Nearly every chapter of this book used Sagan as the “model”, or as the perfect example of what the scientific community needs to emulate. He made science interesting to everyone (willing to watch Cosmos), he played the media expertly (he wrote Contact, for crying out loud), he explained without dumbing down (too explicitly), he held the ear of the President (a few, anyway), and managed to churn out insightful and (most importantly to many) professional and diligent scientific publications.
It seems as if all of the many steps Mooney and Kirshenbaum outline as being needed to take are specifically planned to tailor our universities towards producing the next scientific Kiwsatz Haderach.
And yes, that’s a Dune joke. It seemed appropriate for an Environmental Politics class.
Well, I've always been a fan of white boys who can sing. VevoYoutubeBannerAdwhatever just reminded me that I need to get Daniel Merriweather's album (see: Mark Ronson post for a quick reminder).
It also reminded me of Jamie Lidell.
Oh Jamie Lidell.
Imagine if...Gnarls Barkley grew up in an affluent white neighborhood.
Imagine if Sufjan Stevens was a beatboxer. Imagine if Jamiroquai and....a dancing Sam Rockwell from Charlie's Angels had a baby.
That was British. And had a set of fucking PIPES on him. Observe.
Eh?
Oh my gaaawd, and if that hasn't sold you, watch him kill his unicorn girlfriend with an axe.
Wait, what?
Or: Ignore the video (srsly, corrupted)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
I have absolutely nothing more to say
The movie that will inevitably be made of my life will involve this song during a montage of my daily routine. It beats that damn "I AAAM A MAAAAAHN, DAAAAILY GRIIIIND" song that currently dominates.
Breaded: Hello, chums! This is Griffin's hindbrain speaking. Do you have a nice pair of speakers? Do you have fancy headphones, of the type that go all-the-big-boy-way around the ear? Do you have sound software with an equalizer? Have you been thinking too much recently?
Turn that bass up and sit tight until the drop hits at 3:30.
The entire three and a half minutes before that is intentional buildup.
JUST. LISTEN.
Breaded: Hello, chums! This is Griffin's hindbrain speaking. Do you have a nice pair of speakers? Do you have fancy headphones, of the type that go all-the-big-boy-way around the ear? Do you have sound software with an equalizer? Have you been thinking too much recently?
Turn that bass up and sit tight until the drop hits at 3:30.
The entire three and a half minutes before that is intentional buildup.
JUST. LISTEN.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Cell Phone Popcorn And The Shit That It Entails
I wrote this letter just now, and I figured it was worth sharing.
Nobody has perfect parents. In fact, all things considered, I actually have the greatest parents I know of save for Gabe's mom (and A. I'm sure she's got her flaws and B. that's balanced out by his shitbag of a dad {sorry Gabe}).
I never had any teenage screaming fits with my parents, I was raised freely and lovingly, and I find both my mom and dad to be entertaining, enjoyable, and engaging conversationalists (which, if you know me, is a serious compliment.)
That being said, I don't know of anyone who can't name some incredibly obviously wrong thing their parent(s) believe in - whether it's mistrust of GMOs or a belief that homosexuality is a sin or that 9/11 was an inside job OR something as insignificant but still bothersome as:
The idea that cell phones are capable of popping popcorn. Which leads me to this essay.
Dearest Mother,
I'm a big fan of technology. I'm also a big fan of skepticism. These two cross a lot more often than I'd like, and I usually have to take the defensive stance protecting some element of technology that's supposedly causing harm, or will be a problem, or blah blah something bad.
The point is, cell phones are recent. The internet is recent. Recent technology - indeed, recent anything - causes suspicion and fear in a lot of people. Fear that is usually completely unfounded, or brought about due to rumors or latent mistrust or unfamiliarity with this new thing.
Mostly though, it's the rumors. People can lie, and they do, and technology just makes it easier.
When photographs came out, they were initially taken as the final proof of evidence. A picture of an event proved it happened.
Nowadays, we know Photoshop can literally make any picture look like anything you want. You can make Obama ride a skateboard out of an exploding helicopter while waving nunchucks about, and more importantly you can make it look real.
It's the same with sound, the same with video - you can fake anything. We have entire movies of digital effects now. (Incidentally, have you seen Avatar yet? It's worth a theater view, even if you don't opt for the 3D).
And you can put these fake videos on youtube, and hundreds of thousands of people can watch them, and this literal hoax can propagate through enough people that it gets distorted into an accepted truth.
Just like pictures, just like video, only moreso - information on the internet has to be incredibly carefully scrutinized, because the vast majority of it is bullshit spread through either purposeful incorrectness or genuine ignorance/stupidity.
If this is coming across as heavy-handed or patronizing, I apologize, but I've recently been dealing with a lot of people who are convinced of things that (to put it politely) "go against the facts".
I truly think that misinformation (intentional or otherwise) is one of the biggest contributors to any levels of ignorance and misunderstanding that plague the human race.
Only through willful and diligent scrutiny of all incoming bits of information can we, as individuals, avoid the traps of ignorance and the subsequent prejudice, fear, and mistrust it brings about.
Those are heavy words, but I stand by them. Everything I've learned and am continuing to learn in my classes backs me up on this - my logic class, my religion classes, my history classes and especially my current environmental politics class.
So many actions, so many beliefs are based on faulty or incorrect data, or at the very least data that has been bent, shrouded, or warped to fit the agenda of whoever is using it.
Now, you and I and most folk we know aren't going to be in any position to screw shit up too bad but we still have our own beliefs and our own methods of receiving information that we need to watch out for.
The offhanded remark about cell phones being able to pop popcorn kernels immediately sent a jolt of wariness through me when I heard it, and I'm going to use it as a model example.
Because (IF it's true) it's a serious concern. A lot of people use cell phones, including people we know.
So let's think about it. Scientifically. What do we know about cell phones? Not much, actually. I personally don't know much other than they use electromagnetic radiation to transmit information across long distances. That sounds pretty powerful, and pretty scary, when you first think about it. But when you realize that we've been using electromagnetic radiation since the invention of the Radio, and that information sent to the rabbit ears of TV's is way larger and more powerful than anything a cell phone can put out, it becomes less scary.
So what do we know about popcorn?
Well, once again, not that much. But I am familiar with the fact that you have to either cook the kernels in oil that is frickin scalding or microwave the shit out of them in order to get them hot enough to explode into popcorn. And even those methods take minutes at the least.
This is the point where I conclude that I don't know enough about the subject myself to make an informed opinion.
This is the point most people skip.
It also happens to be, in my opinion, the most important point.
There are a few ways to go from here: We can either try and augment our own knowledge pool, or we can scrutinize the source of this information in the first place.
In this day and age, both of those paths typically mean using the internet again. This is an irony not lost on me, but it also serves as a reminder that once again we have to be constantly vigilant of our incoming information: If the internet is full of bullshit (and remember, it is), where do we go for trustworthy information? For facts?
Trusted, public, and well-used sites exist specifically as wellsprings of reliable information. You already know Google and Wikipedia. We can start there.
There is a MASSIVE article on cell phones on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phones
This is a daunting amount of information, so let's specialize.
Lets instead search for "cell phone health" (or "cell phone radiation" or any such keywords) again in Wikipedia. Behold! Another long and daunting mass of text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phone_radiation
So we skim. The top of any article is typically a summary of all the relevant information and indeed in the second paragraph we find a very strong sentence.
"The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, has stated in the past that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects."
The World Health Organization? That's a trusty source. Consensus view of the scientific and medical communities? That sounds promising, and more importantly valid. Cancer unlikely, no convincing evidence for other health effects? Red flag.
When as reliable a source as Wikipedia directly contradicts the information you're investigating, it's a pretty solid warning sign that you're being screwed with.
Which leads us to our second avenue: Testing the source.
Where did you find out about this factoid about cell phones and popcorn? Was it a chain email, a well-meaning friend, a youtube video, or (horror upon horrors) an unidentifiable rumor? If so (and again, this is based off of all available evidence I've amassed) it is probably full of shit.
Emails, quoted truths, factual statistical evidence, youtube videos - all full of shit.
Again we dive into the breach: Snopes.com is a fantastic site devoted entirely to debunking urban legends, chain emails, and hoaxes (internet or otherwise). It is trustworthy, thorough, and methodical and it just so happens to have an article on cell phone health that I found by searching "cell phone popcorn": http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp
Snopes articles usually open with the Claim being made, and then immediately below it offer the current judgment on said claim.
We see that it says "Claim: Eggs or popcorn kernels can be cooked by placing them between activated cell phones". Great! Exactly what we want to know.
And below it, in block letters, "FALSE".
And below that, pile upon pile of evidence.
With this much research spread out among multiple trustworthy sources, we can now safely and confidently continue forming our opinion.
Which ought to be "There is no conclusive evidence that cell phones are harmful, much less that they have the power to pop popcorn"
Which is good! It means we're safe from radiation scrambling our brains, and more importantly, that we arrived at this conclusion in a rational and scientific fashion.
Again, I'm sorry if the overarching tone of this was high and mighty or even disapproving - I meant no personal offense, only to properly convey the seriousness and urgency with which I view this particular issue. I was over-formal and precise on purpose, and I understand that every little unknown fact that passes through can't undergo this level of scrutiny....but I still hope this shed some light - not only on the issue at hand, but on my overall belief system and as an explanation into why I'm sometimes a very difficult and timorous conversationalist indeed.
Your Son Who Obviously Currently Lacks Things To Do
Griffin
And now, some deep house lounge.
Nobody has perfect parents. In fact, all things considered, I actually have the greatest parents I know of save for Gabe's mom (and A. I'm sure she's got her flaws and B. that's balanced out by his shitbag of a dad {sorry Gabe}).
I never had any teenage screaming fits with my parents, I was raised freely and lovingly, and I find both my mom and dad to be entertaining, enjoyable, and engaging conversationalists (which, if you know me, is a serious compliment.)
That being said, I don't know of anyone who can't name some incredibly obviously wrong thing their parent(s) believe in - whether it's mistrust of GMOs or a belief that homosexuality is a sin or that 9/11 was an inside job OR something as insignificant but still bothersome as:
The idea that cell phones are capable of popping popcorn. Which leads me to this essay.
Dearest Mother,
I'm a big fan of technology. I'm also a big fan of skepticism. These two cross a lot more often than I'd like, and I usually have to take the defensive stance protecting some element of technology that's supposedly causing harm, or will be a problem, or blah blah something bad.
The point is, cell phones are recent. The internet is recent. Recent technology - indeed, recent anything - causes suspicion and fear in a lot of people. Fear that is usually completely unfounded, or brought about due to rumors or latent mistrust or unfamiliarity with this new thing.
Mostly though, it's the rumors. People can lie, and they do, and technology just makes it easier.
When photographs came out, they were initially taken as the final proof of evidence. A picture of an event proved it happened.
Nowadays, we know Photoshop can literally make any picture look like anything you want. You can make Obama ride a skateboard out of an exploding helicopter while waving nunchucks about, and more importantly you can make it look real.
It's the same with sound, the same with video - you can fake anything. We have entire movies of digital effects now. (Incidentally, have you seen Avatar yet? It's worth a theater view, even if you don't opt for the 3D).
And you can put these fake videos on youtube, and hundreds of thousands of people can watch them, and this literal hoax can propagate through enough people that it gets distorted into an accepted truth.
Just like pictures, just like video, only moreso - information on the internet has to be incredibly carefully scrutinized, because the vast majority of it is bullshit spread through either purposeful incorrectness or genuine ignorance/stupidity.
If this is coming across as heavy-handed or patronizing, I apologize, but I've recently been dealing with a lot of people who are convinced of things that (to put it politely) "go against the facts".
I truly think that misinformation (intentional or otherwise) is one of the biggest contributors to any levels of ignorance and misunderstanding that plague the human race.
Only through willful and diligent scrutiny of all incoming bits of information can we, as individuals, avoid the traps of ignorance and the subsequent prejudice, fear, and mistrust it brings about.
Those are heavy words, but I stand by them. Everything I've learned and am continuing to learn in my classes backs me up on this - my logic class, my religion classes, my history classes and especially my current environmental politics class.
So many actions, so many beliefs are based on faulty or incorrect data, or at the very least data that has been bent, shrouded, or warped to fit the agenda of whoever is using it.
Now, you and I and most folk we know aren't going to be in any position to screw shit up too bad but we still have our own beliefs and our own methods of receiving information that we need to watch out for.
The offhanded remark about cell phones being able to pop popcorn kernels immediately sent a jolt of wariness through me when I heard it, and I'm going to use it as a model example.
Because (IF it's true) it's a serious concern. A lot of people use cell phones, including people we know.
So let's think about it. Scientifically. What do we know about cell phones? Not much, actually. I personally don't know much other than they use electromagnetic radiation to transmit information across long distances. That sounds pretty powerful, and pretty scary, when you first think about it. But when you realize that we've been using electromagnetic radiation since the invention of the Radio, and that information sent to the rabbit ears of TV's is way larger and more powerful than anything a cell phone can put out, it becomes less scary.
So what do we know about popcorn?
Well, once again, not that much. But I am familiar with the fact that you have to either cook the kernels in oil that is frickin scalding or microwave the shit out of them in order to get them hot enough to explode into popcorn. And even those methods take minutes at the least.
This is the point where I conclude that I don't know enough about the subject myself to make an informed opinion.
This is the point most people skip.
It also happens to be, in my opinion, the most important point.
There are a few ways to go from here: We can either try and augment our own knowledge pool, or we can scrutinize the source of this information in the first place.
In this day and age, both of those paths typically mean using the internet again. This is an irony not lost on me, but it also serves as a reminder that once again we have to be constantly vigilant of our incoming information: If the internet is full of bullshit (and remember, it is), where do we go for trustworthy information? For facts?
Trusted, public, and well-used sites exist specifically as wellsprings of reliable information. You already know Google and Wikipedia. We can start there.
There is a MASSIVE article on cell phones on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phones
This is a daunting amount of information, so let's specialize.
Lets instead search for "cell phone health" (or "cell phone radiation" or any such keywords) again in Wikipedia. Behold! Another long and daunting mass of text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phone_radiation
So we skim. The top of any article is typically a summary of all the relevant information and indeed in the second paragraph we find a very strong sentence.
"The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, has stated in the past that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects."
The World Health Organization? That's a trusty source. Consensus view of the scientific and medical communities? That sounds promising, and more importantly valid. Cancer unlikely, no convincing evidence for other health effects? Red flag.
When as reliable a source as Wikipedia directly contradicts the information you're investigating, it's a pretty solid warning sign that you're being screwed with.
Which leads us to our second avenue: Testing the source.
Where did you find out about this factoid about cell phones and popcorn? Was it a chain email, a well-meaning friend, a youtube video, or (horror upon horrors) an unidentifiable rumor? If so (and again, this is based off of all available evidence I've amassed) it is probably full of shit.
Emails, quoted truths, factual statistical evidence, youtube videos - all full of shit.
Again we dive into the breach: Snopes.com is a fantastic site devoted entirely to debunking urban legends, chain emails, and hoaxes (internet or otherwise). It is trustworthy, thorough, and methodical and it just so happens to have an article on cell phone health that I found by searching "cell phone popcorn": http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp
Snopes articles usually open with the Claim being made, and then immediately below it offer the current judgment on said claim.
We see that it says "Claim: Eggs or popcorn kernels can be cooked by placing them between activated cell phones". Great! Exactly what we want to know.
And below it, in block letters, "FALSE".
And below that, pile upon pile of evidence.
With this much research spread out among multiple trustworthy sources, we can now safely and confidently continue forming our opinion.
Which ought to be "There is no conclusive evidence that cell phones are harmful, much less that they have the power to pop popcorn"
Which is good! It means we're safe from radiation scrambling our brains, and more importantly, that we arrived at this conclusion in a rational and scientific fashion.
Again, I'm sorry if the overarching tone of this was high and mighty or even disapproving - I meant no personal offense, only to properly convey the seriousness and urgency with which I view this particular issue. I was over-formal and precise on purpose, and I understand that every little unknown fact that passes through can't undergo this level of scrutiny....but I still hope this shed some light - not only on the issue at hand, but on my overall belief system and as an explanation into why I'm sometimes a very difficult and timorous conversationalist indeed.
Your Son Who Obviously Currently Lacks Things To Do
Griffin
And now, some deep house lounge.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Striatus
Now, this is the model for the given data (i.e. at a surrounding temperature of 20 degrees C.) What we're each supposed to do is pick a different surrounding temperature, in 5 degree increments, and model out the curve of the D(t) as it decreases. As well, we're to calculate how long the water stays at or above 95 degrees C for each of our curves (in order to simulate a real scenario where we'd be cooking...something with bacteria in it, apparently. Not really sure what that'd be, other than raw meat. Maybe if you're boiling a caribou you've just slain. Who knows.)
The power is going to go out.
Everyone I know has left, either for Logging in Colorado or Rowing in Sacramento. The house is empty, and will be until tuesday.
And the power is going to be out from 2 pm Saturday until an estimated 12pm Sunday.
As a man who has been solely consumed by an Xbawks for the past two weeks
As the first human Spectre
As the Commanding Officer of the SSV Normandy SR-1
As an ELECTRONIC MAN
This is going to be a serious period of darkness in my life. I'm not going to sugar coat it here.
I plan on going off the deep end and swan diving into batshit territory. When day breaks on Sunday, if I haven't made myself a mayoral sash out of tortillas and had in-depth conversations with my sock-puppet chairman...
That would be great, actually.
Seditative: As for finding out how long the water stays above 95 degrees C, we just need to find all places where (since the temperature difference at 15 degrees C of 95+ C water would be 80) solve 80\geq 85e^{-0.0240465t} for t to get \frac{ln(\frac{80}{85})}{-0.0240465}=t=2.5211 hours of 95+ temperature, which is plenty long enough to boil some caribou.
HALSBASDLGBJDFA DEADMAU5 REMIXES
The power is going to go out.
Everyone I know has left, either for Logging in Colorado or Rowing in Sacramento. The house is empty, and will be until tuesday.
And the power is going to be out from 2 pm Saturday until an estimated 12pm Sunday.
As a man who has been solely consumed by an Xbawks for the past two weeks
As the first human Spectre
As the Commanding Officer of the SSV Normandy SR-1
As an ELECTRONIC MAN
This is going to be a serious period of darkness in my life. I'm not going to sugar coat it here.
I plan on going off the deep end and swan diving into batshit territory. When day breaks on Sunday, if I haven't made myself a mayoral sash out of tortillas and had in-depth conversations with my sock-puppet chairman...
That would be great, actually.
Seditative: As for finding out how long the water stays above 95 degrees C, we just need to find all places where (since the temperature difference at 15 degrees C of 95+ C water would be 80) solve 80\geq 85e^{-0.0240465t} for t to get \frac{ln(\frac{80}{85})}{-0.0240465}=t=2.5211 hours of 95+ temperature, which is plenty long enough to boil some caribou.
HALSBASDLGBJDFA DEADMAU5 REMIXES
Monday, March 1, 2010
Drink this, it will sooth you
Graphed on geogebra, it makes a pretty boring scale. Basically, c(t) (as t\rightarrow\infty) approaches 0.1, or the ratio between numerator and denominator. The +50 becomes insignificant, and then it's just 0.5 of an arbitrarily large number divided by 5 of the same number. Which is 0.1.Which is, hey presto, the concentration of the inflowing water. Which is what the large tank consists of almost entirely.
Obviously I am not the greatest mind out of my seven groupmates, but I still do all the goddamn work anyway and it. is. starting. to. show.
Is it starting to show?
I haven't been around lately. Sorry. Busy. World's outside, things to do in it.
World's inside, vidya games to play. Things to break, packages to open, events to observe and by observing change them irrevocably.
The trend of long videogames nowadays to include large-scale choices that affect plot, gameplay, and events really bugs me.
I don't want that in my games. I have that in my life already. That's all life is.
And that's terrifying.
Let's flip a Google coin.
# of hits for "Today is a good day to die" = 101,000,000
# of hits for "Today is not a good day to die" = 144,000,000
I wonder which phrase came first.
Trust me, it's not poison.
Edité: Still on hiatus, by the way.
You know what? You need to rewatch this. It's been far too long, friends
There are too many reasons why I love this video to cover.
Maybe it's the amazing jumpsuit the drummer is wearing. Or his sweet hair.
Maybe it's the cameo by famous drag queen RuPaul.
Maybe it's the weird gardeners outside who don't get explained.
It's definitely the giant martini glass being filled with bathwater.
No, it's definitely the slow motion bartender shot.
No, it's definitely how AMAZINGLY FUCKING GAY Fred Schneider's entire existence is.
Obviously I am not the greatest mind out of my seven groupmates, but I still do all the goddamn work anyway and it. is. starting. to. show.
Is it starting to show?
I haven't been around lately. Sorry. Busy. World's outside, things to do in it.
World's inside, vidya games to play. Things to break, packages to open, events to observe and by observing change them irrevocably.
The trend of long videogames nowadays to include large-scale choices that affect plot, gameplay, and events really bugs me.
I don't want that in my games. I have that in my life already. That's all life is.
And that's terrifying.
Let's flip a Google coin.
# of hits for "Today is a good day to die" = 101,000,000
# of hits for "Today is not a good day to die" = 144,000,000
I wonder which phrase came first.
Trust me, it's not poison.
Edité: Still on hiatus, by the way.
You know what? You need to rewatch this. It's been far too long, friends
There are too many reasons why I love this video to cover.
Maybe it's the amazing jumpsuit the drummer is wearing. Or his sweet hair.
Maybe it's the cameo by famous drag queen RuPaul.
Maybe it's the weird gardeners outside who don't get explained.
It's definitely the giant martini glass being filled with bathwater.
No, it's definitely the slow motion bartender shot.
No, it's definitely how AMAZINGLY FUCKING GAY Fred Schneider's entire existence is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
