Via Pharyngula
:
Posts Tagged ‘pharyngula’
Dangerously Beautiful
Thursday, June 17th, 2010Gamey Mathematician Update
Sunday, May 23rd, 2010Hm, P.Z. at Pharyngula notes that Gardner died at 95, “a very interesting number, but then one of the things we learned from Gardner is that they all are.”
So I’m skipping through the interesting list, 30th and 31st digits of pi, atomic number of americium, 95 theses of Luther, Magic Johnson’s record for most assists, and…whoa!
Windows 95: “full pre-emptive multitasking, advanced file systems, threading, networking and more…. Also includes a completely revised user interface.”
Now, there’s an epitaph for ya!
Happy Mother’s Day!
Sunday, May 9th, 2010Via Pharyngula:
[Video]
The baby’s name is “Riski”, an “Indonesian word meaning ‘prosperous’”. I absolutely love the completely accidental bilingual pun here: there is no prosperity without risk; indeed, no joy, no life, without risk.
“Raising baby elephants is truly a risky business.”
Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
Monday, May 18th, 2009P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula, very appropriately justifying his condescending attitude towards creationists:
Scientists believe that the universe began in the Big Bang because a large body of astronomical observation and mathematical work provides evidence that it happened. It’s odd, it’s counterintuitive to us short-lived humans who don’t see a large enough span of time to see changes on an astronomical scale, and there certainly are a lot of unanswered questions about what was going on in the first instant of our origin…but the physics all points in that direction. On the other hand, of course, we’ve got creationists who believe the universe was poofed into existence pretty much as it is right now by a snap of a god’s fingers 6,000 years ago, and the reason they think that is because priests of a tribe of nomadic goat-herders said so. Who should be intellectually condescending here?
That’s it, right there in a nutshell. Read the whole thing.
I disagree almost completely with Meyers’ politics. However, the insistence of many commentators, with whom I otherwise agree, that creationism is somehow scientific is a major blow to their credibility. It’s one of the main reasons I was so long coming to what is now identified as “right wing” politics — if they believe this crap, how can I trust them on anything else?
Doing my own thinking and research turned the trick, but every time someone I respect and admire goes off on this, it causes me a serious pain.
[Note to self: do another post from the other side on something like gun control, global warming, or communisim -- unfortunately, I don't think any of those religious beliefs are as blatantly, foolishly wrong as the advocacy of creationism, and particularly the advocacy of creationism as legitimate science.]
A Rock of Morality
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009Again via Pharyngula, I took the Biblical Morality Quiz:
Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.
Damn you heathen! Your book learnin’ has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.
Sample question:
1. Two strangers visit your home, and you are kind enough to provide them with accommodations for the night. They tell you they are angels appearing on behalf of the Lord. However, later in the evening, an angry mob turns up seeking to sodomize your guests. Do you:
-> Protect your guests and call the police.
-> Expel your guests and call the police.
-> Turn your preteen daughters over to the crowd to be raped.
Most of the questions are like that. It’s an amusing quiz, although I think it would be greatly improved with references to the scripture in question, in order to see context.
I’m going to bet that most of these incidents are Old Testament.
In this case, Old or New Testament, “call the police” would not have been an option. No phones to call with, and no police to call. So there you are, alone in your home, surrounded by a mob… and your choice is to give in, or defend your guests with your bare hands, maybe a sword, against a mob. You can take one or two of the mob down before you are overwhelmed. Your guests are killed, and your daughters raped anyway. Also, I would stand with my guests whoever they are, unless I have credible evidence that they are outright evil, but if they were in fact angels of the Lord, I would certainly expect them to assist in their own defense, and the defense of the household sheltering them. Failing to do so, and caving to the mob immediately, is essentially a gross breach of faith.
(I will do no more than mention that the incident took place in a time when two strangers could claim to be angels, and be believed…. It is essentially impossible for us to imagine the mindset of the people involved. )
I also have to ask, how much of this behavior is held up as exemplary, and how much is simple reporting of the actions of fallible human beings? Honestly, I don’t know, but I think quite a lot of the latter.
Let’s look at another example:
3. If you buy a Hebrew servant, how many years must he serve?
-> None. Slavery is inherently wrong.
-> Forever. I paid good money for that slave.
-> Six years.
Biblical answer: Six years, which by our modern standards is terrible, but by the standards of the time? Much better than “Forever”.
All of which is to say: Do I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired answer to all things, was then, is now, and ever shall be? No. Don’t be silly.
But it does represent a significant step up from the standards of its day, and a great deal of what we now take for granted is rooted there.
One more thing: For this quiz to be considered as more than brainless propaganda, it should include the many examples of behavior that we still consider good — the story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind. If any of my readers is more acquainted with the Bible than I, feel free to propose those kinds of questions in comments.
[Aside: How many of those laughing at this quiz want an answer "D" to the first question: "From your roof, fire at the crowd with your AR-15, while your wife and daughters guard the guests with the shotgun and their 1911s?" I know I do, but I suspect many at Pharyngula are citizen disarmament supporters.]
Glass Head
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009This is an unaltered video still, not anatomy textbook artwork:
[click for full size]
The two dopey looking eyes are not eyes, they’re nostrils. The big green ovals are eyes. And yes, the whole head is transparent.
See Pharyngula for a more-complete explanation.
Distinguishing Windmills From Giants
Saturday, February 21st, 2009
Note that this is not a question of which is more probable. This is a question about what is remotely possible, about the difference between the real and the magical or outright mythical.
Hitching Real Truth To Real Power
Thursday, February 19th, 2009Christopher Hitchens gets beaten up in Lebanon for defacing a political poster, and even P.Z. Meyers over at Pharyngula admits Hitch has got brass.
To their credit, many of P.Z.’s commenters understand what Hitch did. Many don’t get it, though, crediting Hitch with alcohol or stupidty rather than bravery.
I won’t go quote-picking, scan down to get the flavor.
In response, my comment [#90]:
There’s folks who think that “speaking truth to power” means wearing pink and marching in Pelosi’s home district while carrying a sign equating George W. Bush with Hitler, knowing full well that Bush’s goons aren’t going to come after them for it, not then and there, not ever.
Then there’s Hitch, who understands that what it really means is insulting theocratic Nazis on their home turf where they will beat you up right there in the street in broad daylight.
Hitch may be a lot of things, but stupid isn’t on the list. He knew the risks and spoke the truth, and the power beat him up. I dare say that even sober he counted it worth the cost, because it got noticed, even here amongst those who do not understand what liberty and freedom of speech are really about, how precious they are, and what it costs to defend them.
Understand, folks: The religious fanatics who beat up Hitch want to beat up you, too, on your home ground. They want to convert you, enslave you, or destroy you, just like their holy book says they should, and frankly they’d be disappointed if you converted.
All over Europe, all over England, and right next door to the USA in Canada: governments are afraid, pissing their pants afraid, to let people criticize savages like those that beat up Hitch. If enough people do it anyway, liberty lives another day. Sit down, shut up, submit to demands that you speak not against Allah and his Prophet, and liberty dies in your heart.
Stand up for Hitch, right now — or kneel down, press your face to the dirt, and submit to Allah, as loudly as you can. Those are your choices. Pick one. Time’s running out.
There were a lot of comments I wanted to respond to directly, but then my eye was caught by sweet little Autumn, who, though she said some good stuff, started out comment #74 by saying:
[The] comment that the violence against Hitchens “proves that he was courageous and right” is not okay. If I were to scribble “fuck off, nigger” on an Obama poster in almost any inner city in America, I would be justifiably beaten up due to my actions.
[ My emphasis]
Well, no way I can let that pass:
“If you can’t say ‘fuck’, you can’t say ‘Fuck the government!” — St. Lenny the BruceI can’t believe how exactly your comment reflects that, and worse, how you seem to think that not being able to do that is a good thing, when the man in power is your man. Do you truly not understand that writing “Fuck Off Nigger” on an Obama poster is exactly the same as a BusHitler protest sign?
If so, I weep for you, child, I weep for us all.
Let me emphasize: I greatly admire P.Z.’s articles on evolution and atheism. His exposure of the great holy cracker brouhaha was excellent and brave.
He even understands that Islamic creationism is just as stupid and bad as Christian creationism.
What he does not understand is that where Christians will complain, loudly, and threaten you with lawsuits if you steal their crackers, Jihadists will kill you for drawing a cartoon of their prophet, or even just quoting their scriptures in a context that shows how violently evil their “prophet” was.
As always, my jihadist mantra:
There is no god, not even Allah, and Muhammad, may piss be upon him, was a child-raping mass murderer.
Pipette Your Way To Romance!
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008A pipette is a glass tube, like a giant eyedropper, for accurately dispensing small amounts of liquid, controlled by a rubber bulb or even a finger over the end. (Pasteur, during development of the rabies vaccine, would pipette saliva from the jaws of rabid dogs by mouth suction, while his assistants held the dog down and pried its jaws open. Talk about bravery in the name of science!) An Eppendorf pipette is a more sophisticated tool for dispensing tiny amounts, fractions of a drop, at the push of a button. However, modern biological research often demands dispensing hundreds, even thousands, of samples, which really can wear your thumb out. (I’ve done this, although not enough to wear my thumb out.)
Needless to say, this dreary repetitive task was ripe for automation, and Eppendorf stepped up and delivered.
Now, many biologists are women, and Eppendorf obviously is aware of this, as shown in their advertising video, which features the slow-motion beach romances available to researchers who are freed from the women’s work of pipetting.
I swear on Pasteur’s grave this is a representative frame from the ad. They are singing about “cellular cultures”.
I could only watch the thing for about 30 seconds before collapsing in shrieking laughter, so I never did get to see the epMotion in action.
I remember, long ago, a Mad Magazine piece on “If the U.S. Government Boys Bought Like Housewives”. Many examples featured big ticket science items promising to do things like “reduce cyclotron clog”, written and illustrated like washing machine ads. I don’t think they knew how close to the truth they were.
But this…this is far, far beyond anything Mad ever dreamed of.