Archive for the ‘Throwing Out the Trash’ Category

“Honey, Does This Saddle Make My Ass Look Fat?”

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Of course, any male who saw Disney’s Fantasia in his adolescence has a bit of a centaur filly fetish.

It may be a sign of my geekiness, however, that even as a besotted teenager, I had a bit of literal “refrigerator logic”. To wit, “How do they eat?

Today, with the Webz and all, I had the opportunity to work out some rough calculations.

To start with, A 1000 pound horse requires about 15,000 Calories a day, that’s big-C Calories. Horse digestive tracts are very inefficient, and require about 25 pounds a day of mixed fodder, that is, forage (hay) and concentrate (oats, molasses, corn, and the like). Obviously, there’s no way for a human mouth, with human teeth, to chew through 25 pounds a day of horse feed.

And let’s not talk about grazing with a flat face.

Of course, the far more efficient human digestive tract can eat much more concentrated foods, like meat. Maybe that helps. Accordingly, the following numbers are based on scaled-up human internals.

A pound of sugar is 1760 Calories. That means that a centaur eating pure sugar needs about 8-1/2 pounds of sugar every single goddamn day.

A pound of fried bacon is 2448 Calories; a carnivorous centaur would want about 6 pounds a day. (I choose bacon because a] it’s tasty and b] it’s a nice mix of protein and fat.)

Then there’s fiber. A human on a 2000 C/day diet needs about 25 g/day. Converting to pounds and scaling up to 15,000 C/day yields about 1/2 lb/day of pure, indigestible fiber. “I buy ‘er books and buy ‘er books and she just eats the cov… uhp, nope, just swallowed the whole damn thing. ”

Hah, hah, nobody eats books! So let’s look into apples…. Holy, uh, crap. There’s about 0.7 g of fiber in an apple. Converting to pounds, that’s in excess of 320 apples a day to keep the vet away.

But at least you now have an excellent excuse to wash down your meals with, yes:
Bacon Stein
…A bacon beer mug, which will help a little with the 8 or 10 gallons a day of water a lightly worked horse will need. Or, hey, splurge, and have a candied bacon ice cream float for dessert.

Of course, no body eats exclusively any one kind of food.

A Big Mac is about 540 Calories. Now, a Big Mac contributes to nutrition in several different ways, but going by calories alone, my hooved belooved would not be a cheap date: she’d need about 27 a day, at a cost of around a hundred bucks.

If she wants fries with that, she’d need about 13 Big Mac meals with medium fries and Coke. That’s a bit of a savings, only $80.

The dietary math is a little easier if your centaur chassis has a pony form-factor. Multiply everything by about 0.7, but remember, equines can only carry about a fifth of their weight. I’m too heavy for a 1000-lb horse; only a very lean young man, weighing at most 125 lbs, could ride his 700 lb pony girlfriend.

[update]
And speaking of ponies, note that Disney’s fillies are not only very small ponies, but lack the pot belly evident on real ponies. They have human digestive systems, not equine, and indeed, they later appear at a human-style banquet — although not with centaur-sized portions.

I was referred to Celesta, a photo-morphed image by “The Phantom Inker” of a lady centaur. Note how her human torso seems way too small for the horse body. She would be better proportioned as a pony. I may have to fool around with that.
celesta_centaur_by_phantom_inker_w


[/update]

Then there’s breathing. The breath-to-breath measurement is called tidal volume.

For humans, tidal volume is about 0.5 liters.

For horses? About 6.0 liters, twelve times what a human needs. That means nostrils, and a windpipe, about four times the diameter of a human’s. And those are resting values.


So, conclusion?

No. Hell, no. You can’t eat like a horse, or even breath like a horse, through a human mouth.


Update:
Heh. I’m pointed to this episode of The Wotch. The young lady is a centaur who hides her equine body with an invisibility spell; we, of course, are not affected.

The Loss of Sadness

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Dr. Sanity points to a terrible pitfall of psychiatric medicine:

The truth is that it is not only sorrow that tends to be pathologized by psychiatry, but other “diagnoses”. And, until we can connect a psychiatric diagnosis with specific physiological anchors, the tendency is to pathologize everything that causes any degree of distress.

In point of fact, the opportunity to learn and grow from one’s losses in life; to become a more mature and (possibly) wise individual is lost; and instead the individual learns the lesson that he/she is a victim of their own biology; doomed to wander the earth during their lifetime always vulnerable to “stress” and knowing that they cannot cope with it on their own.

Again, there is real and devastating melancholy that seems to have no connection to the outside world; the inner world is irrevocably off-track and the person is unable to function. Biological studies of such individuals may bring us closer to understanding the pathological expression of sadness, where what is normal crosses a biological and physiological line and, without some biological treatment, can never get back on track (much like a real psychosis).

This is a crucial must read, particularly if you or someone you know is currently being treated for being unhappy.

Meet the State’s Witnesses at Your Murder Trial

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Change blindness:

[Via Radley Balko at The Agitator.]

The experimenters note that they don’t know whether this shows differences between the subjects, or just random chance.

Trials aside, this is also relevant to any kind of fact-finding process — including science itself. It’s a big part of the reason that safeguards such as double-blinds and repeatability are so crucial.

I’ve seen demands that police lineups prohibit detectives familiar with the case from participating, from being in the viewing room with the witness.

Suggestion for crime lab directors: don’t hand a sample to your squint and ask “did this come from Mr. I-have-a-lawyer-and-powerful-friends in our holding cell?” (Much less something like, “We really need to find this thug’s blood on this dress, or we’re going to have to let him go.”) Instead, try something like “Here’s six samples in rack A, and six samples in rack B. Do any of the As match any of the Bs?”

Should we talk about attorneys presenting highly refined, well groomed evidence to juries? How about putting jurors through little demonstrations showing just how fallible their perceptions are, how much their prejudices affect their judgement?

Suggestion for these experimenters: Some interviewees should see the same guy both times. The interviewers must not know whether or not a given subject saw a different guy or not. Oh, and “guy”?

Suggestion for climate researchers: don’t do the data analysis yourself. Hand a bunch of datasets, some real, some dummy, some pure random noise to point up biases in your software, to a few statisticians, and ask them to (independently) report any trends they can find in the data. Don’t even tell them the variables or units involved.

I know there are huge problems with the crude approach I just outlined. I understand all too well that a certain amount of fudging and trickery is absolutely necessary during the investigative phase when the researchers may not know what they’re looking for, and are accounting for biases and errors they know their equipment and procedures show — but something like this as a sanity check ought to be required for any research underlying public policy.

[Edit 21 Dec 2009: fix some small problems in word choice and flow.]

“Don’t Know Much About Climatology”

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

…And frankly, right now I’m kinda glad I don’t. Because that would mean I’d be working in a field that looks to be on the verge of falling apart, and possibly losing official favor.

Watts Up With That commenter J.C. writes in comments there:

I work at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. I’ve been following the Climategate scandal since its inception. The first time many of my coworkers had heard of the situation was when I asked them about it.

Well, well, well.
Look what was waiting in every single email Inbox on Monday morning:

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

This cannot be good for the AGW establishment.

Climate Change In Context

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

An excellent graphic from Watts Up With That?
noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3
Follow the link for more explanation, and for links to other versions of this graphic, including a Youtube version with useful annotations.

Everybody’s favorite weasel-girl did an early version of this using WUWT’s original charts.

“Science Is Dead”

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Something I’ve been thinking for awhile now, but haven’t had the time to write down.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

I first became aware of this phenomenon in relation to gun control (which has almost no support beyond wishful thinking), but of course it also applies to socialism and global warming, that last being the author’s main example.

EP references Michael Crichton’s excellent analysis here.

(There’s a video clip of Crichton explaining why global warming is a religion floating around; if I can find it I’ll post it.)


EP’s post is primarily about the widespread failure to understand how science works, not global warming, but I do want to make a quick comment on the motley CRU data leak:

The emails, data files, and code that were released (likely by an internal source, not an outside hacker) were not, in my opinion, released to be the definitive, dispositive answer to the AGW debate.

They were a merely crowbar, intended to open up the can of very nasty worms that the AGW establishment is apparently riddled with, to force the full release of the data sets, emails, and code that are being used to hijack the world economy.

(A common defense against releasing all the data has been, “It’s proprietary; we’re contractually forbidden to release it.” Fine, but if you’re going to pass a bunch of laws that leave me shivering in the dark while you eat caviar in your private jet, you’d damn well better be willing to put it all out in the open. Don’t tell me I just need to trust you.)

The leaker is one of the great heroes of science, although they may have acted too late. I’m looking forward to finding out who they are.


I found this article on the Hacker’s News site, along with a link to the Wired article on The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, which, rather than argue cogently against very appropriate skepticism, simply labels skeptics as crazies, so they can be safely ignored.

Or, as Andrew Klavan says, Wired explains, “Shut up.”

[update: bad html hid parts of this post. Fixed, I think. Wordpress needs to put in some kind of horizontal rule thingie, so I don't have to do it by hand. Yes, I understand their objection. I don't care. ]

“How Thinking Goes Wrong”

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

An oldie but goodie: Michael Shermer’s excellent summary of the most important errors in argument and thought. I recognize many of these in my own writing. Sometimes I’m unaware as type, and only recognize in retrospect. Others I get twinges about, and blast through anyway.

(Spinoza’s Dictum, in particular, is a very attractive bait. In my defense, I have to say that I do not always attempt to persuade here, but simply to acknowledge particularly amusing snark.)

“We Are As Gods, And Have To Get Good At It.”

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Stewart Brand proclaims “Environmental Heresies“, over at TED.

There are TED presentations that make you gasp with awe and wonder. The audience laughs and claps throughout, simply because the charts and graphs are so enlightening.

This is not one of them. It is cold, dry, and sobering. The audience is silent. I’m not going to try to summarize, you really need to see the whole thing.

I don’t agree with everything here — Brand believes in AGW, for instance, and is reflexively socialist — but overwhelmingly, the message is good, and Brand presses the need for local, even personal control and power. (Brand understands very well the difference between the two.) As I say, his socialism is reflexive, but the message is inherently capitalist.

The amazing thing is, he sees so clearly that even though his politics color his presentation, he still tells the truth.

Homework

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Venom Lash, I’ve suspended your commenting privileges until you answer my questions on gun control to my satisfaction. Hereafter, except for comments on “76 Reasons“, any additional comments will be deleted unread.

As I’ve said a couple of times, you don’t have to admit defeat and agree with me, but if not, you must back up your assertions with properly cited facts.

Some of your most recent comments have been unapproved (placed back in the moderation queue) and will be held until I’m satisfied, at which time they’ll reappear (assuming WordPress cooperates).

If I have to impose registration or moderation to enforce this, I will, but you will get no points with me for inconveniencing my friends and other guests.

[Edited for clarity.]

Islamic Water

Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This [Youtube video] has got to be seen to be believed. Scientists exposed water to Islamic scriptures, and obtained “beautiful crystals”. This “microscopically confirmed islam is the correct religion.”
islamicwater450

Praise Allah! Peace be upon Him! Islamic water forms beautiful, intricate, six-sided crystals!

Also known as “snowflakes”, you ignorant desert bandits. You should visit the poles, where there’s plenty of snow to embrace.

Oh, and you should probably capitalize the name of your religion, or the very rocks and trees will cry out, “There is an illiterate terrorist hiding behind me! Come and kill him!”

As always:

There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammed, may piss be upon him, was no prophet, but a child-molesting mass murder.

I await the opportunity to embrace my fatwah, damn it.

Tip of the ski mask to Ghost of a Flea.