brainwagon

I’ve supported the notion that I think that the world is a much better place when people can communicate with one another. It’s one of the reasons that I blog.

Sometimes, this is a hard philosophy to live with. Creationist knuckledragger Ken Ham has apparently figured out how to use Wordpress and podcast.

Sigh.

I have to console myself with the notion that some will at least listen to him and realize what a collosal dumbass he is.

Apparently a fast food chain in Tennessee has decided to use material from Kent Hovind (aka Doctor Dino) to adorn the placemats they hand out to kids in an attempt to “educate” them about dinosaurs. It’s a pity really, because Dr. Dino doesn’t actually know anything about dinosaurs. Or rather, virtually everything he does know would seem to be wrong. Try checking out the front the front and the back.

Scientist’s have theorized that the T-rex could probably breathe fire.

If you could get near him, you could very easily pull off the arm of the T-Rex, He would die because he would bleed to death.

I think the stupidity is significantly enhanced by the ransom-note typography as well.

Lisa has some comments for the writers on CSI, so I thought I’d pile on with a couple of my own:

• The original CSI still has the best characters of any of the shows, but they are slipping. Early episodes actually presented them as secondary plot elements, not merely props to advance the plotline. Get back to character development to serve as a stable backdrop. Oh, and CSI: Miami and CSI: NY? Try getting some characters.
• Mobsters? Boring. Hookers in trouble? Boring. Jealous spouse? Boring. Work on some better angles. The stories of humanity are incredibly varied. Find some of them.
• Stop using technology as magic. There aren’t magical databases of every shoe ever made. You can’t pull images of license plates from a single bad frame of video taken a quarter of a mile away.
• Realize that mostly CSI is a show for nerds. Appeal to the nerd sensibility and be smart first, and titilating second.

I’m shocked. Absolutely shocked.

How much of anything you do gets completed on time and to everyone’s satisfaction?

For when you absolutely need to let your son yap about nothing for $25/hour: T-Mobile.

I’ll admit it: I love to argue about evolution and creationism. Actually, it’s not so much an argument, as no real rational argument in favor of creationism can be made. It’s really more of a desire to hitch creationism to the bumper of my car, and drag it through the mud. Call it a personal failing if you like.

This explains why I find Scientific American’s April editorial amusing; perhaps more amusing than any of you will find it.

In retrospect, this mag-azine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Heh. Sarcasm. Have to love it.

Courtesy of I Love Radio.org, read this remarkable study: News Flash: Listeners Hate Commercials. How surprising, that people resent being pummelled by twenty or more minutes of advertising every hour.

Whenever I listen to real radio, it isn’t boredom that kills me (I’m only wounded by boredom) but just the irritation of having any kind of coherent thought broken up by worries about taxes, my deodorant, or whether my windows need replacing. Not to mention that any real news that might actually come accross the airwaves does so in the form of predigested pablum, neither appetizing nor nourishing.

It’s a step in the right direction, but you guys don’t just have to remove the interruptions: you have to improve the meal.

I just completed ordering a product from a website which claimed “free next day delivery!”. “Golly”, I think to myself. “It will be nice to have this gadget sooner rather than later.” I eagerly click, and imagine the box being here on Friday.

Just got the confirmation email. The item (mind you, not built to order or anything) is scheduled to ship on Feb 9, and should be delivered on Feb 10. Next Thursday. Sigh.

I imagine that I could use a similar tactic to write my own operating system in a single day. Expect delivery sometime in 2030.

Addendum: Allright, I’m too grumpy. Checking their status again reveals that they have shipped it today! Woohoo! Tomorrow!

How in the world does this book get to be ranked #15 on amazon.com?

Truly, the end times must be upon us. Or, they would be if I believed in such nonsense.

All you have to do is rely on directions from MSN and you’ll be well on your way.

This would be slightly amusing, but is elevated by the apologies of Robert Scoble, who once again rises to the level of apologist for all things Microsoft.

MSNBC - Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers

A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The complete decision is here. The Judge claimed that the stickers failed the second and third parts of the so-called “Lemon Test”: in particular that’s primary purpose was to advance religion and that it created excessive entanglements between government and religion. Worth reading.

If you need some more stickers, print ‘em up for yourself.

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head at the stupidity of people. Today’s installment comes from the editorial pages of the New York Times, where we find the following (registration required):

To the Editor:

Re “Google Is Adding Major Libraries to Its Database” (front page, Dec. 14):

While having online access to some great libraries promises to facilitate research in democratizing access to books, it is worth keeping some things in mind.

A digital version of a book - especially a rare one, printed centuries ago - is not a replacement for the hard copy.

Not only has printed paper proved a durable technology, but there is also much to be gained by visiting the libraries, examining the actual books and entering into discussions with librarians and other researchers.

Gaining access to a digital reproduction of an older text makes it easier to take a first step, but little good research will be done simply sitting alone in front of a computer screen.

Lisa Shapiro
Vancouver, British Columbia
Dec. 14, 2004
The writer is an assistant professor of philosophy at Simon Fraser University.

It’s hard to imagine a more stupid response to the news that Google will open up access to potentially millions of books via the Internet. Honestly Professor Shapiro, just what are you thinking?

It is clear (and obvious) that digital copies are not the same as having the real book. But consider this: I have never seen a real Gutenberg Bible. But I know what one looks like. I haven’t seen copies of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelescium, or Galileo’s Siderius Noncius, but I can buy them. Are you saying that my ability to do research is somehow inhibited by the relatively easy ability of inexpensive digital copies of these works?

And for pity sakes, when you say that you are deprived of conversations with librarians and researchers, just what do you think the Internet is for? That screen in front of you? It allows you to communicate with millions and soon to be billions of other people.

And those librarians and researchers? They publish books too. Books that will be made available through digitization efforts like the one Google proposed. I don’t need to be in the same room to them to be influenced by their ideas.

Consider going over to Project Gutenberg’s CD Project website. You can download 600 eBooks onto a CD. You can download 9400 books onto a DVD. If Professor Shapiro thinks that nothing will come of making these works available at literally no cost to anyone within range of the Internet, I can’t help but shake my head at the ivory tower that these academics live in.

A Cunning Stunt

For some reason, I found a reference to an early patent on Ouija boards, and with a bit of digging, came up with this page of Talking Boards Patents and Trademarks. Most of these early patents declare it a game, rather than a legitimate way to contact the dead.

Using pat2pdf, I extracted a few of these patents as PDF files:

Becker, 1880

Patent 233,198

Bond, 1891

Patent 446,054, the first patent to mention the term “Ouija”

Fuld, 1892

Patent 479,266, makers of Ouija boards until the bottom fell out of the market in the 1970s

It appears that patent examiners of the past were every bit as diligent as those we have today.

Sweet Manatee of Santa Fe. Apparently if you post an article about a TV show on your blog, you become their official voice on the Web. Read the comments below the main posting.

If you really do want to get on the show, a simple Google search will turn find you how, admittedly below the weblog cited above. Quirky finger of Google.