This just plain freaks me out, but maybe I’m paranoid.
I’m afraid to say it, but this is pretty much how I feel about televised sports.
It's not a tax, it's just the government taking your money →
From Reason Magazine:
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said […] He cited the dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. Obama: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now…”
Because only the dishonest or clinically insane believe that “words” have a “real meaning”.
I’m sorry, I have to go read that again, because I still can’t believe he actually said that.
Muse’s latest album, The Resistance, is a brilliant, moving masterpiece. Get it on iTunes.
Post-medium publishing →
Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won’t pay for content anymore. At least, that’s how they see it.
In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren’t really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn’t better content cost more?
You can’t sell content.
The perfect shirt for Kyle Slattery. Just kidding, Kyle.
Wikipedia Genome Article →
I think it’s pretty crazy that the creature with the most DNA is a single-celled organism. No joke: Amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs. For comparison, humans only have about 3.2 billion base pairs.
Ekki-ekki-ekki-ekki-ptang. Zoom-boing. Z’nourrwringmm
— The knights who until formerly said “Ni”
Creationists are coming for your children →
Writes Richard Dawkins:
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past.
If I said this sounded like metaphysical or (if you’ll excuse my mentioning the word) “religious” language, would you still be my friend?
Mental exercise: replace the word “evolution” (and any appropriate pronouns) with any of the following: God, Allah, Vishnu, the Universal Mind, etc.
Two things:
Just because Dawkins uses this kind of language, doesn’t mean a belief in evolution is necessarily a religious belief. Of course, that is not my criticism here.
If Dawkins does not mean these things literally, what is the purpose of writing them? If he meant anything scientific by them, it is very poorly stated. If he wrote those things to give emotional weight to his article when they don’t really mean anything, he is being manipulative. If he does mean those things literally, he is being religious.
That’s really all I wanted to say.
