procrastination in itself; I accept no responsibility should that prove the case for you. Also, one's attitude must be "I'll do the best job at this as I can for 5 minutes" not "I need to finish this in 5 minutes, I'll just do a really crappy job of it." In other words, better you should clean one dish or pan really well than get them ALL done but have to redo them because they all have dried food on them.
This post (which took more than five minutes, I'm sorry to say) is an example of the success of this method. Yay me!
[edit] Something else that just came up: if you have two tasks of equal importance, and one of them takes less time... do that one first. You'll be able to relax about the second one sooner.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Don't read if you're a Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia sufferer...
NASA Mission News: Cassini Images Bizarre Hexagon on Saturn.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070327.html
As I was forwarding it to a friend something occurred to me: 6-sided figure... 6th planet from the sun... 6-6-...uh-oh.
Not that I believe that it means anything (and I still don't know what the last 6 -- or the middle 1 -- would be), but it's freaky in an amusing way nevertheless.
And yes, this is a little light fare. Well, I'm really just writing this for myself anyhow.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070327.html
As I was forwarding it to a friend something occurred to me: 6-sided figure... 6th planet from the sun... 6-6-...uh-oh.
Not that I believe that it means anything (and I still don't know what the last 6 -- or the middle 1 -- would be), but it's freaky in an amusing way nevertheless.
And yes, this is a little light fare. Well, I'm really just writing this for myself anyhow.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Belgium: on the side of closed systems
Considering Europe's most recent reaction to a closed system (Apple's iPod), this struck me as odd:
Obviously, Belgium isn't Norway, and music isn't news. But to me, their priorities should be reversed: news outlets should be looking for MORE exposure, not less. After all, as Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes commented:
Granted, it's limited to Google Belgium. But isolationism is a slippery slope. Any intelligent person welcomes the opportunity to expose themselves to opinions other than their own, and on many topics that's becoming increasingly difficult here in the United States, where we seem more concerned with preaching to our respective choirs than engaging in dialog. That's the main benefit of something like Google News -- assembled by algorithm rather than editor, it provides a more neutral (although not necessarily more broad) choice.
Here's hoping that Belgium will reverse its opinion and embrace open propagation of information.
A Belgian court on Tuesday ordered [Google] to refrain from showing excerpts of articles from French- and German-language Belgian newspapers on Google News and Google's Web search site for Belgium, reaffirming an earlier ruling by the same court against the company.[From "Google suffers setback in copyright case" by Elinor Mills at CNET news]
Obviously, Belgium isn't Norway, and music isn't news. But to me, their priorities should be reversed: news outlets should be looking for MORE exposure, not less. After all, as Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes commented:
"It is important to remember that both Google Web Search and Google News only ever show a few snippets of text," Reyes added. "If people want to read the entire story they have to click through to the Web publisher's site where the information resides. We believe search engines are of real benefit to publishers because they drive valuable traffic to their Web sites."I'm usually pretty good at understanding points of view from outside the USA, but this one's got me stumped. And worried.
Granted, it's limited to Google Belgium. But isolationism is a slippery slope. Any intelligent person welcomes the opportunity to expose themselves to opinions other than their own, and on many topics that's becoming increasingly difficult here in the United States, where we seem more concerned with preaching to our respective choirs than engaging in dialog. That's the main benefit of something like Google News -- assembled by algorithm rather than editor, it provides a more neutral (although not necessarily more broad) choice.
Here's hoping that Belgium will reverse its opinion and embrace open propagation of information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)