Crazy Bicycle

Death or Glory

2009-10-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

I've been replaying the lyrics from an old 'The Clash' song in my head for some time now:

"Every gimmick hungry slob digging gold from rock and roll grabs a mic to tell us he'll die before hes sold
but I believe in this and its been tested by research
that he who fucks nuns will later join the church
----
Death or Glory becomes just another story..."

Its all just terribly pessimistic isn't it? Maybe pessimistic is the wrong word, maybe its realistic. One of our cultural images is the iconic rebel without a cause, the James Dean-esq character whose purpose is to run against the grain, be a true independent anti-conformist type. We smile and nod knowingly at this archetype because at one point or another everyone has thought them self a rebel; its almost a necessary part of growing up.

What concerns me, generally speaking, is that line "he who fucks nuns will later join the church". Is it true that rebels eulogize the very cause they hold dear with their act of rebellion? Sometimes probably. I suppose it depends on how rooted the rebellion is in either emotion or reason. People who are angry at god usually find their way back to the faith of their fathers eventually: the reason being that the root cause of their initial dissension was some form of unsatisfaction not with the truth of the belief, but with some other aspect that once satiated reopened the doors to faith.

Or how about people like disgraced evangelist Ted Haggerd? He centered a large part of his ministry upon preaching against the sin of homosexuality and the sanctity of hetero marriage. Yet for all his guster and pious anger he spent a bunch of his free time getting plugged in the butt by some beefcake prostitute named Mike. Death or Glory indeed.

Think of all the people who fought for progressive causes in the 60s only to take a turn for the right once they made a few bucks later in life. Or the reverse, people raised in conservative environments who turned towards hedonism once they had a taste of what they once lived without.

Maybe in the end we'll just have a bunch of causes with no rebels.

Too Expensive

2009-10-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

Random thoughts ensue..

I don't know anything about healthcare other than it is damn expensive. The NCHC just quoted a recent study which says that on our current trajectory, by the year 2018 healthcare costs will account for nearly 4.4 trillion dollars, or about 30% of our GDP. They also said employer-paid healthcare for a family of four in 2018 will cost 25,000 a year. Geez, like I needed another reason to not want kids...

in 2007, 67% of all bankruptcies were due to medical expenses. 80% of those people who filed chapter 11 had healthcare. I suppose this makes sense because the uninsured don't pay for their hospital visits; which is just one more cause of increased premiums and costs.

Is a government program the answer to our problems? This study doesn't seem directly imply it; in three years Medicare and Medicaid will account for 50% of all healthcare costs.

Some of the reasons for these outrageous numbers are pretty clear: "inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management and inappropriate care, waste and fraud". We also have a society which is increasingly obese and sick all the while being terribly afraid of death. We spend more on palliative care than any other nation. We also spend 1/3 of our healthcare money on things like unnecessary tests, bullshit idiocy like acupuncture and holistic 'cures', and other things that don't actually improve health. In this arena patients are to blame; their demands for shit that doesn't work is driving up our costs.

How can costs be lowered? The democrats currently control just about everything there is to control in government and they can't get any type of meaningful reform passed. Gutless morons... How could G. W. Bush pass just about anything he wanted while controlling nothing? Thanks Democrats for giving us Obama, a political eunuch.

Its hard to know what to think. Its obvious we have good doctors in this country, we have the top medical science and the best drugs, but we also have a public that wants more-more-more when it comes to healthcare. Maybe if we didn't view everything as a health problem we wouldn't spend so much.

I'm resisting the temptation to blame everything on insurance companies. The principal of Hanlon's Razor tells us that we shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity. Its not that Aetna and others are completely greedy; they surely are to some degree, but the people they are covering, the general public, is definitely stupid.

So, my conclusion is this: our health care is so expensive because we have a stupid populace which is serviced by a greedy insurance system.

Glorious Dawn

2009-10-09T13:49:00.000-07:00

Brilliant.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

2009-10-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

Lets talk critical thinking.

Assuming that correlation implies causation is a very prevalent error in thinking. The fallacy, in common use, is the assumption that a correlation (relationship) between two variables means that one caused the other.

I ate a sandwich which was made with 2 week old chicken salad and now I have a stomach ache.
:.Therefore 2 week old chicken salad causes stomachaches.

Wrong. Logically speaking that is. While the chicken salad might have caused the stomach ache, the pattern of thinking is not sound; the correlation does not 'prove' the causation, it merely implies or suggests it. The correlation in the example could be completely irrelevant. Maybe my stomach ache was simply transient, or caused by something else. Maybe it wasn't even a stomach ache at all, but a sign I had to take a dump. Maybe the old chicken salad soothed a stomach ache that was just flaring up! All we know is that this way of thinking brings us no closer to the actual truth of the matter.

The problem of this fallacy is further complicated when you realize there may even be errors in the correlated variables:

The rise in autism rates is due to the chemicals contained in vaccines.
:. Infant vaccinations are the cause of rising autism rates.

Not only is this popular argument a logical fallacy, but it contains factual errors in both premises:

"The rise in autism rates..." New data produced by the CDC has stated the autism prevalence rate at approx. 100 in 100,000 people or 1%. This is apparently higher than past studies which has led to the anti-vax crowd clamoring for an explanation. However, there are explanations for this apparent rise in rates. Our methods of detecting autism, not to mention a much higher awareness of the condition are most likely to blame. Scientific studies, not just phone interviews to not bear out a high statistical occurrence of the disease.

"Chemicals in vaccines cause autism" This claim has been thoroughly and categorically debunked by strict examinations by every reputable scientific agency. Despite the claims of mothers who 'know whats best for my baby!', there is no evidence to connect vaccine ingredients to autism rates.

There is currently no specific predictor of autism known at this time, a fact that does not sit well with some people, however this is the nature of medical science; all the answers are not yet known in a categorical sense. Hunting for correlations and then assuming causation is not a good way to understand reality, its a terrible way. Yet this is what we contend with in our society and thus it makes sense to point out when and where these people are wrong.

An observation about babies

2009-09-30T14:47:00.000-07:00

In the animal kingdom most species have cute babies. Humans are an exception to this rule; our babies are fat pudgy little things with none of the charm of a kitten or puppy. A select few female human babies do become cute by the age of 18, but even they are rare and their luster doesn't last.

The problem is that human babies all look like Winston Churchill. That is to say they share a lumpy, bald exterior and have the appearance of being drunk on gin just like the illustrious WW2 leader.

After coming to this realization a couple weeks ago I spent a few days patting myself on the back before I googled the idea and saw that I was not the first to think such a thought. Damn.

Now every time a coworker brings a baby into the office I can't not see the wise old Brit in baby form. Speaking metaphorically of course, because any time a baby physically enters the room every single woman within 100 meters goes apeshit and breaks into a dead sprint towards the small Winston, like zombies after untainted flesh. Actually 'seeing' the baby at this point is impossible, but not important because I know whos there under that cloud of estrogen. A great man, a great leader.

China says no beating off

2009-09-24T16:25:00.000-07:00

What opinion do conservatives, insecure women, and Communists have in common? A deep hatred of images portraying mutually consenting adults engaged in coitus. This brings me to today's topic:

A Proceedings paper from China came across my desk today, hardly an unusual occurence, but the topic of this one threw me. The paper was focused on the automatic censoring of 'sexual images' via affinity propagation clustering. Essentially what this means is that Chinese censors can run computer programs which analyze thousands of images through a program, and using a detection accuracy ratio, questionable content is highlighted and then compared to a sample database of images deemed inappropriate. If the image fails the test it is censored.

China is automatically blocking porn from the internet. For shame, for shame.

All Natural

2009-09-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

People with lots of nervous energy are really big on 'all-natural' things: food, clothing, hair products, etc, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what they are on about. What does natural even mean? Comes from the earth? In that case everything is natural, everything is made of atoms and has a chemical formula when you get down to it. I'm beginning to think that what 'all natural' really means is simply that the product has a sticker which says all natural. Heavy, I know.

Maybe all natural products are just another way to siphon extra money out of the pockets of gullible consumers. Maybe companies who market all natural products prey off the pure, but uninformed intentions of people who think that the world is full of scary bad things that exist in our food and our home products.

Fear does sell right? Conservatives buy up guns because they are afraid dark skinned people might try to rob them. Liberals would rather get robbed by said people than offend them, but are deathly afraid of evil chemicals in their food. Me? I'm afraid of specifics so I prefer to speak in generalities. We all have our vices. My point is this: shouldn't we be skeptical of companies who would sell us products based on non-specific fears of undetermined threats? Are GMO foods really going to hurt us, or are we now able to cheaply feed the world now that we have them. Is a semi-automatic assault rifle really the best protection against an intruder, or would a deadbolt on the door do the trick for a fraction of the financial and legal price. Think about it. Vague threats are a form of product in themselves and too many of us buy into them.

For me, when I see the 'all natural' label on a product I immediately wonder why the company is taking me for such a fool. For example Hansens Soda has the same ingredients as Coke, but Hansens carries an 'all natural' label and a higher price.

The FDA has actually been investigating the issue of vague 'all natural' labeling since 2004 and I'm not sure if they've reached any conclusions. Obviously the issue is subjective by nature, which has led to such gullibility in the minds of Americans, among whom the FDA surveyed that the all natural label is very persuasive. 64% of people polled reported they were more likely to buy products with the subjective label than products without, a reality testified to by the rise of companies like Trader Joes and the emergence of organic sections in nearly every grocery store.
Fear sells pretty damn well. So does sex. Now if Trader Joes could somehow simultaneously make me afraid the unnatural foods while somehow incorporating boobs into the equation they might have a new customer. Barring that, how about having their female workers start shaving their legs and armpits for a start.

Private vs. Public healthcare

2009-09-16T11:37:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about the current healthcare debate, but I do think it's important to hear the perspectives of individuals living in countries with alternative systems. Here is a link to what I consider to be a good post on a Canadian's opinion of public vs. private healthcare.

http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/08/21/public-health-care-canadian-perspective-on-myths-and-reality/

photochop

2009-09-14T14:40:00.000-07:00

I was cleaning out a 'My Documents' folder when I came across a couple weird pictures dated to early 2008. You might be tempted to ask why. There is no why.

Gary Busey and the doeman as one.

Natemare the sacred mother

Entitled much?

2009-09-10T22:23:00.000-07:00

I watched a little bit of Obama's healthcare speech today. The best part was when some politician yelled from the bleachers, "You Lie!" when Obama said his plan wouldn't cover illegals. I got a kick out of that, it was the highlight of an otherwise rather boring, humdrum procession.

I don't know where I stand on all of this, it certainly isn't on either of the defined sides. I am opposed to any form of single payer, everyone gets covered plan because of how pedestrian it is. Its easy to say you want free healthcare if you aren't currently paying for it, and we have over 20+ million people not paying anything; welfare is dandy for those receiving it, but sucks for those who have to foot the bill. Why should the collective whole have to pay for individuals who may, or may not need care because of their own bad decisions. We have an increasingly sick and stupid country. Give a mouse a cookie... see where I'm going here? Of course people want free things, especially when those free services serve to enable poor life choices.

I'm also sick of all the assholes who rail against the pharmaceutical industry and their 'corporate greed'. I want the big pharma companies to be greedy, I want them to make billions because when they do they have even greater incentives to create newer and better drugs to fight the diseases we humans face. The only reason I'm not 3 feet tall, and my Dad isn't dead from cancer is because a pharmaceutical company devoted decades of research and millions of dollars into R&D on highly technical drugs. If they weren't incentivized by the promise of profits there is no way in hell these drugs would have been produced.

I work in a field where I get daily access to not only the most cutting edge research in medical imaging, but access to the scientists themselves. These people are doing research that is so incredibly expensive that if their parent organizations weren't able to charge what they do the research wouldn't happen, at all. We all benefit from their work.

The only reason AIDs and Brain Cancer aren't death sentences anymore is because of the work of the scientists and companies which profit off the sale of treatments. I have absolutely no problem with this system.

That said, I don't have any love-loss for insurance companies who provide no cures, only headaches to people who are insured (or trying to get insured) and need treatment. If we could figure out a way to manage insurance company profits then we'd have a good system. That said I have no idea how this will happen.

Unfortunately I don't think any conclusions will be reached in this debate; perhaps that is what we deserve as a country. When people take their political opinions from the likes of John Stewart, or Glenn Beck they reap the level of substantive debate that they sow.

Not so bad

2009-09-09T14:33:00.000-07:00

I've sometimes thought that college is the the real apex of life; that it can't get any better than that. Late nights, interesting classes, oodles of free time and few responsibilities. But now as I'm a few years removed from college and I find myself challenging this view I've held. Yeah, college was fun, and one of the best times I've had but I don't think it is the apex of my experiences on earth thus far. There are a lot of things I put up with in college that weren't all that great: crappy apartments, a piss-poor bank account, no safety net of any kind, working nearly full time while studying for 15 credits a semester... None of those things were great.

Now that I think about it, being a few years removed from college is not too bad. I have less responsibilities now than then. I've got a good job and no other obligations, which is really my dream. Once I'm off work for the day I can do whatever I want; no kids, no commitments, a significant other who works till late... I've got freedom, and its not so bad.

People exaggerate

2009-08-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

Have you ever noticed that some people, by their own accounts, are always being yelled at? I hear it all the time, "I asked so and so a simple question and they YELLED at me!" Be it coworkers, or spouses, or whoever, a lot of people do this. When you probe a little deeper you usually find out that 'so and so' didn't actually yell at them, but most likely didn't agree with them whole heartily on whatever the issue was. This is an amazing ability people have; to think they are being yelled at whenever someone suggests they do something or disagrees with them. He YELLED at me! Are our egos so fragile?

2009-08-20T14:50:00.001-07:00

Here are a some comments from a recent peer review I organized: simply awesome.

Am I dreaming or are they showing the elements change shape as well as position? See Fig. 8.I can’t imagine what they have in mind. No matter what, I see no redeeming value to the paper. I am glad it was not presented.I don’t want this manuscript in the volume.

------------------------

This is a bad, not poor, paper IMHO. Yes, in Figure 8 magic has occurred. The stop is at the rear of the center group. I have seen varifocal, but not varilens ... lenses are changing shape and thickness.Note the scale is the same for each. Note also that the FOV of the 150 mm conf. is greater than that for the 50 mm conf. for the same image ht. Now how does that work? Am I missing something? ;-) Also, they may be one of the last two groups to use Juan's program EIKONAL.

Bottom line ... decline their request to be published and do not make any suggestion to them about fixing it. Frankly, I'm not sure they would understand what you might suggest to them.

Gluten, the great killer of white people

2009-08-19T15:44:00.000-07:00

So, at work we had a sign-up sheet for a company picnic... the sheet had a few columns: your name, your dish, and a column for whether it was gluten free or not. I vomited all over my keyboard.

I don't know what to say. All my theories about the pussification of our country are true, TRUE!

We officially have no problems and are creating them out of thin air. Gluten allergies? Trust me, they don't exist in Africa, or China, or anywhere else people are actually hungry. But Americans man, we're all a bunch of neurotic narcissits, we need non-problems to validate our piddly existences.

This is why the terrorists hate us. Why bomb our buildings? Just fill up a couple weather balloons with Gluten and you could take out the entire east & west coasts.

Tasteful thoughts from a tasteless mind

2009-08-05T13:52:00.000-07:00

Why does every indie movie have a scene of a emo-haired teenage boy reading a copy of "Thus Spake Zarathustra"?
---------------
Why can't America have a population crisis like Japan? They are dying faster than they are breeding; I wish we could manage that.
---------------
Why were people in the 1970s obsessed with Avocado colored things? I like the fruit but I don't want to paint my walls the same color in a culinary tribute.
---------------
Whenever I see a woman with a tramp stamp and a kid I always think her male partner 'missed a little low'. Does that make me a bad person?
---------------
When most people flip you the middle finger they follow it up with a verbal 'F-you!'. I think this is redundant. You've already said your 'F-you' with the middle finger, so now its time to get creative. Try something blatantly homophobic, or sexist. Be imaginative! Paint a broader visage of hate with your words!
---------------
Ironically, most people that abide by the philosophy "Don't worry, be happy" should do a little more of the former and little less of the latter.
---------------
Surfing, as a sport, needs a new PR agent. No other activity has such a laid back image but harbors such violence in practice.
---------------
If mountain bike movies were pornos they would all be climax shots. We seriously need some variety in the art form. When it comes to bike porn I'm a chick, I want some back story and an emotional connection. I want to laugh, cry, and open my heart before my legs.

Beef, its whats for dinner

2009-08-03T14:22:00.000-07:00

While Nate may be content to talk about dating methods for 27 uninterrupted pages with no paragraph breaks, I've got a grander topic to engage, though I doubt I can match his verbosity. My metaphorical lungs are smaller, weaker, more prone to succinct blurbs before they sputter and give up.

Its a topic I've had on my mind for a while, something that I thought I had gotten off my chest but has now gravitated up to my head.

Beef. The stuff from cows.

Occasionally I am challenged by family members as to why i think it is better than moose. I didn't think this was an issue I could be challenged on, I thought it spoke for itself, but I guess not. It is now up to me to defend beef:

While moose is good meat, you have to consider where it comes from. Moose are wild animals who spend their lives essentially doing nothing but trying to survive in terribly harsh climates. Their bodies are purely functional and adapted to surviving deep snow and uneven moss covered ground where food is often not abundant nor easy to find. Because of this physical stress they don't have the luxury of laying around getting fat like beef cows. Their meat is tough, densely muscled, and lacks any real marbling.

Cows on the other hand, are not natural beasts. The modern cow which we all love and enjoy is the product of selective breeding by smart farmers; they are an animal which is purposefully bred for producing insane quantities of milk and massive cuts of flavorful steak. A good cut of beef steak (there are many different cuts) will contain a perfect mixture of marbling and tenderness. Truly a wonderful experience to behold, something Moose just cannot match.
I've been perfecting my steaks lately; one of the benefits of living next to a grocery store is that a 12 ounce Angus cut is walking distance away. I'm hungry already.

My talk with Mormons and Other Stuff

2009-08-02T12:20:00.000-07:00

I had a delightful conversation with two young Mormon missionaries while I was waiting at the bus stop just the other day. They started the conversation by asking if I had a relationship with Jesus, and I replied that no in fact I am an atheist but would be happy to talk with them. They asked me how I had come to such a position, so I told them my story of growing up in a fundamental church in Kasilof and my experiences in college, mostly though through my anthropology classes...

I started college in Hawaii as a Christian, sent by my best friend's parents to bring him back to god through our friendship and mutual interest in biking. My natural curiosities led me to my first anthropology class which outlined basic techniques for dating as well as detailing known frauds in the anthropological world. By chance a few of these frauds I had heard of, but not as frauds but touted as evidence for the historical accuracy of the bible. From dinosaur footprints next to man's in Texas to giant skeletons, we easily debunked these myths and correctly placed them into the fraud category. I learned dating techniques in this entry level class and later the math and principles behind them. These methods included, and these are off the top of my head, Potassium-Argon dating for igneous and metamorphic rocks, Carbon 14 dating for relatively recent carbon deposits to around 40,000 BCE, Dendrochronology, which in certain areas allows accurate dating of tree rings back to 35,000 BCE, Uranium-Thorium/Protactinium dating, which tracks the rate of decay of Uranium into Thorium or Protactinium depending on how many Neutrons are in the Uranium to start. This dating method is used for limestone deposits, in which Uranium is soluble by water with the Calcium Carbonate, and drips from stalactites down into the stalagmites. The Protactinium and Thorium is left in the ceiling and only Uranium is dripped to the bottom, because there is no Thorium or Protactinium to start with, any found in the stalagmite later is from decay, the center most point at the bottom of a stalagmite is the oldest part and has the most Thorium and Protactinium compared to Uranium. This method measures accurately for things approximately to 700,000 years BCE. Other dating methods include Ice Cores and Varves, Fluvial deposits- which include pollen, seeds and other particles deposited into lakes and rivers, most commonly into deltas for rivers. Chronostratigraphy, Luminescence dating, Obsidian Hydration dating, the final of which measures how much humidity from the atmosphere has penetrated the glass structures of obsidian on the napped edges of the glass. There is a slight color shift you can see through thin sections of the obsidian, the further the penetration, the more time it has been since the obsidian was cut, this is only a general dating method but still very accurate. All of these dating methods I learned and understood in this first year and yet I remained a Christian for a time, operating simply by Pascal's Wager. I was not willing to give up faith quite yet. Eventually however I was able to reconcile these facts with my beliefs after much consideration of the evidence. In retrospect it should have been a very easy decision given the amount of evidence for the truth that these dating methods suggest, that our earth is very, very old indeed. I was taught that the bible is inerrant and that if error could be found within its pages then it should be held as proof that it cannot be the word of god. The physical evidence against the genesis account in the bible was not the only thing that had prompted such a drastic change in my beliefs. Religious people still thrust god into the gaps of scientific knowledge. One of the many problems with this is that religious people do not keep up with the scientific data, they continue to point at 200 year old theories as proof that the science doesn't work, even though those theories have changed and been modified as more precise data has poured in through the centuries. Religious people talk about these old theories frankly because none of them seem to know anything about the new ones. The problem lies in two places when they do this, One, nearly all their straw theories of evolution have long been known as inaccurate and new theories have evolved as more evidence has piled in. Second, they are very simply claiming- you scientists cannot explain x therefore god must have done it. Simply because we cannot explain x does not mean that we never will, it means we haven't yet. The church has been saying the same thing for millenia, we can't explain sickness, therefore it must have a spiritual component, we cant explain mental illness therefore demons must be possessing people, and it goes on to this day, but when germ theory comes along, nobody seems to call these people out and say you have all been wrong, even admittedly wrong on all of these fronts, why should we continue listening?

The why becomes a fight about moral grounding, not about facts of matter. In my conversation with the Mormons, they did exactly this, pointing to the fact that the bible gives them a moral framework from which they live their lives. We are right because the bible says that Jesus was a perfect man and he died for everyone's sins so that we can all go to heaven if we believe that he did it for us. A complete nonsequiter. Moral superiority is great to have but it does not come from Jesus any more than anyone else. It comes from each person and their actions. You cannot claim moral superiority as a group if your members do not act differently than another group. A better function for a groups claim would have to be the mean of the group, but come on, were dealing with people here, not numbers. If, and this is a big if, if god were a real entity that worked in our lives, then we should see the results of real change in the lives of people who join the correct religion. We don't need anecdotes of the biker who drinks a lot and finds Jesus or the prison inmate who now speaks in front of kids, but a real trend toward life change in one religion over another. The fact is that we can find such anecdotes in many religions, people change their lives because they want to belong to something and many things fit the bill. The yearning in a Mormons heart is no more satisfied and no more life changing when he thinks of Jesus than anyone as deeply involved in any other religion. There are no scientific anomalies that show us that religion x makes people behave better than religion y.

Now the other big if, if god does not exist and we are all hurtling through space on our nice bubble of a planet that teams with life, then a simple theory would say that we have each evolved a set of characteristics that give us part of our personalities and predispositions and that our experiences have just as much effect on ourselves and our beliefs as anything else and that we can choose to be good, bad, mean, cruel, helpful or kind. Other people in our lives affect our decisions based on how much we want their affection or how much we get pissed off by someone cutting us off in traffic. Such a model would suggest that people make their won choices and most people, even religious, would probably agree. But god, if he does exist, seems not to play favorites with religions and in no way can we claim that he backs us when in comes to moral superiority.

At this point I let the Mormons talk about the evidence for why the bible offers the real truth. his claim pivoted around the notion that he knows it is true because his prayer and council with god is answered by a thirst for more of god. His reference to this subjective experience was short-lived, and because that was all he had to offer as evidence, I cut in. There is no way to determine how you feel about something measures up to what I feel. Subjective experience cannot be replicated. Claims that can be made without evidence can be dismissed as easily, without evidence. This is beside the point though, what you or I feel about something has no bearing on whether it is true. The truth of a matter is independent of our ideas about it. How often have we lived a dilution only to find we were wrong all along? No matter how we felt while believing wrongly, did it change the truth of the matter? Did it occur to us that our fanatic adherence was anything but normal? Of course not. Our thoughts and feelings do not change matters of fact. The strength of our believe has no bearing on the probability of its accuracy. When the evidence suggest we are wrong, we must skeptically look at that evidence for accuracy, not against our current beliefs, but against the physical world, and then change our minds, admit we were wrong and move on with life.

Now when the conversation turned to evidence, I was a little surprised as they willingly gave ground to the historical inaccuracy of the old testament. Now no fundamental Christian would give up ground here, but Mormons, I found, had no qualms in saying that humans screwed up god's word. They did not agree or disagree with my views on evolution, merely sidestepped the issue. They simply said that it was the message that was important. This is actually a core tenant of the Mormon faith that allows them to make further claims. Every time we screwed up god's word, he had to send another prophet to straighten things out, which brought us all the prophets of the old testament, Jesus, Joseph Smith and every leader of the Mormon church since Joseph Smith. Because they gave ground here, I will have to rant instead about fundamental Christians. Despite all evidence for a very old planet, they hold to a literal six day creation, and only because they believe in a book they claim has no errors. If there were a few verses left out, you know the ones that claim that the whole book is inerrant, then they would be able to say "oh well that's just an allegory for creation," but know those verses are in there, so their stuck. So, despite the evidence, they pick through the facts ignoring most of it to find a few bits that don't fit, for example a snail that has been radiocarbon dated to 1.3 million years old even though it is still alive. This was a problem for scientists at first as this should indicate that dating methods are inaccurate and hardly worth our time. Now I did not discuss C14 dating in great detail before because I intended on doing that now. First I will explain what C14 is and how we get it. Our atmosphere had approx 21% Oxygen, and 70% Nitrogen and some other stuff including C12 which is carbon in its neutral state. Now as the sun's radiation hits our atmosphere, it hits stuff, which is why we don't get radiated down here, and why astronauts wear so much stuff out there. We get C14 when a Neutron from these collisions is absorbed by a Nitrogen molecule. The relative number of C14 in the atmosphere is stable compared to the number of C12 and C13 in the atmosphere. As plants perform photosynthesis they take Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 both into their systems where it becomes part of the plant. Animals too breath it in and eat it which allows it to become part of their bodies. Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope which means that it slowly breaks down into Nitrogen 14. So in a piece of burnt charcoal from a site, C14 is compared to the C12 to find out the time that the piece of wood died. The half life is 5730 years which means that half of the C14 will become N14 over that period. There are many ways to find this out, one is to take core samples of living trees that grow in places that have cold winters and warm summers, so as to maintain a yearly growth pattern, some of these trees, such as the bristle cone pine, many of which are over 5000 years old are living today, and core samples show us that the C14 in the center has decayed predictably along a 5730 year half life. The other dating methods I discussed earlier are cross referenced so thoroughly that there is no question these methods work. So how does a snail get dated to 1.3 million years? A hard question for the fledgling C14 dating method. Well it turns out that C14 is produced in the atmosphere and only in the atmosphere. For C14 to reach say, the bottom of a lake or ocean, there must be upwelling currents that allow molecules to be transported to the top and bottom of the water. This doesn't happen very well though, and so bottom of ocean life cannot be dated accurately using this method and will appear much older than they really are. Current scientists know this and so radiocarbon dating is no longer used to date most animals and plants that live primarily underwater. But, people like Kent Hovind, who touts himself as a science teacher, still uses the million year old living snail as his single example of why radiocarbon dating does not work, despite the volumes of evidence to the contrary that he had to wade through to find the one little gem. Because we can explain why this phenomenon that excludes underwater plants and animals from carbon dating, it means that all our other data is safe. The fact that people Hovind's position ignore or refuse to acknowledge or refute the evidence that points to an old earth shows how fanatic they are. They stand on the sidelines shouting and driving from the back seat without producing any evidence for their own position that the earth is very young. They look at the grand canyon next to the sign that says it was formed from slow erosion over millions of years and proclaim "amazing, god did this in a few days with a flood!" They say this because an old book says there was a flood about 4,000 years ago, a book written on the other side of the world about a group of people who had no idea how large the earth was. The grand canyon is still trickling away as it has for millions of years and bit by bit showing us how absurd that notion is.

Palin

2009-07-31T13:58:00.000-07:00

I have this instinct that I believe only an Alaskan can truly understand to duck my head whenever Sarah Palin's mug hits the boob tube. I understand exactly the way she speaks, the way she thinks. She plays the archetypal Alaskan independent, conservative, self righteous role perfectly. You see, a lot Alaskans believe they are pretty special and unique folks; and I get it, I really do. Alaska is a special place. We have more square miles of uninhabitable permafrost laden tundra than just about anywhere; which is in itself something to be exceptionally proud of. We also have a shit-load of moose and drunk natives which taste kind of like bland, mediocre beef (the moose, probably not the natives).

But the reason I duck is because of this weird lizard brain response I have that her words will somehow paint me within her camp. The cheapest trick available to a politician is the populist appeal; speaking in meaningless generalities, "we freedom loving Americans, unique independent minded Alaskans". I don't have a desire to be caught within that driftnet, not because I hate freedom but because I am embarrassed by her strident anti-intellectual stance on so many issues.

I don't think Sarah Palin is stupid; saying so would really be a dumb thing to claim. Clearly she is very talented, a great speaker, and has a way with people that most of us never will have. She knows how to play politics and achieve her goals. She is not stupid at all.

However... I fault her for her anti-intellectualism and reliance on blind faith to guide her opinions. Anti-intellectualism exhibits itself as a bias against learned opinions; a distrust of someone or some idea that has resulted from study and learning. It is an inherently reactionary position to take; a defensive mindset. Anti-intellectuals believe answers to political and philosophical questions are actually very simple and usually found in things like bibles or 'real world experience'. Anyone who has grown up in Alaska has encountered this mindset; it is what I like to think of as uninformed skepticism. They got the spirit of distrust right, but they missed out on the part where reason and logic help determine where the skepticism should be applied.

But... Palin is done now, she quit her day job. Maybe she'll go back to doing Mom stuff. She has a lot of kids I heard.

Yap, yap, yap. Culture that knows too much

2009-07-29T12:43:00.000-07:00

A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.- Nature, 8 Nov 1906

The one thing that keeps me motivated to keep learning is the knowledge that I am wrong, about something, most likely many-many things, and this bothers me. All of the things I enjoy ranting about I've probably believe at some point or another, I rant as a way of laughing at myself and how stupid my previously held opinions are in the light of better evidence. A healthy dose of irreverence is, in my opinion, one of the only guarantors against insanity. Cranks, both liberal and conservative, are notable by their complete lack of humor concerning the opinions they hold dear. To them their ideas are dead serious, true, and cannot be challenged or laughed at. 'Piety' is the enemy of free thought and reason, no idea should be above reproach.
Unfortunately we live in a society which encourages us all to be cranks and blowhards. It is not fashionable to admit you don't know the answer to a given question or situation; rather it is thought preferable to make shit up rather than plead ignorance. This bothers me greatly, not because I think I'm better than anyone else, but because I know how ignorant I really, truly am. It bothers me when other people claim to know things that they clearly don't. Being able to speak on a topic does not mean you know anything about it; a fact I try and remind myself of constantly. Its far too easy to open my yapper and spout sophistry when really the best thing to do is hold back.

I suppose a careful utilization of 'tact' is important when talking with cranks. They know they're right, without a shadow of a doubt. Think about how fervent and emotional the anti-vac movement is, the creationists, or 911 truthers. to be continued...

This just in!

2009-07-29T11:20:00.000-07:00

Reuters announced the results of a meta-data study from a university in England which examined the perceived nutritional benefits of organic foods. The report, which examined 162 research studies over the past 50 years found absolutely no relevant nutritional benefit of organic food over normal food.

*deep breath* Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocking!

They mean to say that food grown by 'the man' and his 'science' is just as nutritional as food grown by 'natural types' and their 'good vibes'?

Wait, we are getting another incoming news report...

Millions of Americans have taken to the streets in protest, angry at the realization that they have wasted untold billions of dollars on food purchases that they didn't research well enough in the first place. Tragic.

Thats enough for now, I've got to go organize a peer review study of high speed CMOS sensors... for the man.

Thoughts from the dumper

2009-07-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

I was reading a gaming magazine the other day while taking a dump, as I am known to do, when I came across an ad for a new Axe body spray. The ad was one of those type that had a sample of the fragrance mixed into a glue compound under a little slip of paper. It makes sense in the right context I guess, Axe gives it's potential customers a whiff of the new product so that they
have a mental image in mind the next time they are browsing body sprays.

Except for this was a gaming magazine which means two things:

1. It is read almost exclusively by nerds who have no need for body sprays.

2. Gaming magazines, more than other magazines are ONLY read while taking a dump. When not dumping a gamer is mostly certainly... playing games. He only engages the glossy pages while he is unable to game, which is to say, while he is evacuating the remains of his last Taco Bell binge (jesus, I gotta stop going there).

This creates a problem for both Axe and myself, namely that the next time I smell their new leather scent I'm not going to think to myself, 'wow, that smells nice I'd like to get a can of that', I'm going to think 'ugh, that reminds me of my last Taco Bell shit disaster'. I can't help it, the association is permenantly burned into my brain thanks to my ass, the ass primer I bought from TB.

I have no real point to make here other than Axe's marketing department must be full of slick looking frat boy types with popped collars who most likely don't take dumps. Really guys, fragance samples in a game magazine? Fragrance samples in ANY magazine? Do you really want your product to be associated with ass because thats what you've accomplished.
But the true-blue real loser here? Taco Bell and their rot-gut Chalupas...

I am beautiful

2009-07-19T23:25:00.001-07:00

I am beautiful in every single way. Words can't keep me down.

hot and bothered

2009-07-18T00:36:00.000-07:00

It was so bloody hot out today, high 80s, high humidity... I almost couldn't take it; I nearly sweated my manhood off.

Coming home from work and drinking 4 cold beers, then taking a nap, naked, on the bathroom floor didn't help. I had thought the cool tiles would feel good, and they did for a while until my body heated them up while I slept. I awoke in a state that required a shower.

So I was reading online for tips to 'beat the heat' when I came across this pearl:

"Drink plenty of water. You can’t sweat if you’re dehydrated. While some traditions, such as Ayurveda, discourage consumption of cold liquids, they’ll temporarily cool your body core. Alcohol and caffeinated drinks tend to dehydrate, so choose wisely."

What? Why would I, or should I give any thought to what the Ayurveda says about drinking cold water? I remembering reading those texts in various Eastern Philosophy classes and they said all types of things about medicine and health, almost all of them completely wrong. Why would anyone subscribe to health practices that are thousands of years old, written by people who believed semen is one of the seven primary elements of the world? Oh yeah, because people are stupid.

This reminds me of a time in Taiwan, when after hiking around some coastal gardens touring a large rice research farm a friend asked if I'd like a cup of water. 'Yes please' I replied. He disappeared into the kitchen to return with a cup of nearly boiling water. I looked at him incredulously and he informed me that according to Chinese traditional medicine cold water is terrible for your health (it upsets your inner tao). Right, so all those years in Alaska spent drinking ice cold Coke while working outside in -20 weather was bad? Inner tao... i think the black side of my yin-yang has completely bled over the white half. Whatever!

-------------

Last week I went into Trader Joes for the first time in about 6 months. For those who don't know what that is, good. Count your blessings. For those who want to know, Trader Joes is a multi-billion dollar chain of organic food stores and a perfect setting for studying horrible reasoning habits. Before I dive in though I gotta say this; why do they hand write their price stickers? Who do they think they are kidding with that 'Mah and Pah' store bullshit? Your company has more money than god so stop patronizing me with the retarded Crayola written stickers taped below the over priced organic bananas you sophists.

Anyways, back to the organic bananas, Trader Joes places them right next to a stack of non-organic bananas which obviously cost a good deal less. Now, anyone with half a brain could do some research and learn that the supposed pesticides used in the bananas aren't even dangerous, but even if they were they wouldn't reach the inner meat of the banana anyway. Why pay so much more for a word? Because people are gullible and sheepish.

Trader Joes does so much business because of the image it sells. People who shop there think they are participating in something special; buying foods which instead of containing things like "high fructose corn syrup" contain "cane sugar". Think your body knows the difference? No of course not, its simple chemistry. People shop there because the hippies who run the checkout stands which, by the way, are named after the streets in your town (again stop with the patronizing TJ, you jackass) ask if you have a reusable bag you'd like to have your groceries put into. If you don't, you are bad. People who shop there like the other types of people who shop there too; reasonably affluent white middle-class types who drive Volvo XC wagons and Subaru Foresters. You see, this type of Bellinghamster claims to like diversity but only if their exposure is limited to a parade here and there, and nice ethnic restaurants. You won't find them living on the corner of Texas and Valencia street! (Bellingham reference) Geez, at least the conservatives are honest about being assholes. Liberals are assholes but don't know it.

-----------------------

Now that summer is in full swing the streets on which I commute are seeing many, many more cyclists, people who don't ride for the 7 month rainy season and hence are slow and out of shape nonetheless determined in their mission to break every single traffic law on the books. They constantly get in my way while they shimmy about on their squeaky machines going to god knows where... I 'should' be happy to see more people commuting on bikes but after 3 years of this on-off season cycle, I prefer empty bike paths, I really do. This isn't to say I'd like them all to be driving cars, because thats even worse, I'd actually prefer if they'd just disappear. Fair right?

This heat is really getting to me.

Top Gear, huh?

2009-07-17T08:39:00.000-07:00

In the last month, or more accurately over the course of a few days during the last month I watched every single episode of the 13 season BBC automotive show Top Gear, and goddamnit I loved every minute of it.

However... I've also found myself dealing with periodic fits of bank account depression. I now know how much my neighboor's Porsche Carrera S costs (over $80 grand) and my other neighbors practical looking Audi A3. I know the difference between a naturally aspirated engine and a turbo charged variety and I know exactly why American cars are so shitty compared to their European variety. I know how much I'd have to put away each month to make payments on a 2010 VW Golf GTI.

Occasionally I've also thought if I lost my mind; I have enough money draining hobbies as is, and I enjoy commuting around on my bikes so much that I don't know what I'd do if I had to choose between a fast car and a fast bike.

I'm going to chalk this up to gear headedness; I've always loved moving things, specs and numbers. But when it comes to the things I love I don't like to make compromises - this will keep ownership of something European out of my hands for a good while, and for the best I'm sure. Now that I'm out of Top Gear episodes I can pull my head out of the clouds.

2009 Cannondale Rize

2009-07-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

The Cannondale Rize... what a great bike.