2007-11-19
A Pleiades update
Just after mentioning my desire to spend years exploring possible planets in the Pleiades cluster, here comes this bit of news: evidence has been found for *rocky* planets around HD 23514. While it is not one of the more famous stars in the cluster, the cool thing is that there seems to be an ongoing process of planetary formation in that system, at the stage that in our Solar System had led to the formation of the Moon. The planets themselves are too small to be directly observed, of course. They are probably quite inhospitable to life (HD 23514 is a G0 star, but it is likely a subgiant, several times brighter than our Sun, making its environment too warm for comfort, and it is too young for any life to have formed like the rest of the stars in the cluster), but I already took that into account: the planets to be explored are scorched, as I said...;). Indeed... More data on the host star at Vizier and SIMBAD, but nothing yet on the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia.
2007-11-18
A secondary birthday, hurrah!
Tomorrow is my secondary birthday: 26 years in these here United States, with brief interruptions. I seriously think of this as a birthday, of sorts. When I first came here, my family strongly encouraged me to assimilate. So I did, the result being that my Russian-ness (whatever that is) froze at the level of a 16 year old, and my American-ness (whatever that is) began at that point. I can talk about girls and algebra in Russian (and broken English), but I can only discuss politics and calculus in English (and extremely rudimentary and broken Russian).
Yeah, verily, I was a babe in the woods in late 1981, but a beer-drinking, cigarette-smoking, skirt-chasing babe. That ought to have caused some problems, you'd say, and you'd be right; all kinds of problems, from a textbook-perfect form of arrested development via ODS and Peter Pan syndrome to a possibly debilitating case of ADHD (whatever that is). In fact, it is only now, at a ripe (American) age of 26, that I am beginning to slowly realize the errors of my partying days and becoming more willing to make adult sacrifices to facilitate an interesting life and career, only to discover that I am indeed an overgrown adolescent. An adolescent with a college education, and—even if I say so—some claim to intellectual sophistication, but an adolescent anyway. Truly, this would be almost depressing if it wasn't so bloody hilarious. Oh well.
I'mo celebrate by drinking large quantities of fermented (and maybe distilled) beverages and enlisting the help of hopefully numerous members of the opposite sex to help me remember. What it is I am remembering, exactly, is nobody's business, perhaps not even mine, but remember it I shall, and enlightenment may be achieved. After all, everything will turn out allright, unless it doesn't.
Tomorrow never knows.
LolCat Bible!
Ladies and gentlemen...to our everlasting horror and amusement, the Lolcat Bible is here
Serious nostalgia
The wishing tree in Petrozavodsk:
Behind the vantage point of the following picture there is (was) a bar which was the first place I'd gotten (officially) drunk and laid in, at the age of 14...I wish I could find a photograph of the other side of the street...Fuck it, I'mo go there next year and get some photographs of my own!
Unholy Racket No 003: They have been judged
Lest this blog degenerate into seriousness, I feel like some comic relief is in order.
PBS ombudsman writes about Judgment Day, a Nova production on Kitzmiller v Dover School District trial. The article itself may be of interest to those unfamiliar with the case (huh? is that even possible?), but the true gems are the letters received by PBS regarding the show. Some of my favourites follow. Behold the flights of pure idiocy!
Towards the top of the page we have this—clearly, a product of a deep and penetrating mind:
"It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were "Created" by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you'll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our "Creator"!!! It shouldn't take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!
Sonya L. Johnson, North Port, FL"
Once you've stopped chuckling, you'd do well to remember that the "monkey" argument is in fact rather pervasive; other letters refer to it, for example:
"If evolution were true and man "evolved" from apes, why do we have apes and monkeys co-existing with man? Why have the apes not all turned into humans?"
Of course, all those nonstarters show is the letter-writer's complete ignorance of evolutionary theory and possible lack of functioning grey matter. Onwards!
Another popular argument is the appeal to fairness; this comes from a viewer concerned that ID did not get a fair hearing:
"What are you people afraid of? I am concerned for the viewer who is not familiar with the major tenants of both sides of the argument. I am only a lay person, but I know enough about the issue to see that a fair hearing in your format is not tolerated."
Naturally, "both sides of the argument" exist only in the fevered imagination of IDiots and creationists and their ilk (fevered? this may be a misuse of the word; "pedestrian" and "dull" and "non-imaginative" may be better descriptors). There is no intellectually serious opposition to the modern synthesis. This does not mean that some theory may not arise in the future, overturning all that we believe now (although it is unlikely, to put it mildly, but possible). It means, however, that Intelligent Design isn't that theory. This alleged controversy only exists in the minds of—dare I say it—those without any idea of what they are talking about. Clueless idiots often are the loudest kids on the playground; so here.
The "immoral implications" of evolution follow, mixed in with a dubious claim grounding human morality in religion:
""Survival of the fittest" follows from evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, to be logical and true to their faith (it takes faith to believe in it since there is no clear, unimpeachable physical evidence for macro-evolution) should see nothing wrong with what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., did in the genocides of millions of people. Since the exterminated ones were "weak," in terms of evolutionary faith, evolution proponents should all just shrug off these murders as being inconsequential (which is how the ones responsible for the murders saw them). But most don't, and the reason is we know those were atrocities. We know to murder another human being is wrong. And we know this because we have consciences given to us by our Creator."
Where do I start? "no clear unimpeachable physical evidence": there is no such beast anywhere in the history and practice of science. There are degrees of certainty; evolution is highly certain, more so than, say, M-theory, or, closer to earth, our description of the many bonding agents (glues, y'know) that we use on an everyday basis. And, of course, the appeal to God as the basis of our morality is pure bullshit, undiluted, ignoring many ethical theories constructed specifically on a non-theist basis, while substituting fear-based subservient (anti-)ethics for reality.
Finally, there is a slew of letter-writers who complain about the short shrift religion in general received in that program. They should keep in mind that this particualr episode was about history: any accusations of bias may just as well be directed against court transcripts. Any accusation of a bias towards a given ideology fails. An attempt to inject some religious ideology—even moderate Godtalk—into the program would have been precisely unprofessional, sunce the subject had nothing to do with the existence of gods or the validity of any religious belief. It was all about teaching religion in a science class. That's all, and those unhappy with the direction of this episode should consider that it is not the job of PBS to present every argument in every show. There is plenty religious claptrap on the idiot-box already. Claims of "evolutionist" bias are ridiculous. Fuck off already and go sit in your Dark Age corner.
Another favourite, and one that almost needs no rebuttal is "I have a degree in journalism and could easily point out every instance of yellow journalism in this show.". Yeah, you may have a degree in journalism but you are obviously quite ignorant of either biology or the actual court case in question!
Enough! What had started as a light humorous attempt to look at the silliness of some people is turning out to be a depressing peek into the idiocy of humanity in general: the majority of letters on that page follow the same format, and it all becomes rather sad, eventually. One can only ingest so much pure ignorance, nonsequiturs, ALL CAP screaming and so many logical fallacies in one sitting. Fuck 'em.
2007-11-17
impressions 54211
I am quite impressed with the fact that over 60% a significant plurality of the visitors to this page use Firefox (it keeps changing; apparently I had a rash of IE users recently!):
Of course, the majority are still running Windoze, but one has to derive some satisfaction from the low share of the IE use even among them.
2007-11-16
Minor rumblings
I want this poster for my second birthday, Nov 19:
Since I'm going to be exploring the scorched planets of Alcyone, Pleione, Taygeta, Merope and Maia someday, I should have them on my wall now! Waah!
In other news, I am utterly addicted to Blonde Redhead now, and cannot go a day without listening to at least a couple hours of them...
2007-11-15
Frightening and amusing
Check out this graph, comparing the expenditures on war with those on alternative energy research. Wow.
2007-11-14
A load of horseshit.
John Scalzi goes to the Creation Museum and is not impressed with what he sees. Priceless.
An Unholy Racket No 002: Goodbye, Humanism
As of today, I am no longer a humanist.
Of course this does not mean that I abandon my beliefs in the desirability of human rights, civil liberties, liberty and justice for all and such. And naturally I am still the epitome of secular. It is just that I no longer feel like I can define myself in terms of species, for several reasons.
Firstly, of course, the entire concept of species is fraught with problems. Chronospecies or reproductively isolated populations? Species do not really exist; they are convenient fictions to help us in our taxonomical/classifying/descriptive behaviours, and have no use beyond that. Every individual is unique, and while I may be a member of H. sapiens sapiens, I am Jorg above and beyond that.
Of course the aforementioned Jorg may choose freely not to belong to humanity any more. At this point of time such a decision would be no more than a ridiculous stand in the face of adversity, but we are rapidly approaching the time when intelligent entities will be able to—and many will choose to—change their genetic makeup and phenotype, making themselves distinct from the "base" human beings. Are some of their "innate" human rights going to be lost because of such a change? I don't think so.
Also, we are on the verge of creating self-aware machine intelligences. What about them? They certainly will not be human, and—despite anthropomorphizing attempts of movies such as Matrix—will not have human emotions. Our emotions are the result of a long evolutionary history and are inseparable from our phenotype. AI's will not feel love or jealousy, but they will be self-aware. Does any self-aware entity possess the innate rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? I say, of course!
Lastly, and looking in the opposite direction, what about millions of species with which we share our planet? (And others, unknown, somewhere else in this huge Universe). Do they have any rights? It seems to me that while perhaps not quite having access to a full complement of rights available to a self-aware entity, they deserve some, at least. And claiming the uniqueness of humanity tends to obscure the uniqueness of every other species and every other individual within those species (well, with the possible exception of some clones....)
In any case, I am perfectly okay with the label of transhumanist nowadays...an extremely secular one.
2007-11-11
How to be a crank
We can all recognize them when we see them; now the Denialist blog has a wonderful HOWTO on crankery. If you've ever thought that you just might be an underappreciated genius, on a par with Galileo, check it out: awesomely useful tips on developing and distributing your own brand of idiotic insanity!
Hoax of the week
A fake paper, purporting to show that carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with global warming is making the rounds. You can read it here. This is brilliant, full of gems such as: "The control run was defined as: Q³uct, jyΦ = ∑cy³11".
Anyone with rudimentary math skills can see that the equations are pure gibberish. However, Rush Limbaugh and the crowd were taken in, crowing about how this paper shows once again the idiocy of "global warming alarmists". Apparently, Rush even ignored the advice of his own "climatologist here on staff" in his eagerness to embrace the nonexistent conclusions. The egg is on their face: the paper in question conclusively demonstrates ignorance and idiocy of most right-wing pundits and nothing else, a point they all seem to be missing. Brilliant; reminds me of the great Sokal hoax, even though it isn't quite as funny and exposes the conservative right rather than the idiotic pomo leftists. Still, a treasure.
truly, the most horrifying entity in the known Universe.
For those unaware: Abbie at ERV has taken to equating Michael Behe with Lindsey Lohan (Lilo!!!) and here is a wonderful, but terrifying result:
a sop to the masses
All of you that actually read this blog should be quite happy, since (as is common for me...;)):
And, predictably,
Your Inner European is Russian! |
 Mysterious and exotic. You've got a great balance of danger and allure. |
2007-11-10
My vote for the atheist of the week
...goes to Kelly O'Connor (of RRS), of course.;)
for this piece thoroughly thrashing Dinesh D'Souza (the one of the brick-filled head, possible possessor of the shallowest mind on the planet).
Go, go, go, kick some theist shite, Kelly!
2007-11-09
This could be serious, but probably isn't ;)
In a strange commentary on the current state of US politics, the following almost convinced me at first. Only when I got to the last paragraph did I become certain that this is, indeed, satire. But soon, my friends, soon, this is going to be reality. Bugfuckery is spreading!...
Anyway:
Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation
by Andy Borowitz
Reposted from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/pat-robertson-says-giulia_b_71744.html
One day after endorsing former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for president, televangelist Pat Robertson explained his decision, saying that a Giuliani presidency features prominently in the Book of Revelation.
In his endorsement announcement the day before, Rev. Robertson had made reference to Mr. Giuliani's tenure as "America's Mayor," but did not indicate that the Republican frontrunner was a key player in the Bible's most apocalyptic book.
In his statement today, however, the televangelist made it clear that "in order for the Second Coming to occur, the world needs to end, and Rudy Giuliani is just the man for that job."
Rev. Robertson said that he was "confident" that within weeks of his inauguration, Mr. Giuliani would usher in the "end days" that are a staple of Bible prophecy.
In praising Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Robertson had critical words for the current resident of the White House, President George W. Bush: "President Bush got us on the road to Armageddon, but it's taking too darn long -- Rudy Giuliani will put us in the express lane."
While the Giuliani camp initially welcomed the endorsement of the influential evangelist, the former New York mayor seemed less enthusiastic today about being identified as one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.
When asked by a reporter in Iowa about Mr. Robertson's comments today, Mr. Giuliani replied, "9/11."
Elsewhere, former Beatle Paul McCartney confirmed that he is dating a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member, explaining, "Since my divorce from Heather, I've had to start taking the subway.
Does Buddhism discriminate against women?
Yeah, Buddhism: that enlightened, pacific, loving and respectful non-religious religion. Does it? Apparently so. Perhaps not as virulently misogynystic as Judeo-Christian traditions, it still has its own snags. And why not? It was invented many years ago and is full of ridiculous statements only marginally more acceptable than the more authoritarian religions; epistemologically, it is the same crock of shit.
2007-11-08
art worth some looking at....
A beautiful collection of images/posters/flyers for our times available here. Go check them out already.
An unholy Racket No 001: Epitaphs and Interferences
...And it's into the fucking fray:
1.Mollie Steimer, one of those incredible people who are hated by fascists and capitalists of all stripes and admired by those that care about liberty and justice for all, wrote once:
"We fought injustice in our humble way as best we could; and if the result was prison, hard labour, deportations and lots of suffering, well, this was something that every human being that fights for a better humanity has to expect."
A short biography at Wikipedia. She needs to be remembered, and one of the purposes of this blog will be to bring attention to mostly forgotten heroes like her.
2.The word sabotage comes from French "sabot", a kind of a wooden shoe—a clog—that French workers of the early Industrial revolution threw into the machine looms to disable them—to clog them. A wonderful word that has gathered more negative connotations over the years, sadly.
3.President Harding is generally considered to be the most inept of all that held the office occasionally associated with talent and intelligence. He had said, once: "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here", which statement elevates him far above the current resident. To the old Chinese curse of "may you live in interesting times", we can add "and may you live under exceptional rulers". Exceptionally awful, that is.
4.I am currently reading Peter Irons' A People's History of the Supreme Court and a wondeful book it is. Amongst big business stooges, racists and several brilliant people with whose political and judicial beliefs I disagree strongly (the racist Taney, rabid patriot Frankfurter, or the Four Horsemen of (laissez-faire) Apocalypse) there were quite a few justices of sheer genius and ethical fortitude. (Even now, there are at least two of those on the bench. No prizes for guessing who). In any case, here are some quotes that should be remembered:
"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by the free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That in any rate is the theory of our Constitution."
–Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, in his dissent in Abrams v. United States, 1919 (the case which resulted in the deportation of Mollie Steimer, among others, to the true bastion of liberty that was Bolshevik Russia at the time).
and
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can presribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
—Robert Jackson, writing for majority in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943
There shall be more; the above words precisely capture the reasons I am so interested in Constitutional law lately. There were giants in the world in those days.
5.I must sleep now, over and out...
2007-11-07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
