Observation

In nature, often the animal that gets to procreate is not necessarily the strongest or the fittest, but the one that has the brightest plumage or the best mating dance.

Basically, it's not really survival of the fittest, but more like survival of the advertised.

Observation

In nature, often the animal that gets to procreate is not necessarily the strongest or the fittest, but the one that has the brightest plumage or the best mating dance.

Basically, it's not really survival of the fittest, but more like survival of the advertised.

You know.....

After watching the latest trailer....

I'm willing to admit there's a very slight chance that the live-action "Transformers" movie WON'T suck large amounts of dead penguins.

This is an improvement, mind you. The die-hard transfan in me was dreading this movie from day one.

And I know I have to see it. Partly because it's Transformers, and partly because, well, parts of it are supposed to take place in Qatar, and I just HAVE to giggle at those parts. (Hell, best way to find the Decepticons in vehicle mode. Look for the cars in Doha that AREN'T driving like maniacs. They're either Decepticons or new expats.....)

You know.....

After watching the latest trailer....

I'm willing to admit there's a very slight chance that the live-action "Transformers" movie WON'T suck large amounts of dead penguins.

This is an improvement, mind you. The die-hard transfan in me was dreading this movie from day one.

And I know I have to see it. Partly because it's Transformers, and partly because, well, parts of it are supposed to take place in Qatar, and I just HAVE to giggle at those parts. (Hell, best way to find the Decepticons in vehicle mode. Look for the cars in Doha that AREN'T driving like maniacs. They're either Decepticons or new expats.....)

Chicken. Chicken chicken? Chicken!

Chicken, chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken Chicken chicken??

(Original cartoon at:

http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc072.gif

Video of AAAS Presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk

Actual research paper:

http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf

And the PowerPoint presentation (which is a LOT more coherent than most PowerPoint slide shows!!!)

http://www.cs.washington.edu/orgs/student-affairs/gsc/offices/old/433/PoCSi43302/papers/dougz.ppt )

Chicken. Chicken chicken? Chicken!

Chicken, chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken Chicken chicken??

(Original cartoon at:

http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc072.gif

Video of AAAS Presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk

Actual research paper:

http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf

And the PowerPoint presentation (which is a LOT more coherent than most PowerPoint slide shows!!!)

http://www.cs.washington.edu/orgs/student-affairs/gsc/offices/old/433/PoCSi43302/papers/dougz.ppt )

The irony meter is off the scale....

...and the clue meter is pegged on zero.

In a nutshell. Student in a Conroe, Texas, High School gets a reading assignment. She objects to the book, is given another assignment. Father of student decides nobody should read such an offensive book, and asks the school district to ban it.

The book? "Fahrenheit 451".

Also:

Parent criticizes book 'Fahrenheit 451'

"Alton Verm, of Conroe, objects to the language and content in the book. His 15-year-old daughter Diana, a CCHS sophomore, came to him Sept. 21 with her reservations about reading the book because of its language.

"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it," Diana Verm said. "It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."

Alton Verm filed a "Request for Reconsideration of Instructional Materials" Thursday with the district regarding "Fahrenheit 451," written by Ray Bradbury and published in 1953. He wants the district to remove the book from the curriculum.

"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451." "The words don't need to be brought out in class. I want to get the book taken out of the class."

Banning Fahrenheit 451 (Library Planet)

Life imitates art in Conroe book flap

"The fight over Fahrenheit began a couple of weeks ago when Diana Verm and her classmates were assigned to read the book for their English class. But Verm stopped reading because she said she was offended by "the cussing in it and the burning of the Bible." She complained and was given an alternate reading assignment, but her dad hasn't dropped the case: He has asked that the book be dropped from Caney Creek's curriculum. "With God's name in vain being in there, that's the No. 1 reason," Verm's father, Alton, said. "There's no reason for it being read." In his complaint against the book, Alton Verm also pointed out bad language, violence and that the book spends time "downgrading Christians" and "talking about our firemen."

All fired up

This all happened last October. Anyone know what the result was? (Other than someone taking a clue-by-four to the father?)

The irony meter is off the scale....

...and the clue meter is pegged on zero.

In a nutshell. Student in a Conroe, Texas, High School gets a reading assignment. She objects to the book, is given another assignment. Father of student decides nobody should read such an offensive book, and asks the school district to ban it.

The book? "Fahrenheit 451".

Also:

Parent criticizes book 'Fahrenheit 451'

"Alton Verm, of Conroe, objects to the language and content in the book. His 15-year-old daughter Diana, a CCHS sophomore, came to him Sept. 21 with her reservations about reading the book because of its language.

"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it," Diana Verm said. "It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."

Alton Verm filed a "Request for Reconsideration of Instructional Materials" Thursday with the district regarding "Fahrenheit 451," written by Ray Bradbury and published in 1953. He wants the district to remove the book from the curriculum.

"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451." "The words don't need to be brought out in class. I want to get the book taken out of the class."

Banning Fahrenheit 451 (Library Planet)

Life imitates art in Conroe book flap

"The fight over Fahrenheit began a couple of weeks ago when Diana Verm and her classmates were assigned to read the book for their English class. But Verm stopped reading because she said she was offended by "the cussing in it and the burning of the Bible." She complained and was given an alternate reading assignment, but her dad hasn't dropped the case: He has asked that the book be dropped from Caney Creek's curriculum. "With God's name in vain being in there, that's the No. 1 reason," Verm's father, Alton, said. "There's no reason for it being read." In his complaint against the book, Alton Verm also pointed out bad language, violence and that the book spends time "downgrading Christians" and "talking about our firemen."

All fired up

This all happened last October. Anyone know what the result was? (Other than someone taking a clue-by-four to the father?)

*Snork*

Quote: "Ladies and gentlemen, Star Trek engineering is idiot engineering. If real-life technology were routinely designed this way, we would be extinct. The writers of Star Trek may wax poetic about their renowned chief engineers, but the way the ship is designed, their engineers must be morons. Worst of all, this flying disaster-in-waiting is supposedly the product of the finest engineers the Federation has to offer."

Engineering and Star Trek (Should almost be Engineering *vs.* Star Trek)

"Star Trek's insults to the engineering profession don't stop with their insane ignorance of basic safety principles. Here are a two more recurring Star Trek technology clichés which have irritated me over the years:

1. They never use any low-technology solutions; can you imagine seeing a bucket or a wrench in Star Trek? When their kids go to the beach, they probably take a portable forcefield generator instead of a bucket and shovel. But in real life, engineers don't always use the most advanced technology. In fact, the most elegant engineering solutions are those that require the least technology, not the most. A good example is a machine gun; it uses a simple, elegant and robust mechanical system to eject each cartridge and load the next, based on gas pressure, springs, rods, and other low-tech principles. The simpler, the better. With modern technology, we could design a machine gun that uses miniaturized robotics instead, but why? The resulting weapon would be far more expensive, and far less reliable. It would require a power source, and software. It would be far more difficult to maintain. But in the world of Star Trek, that's exactly how they would do it. In a world where medical isolation bays use forcefields instead of walls, and where dumbbells have touch-screen controls on them, even the dumbest application of excessive technology is not only approved; it's mandatory.

2. They never follow any sort of prudent testing procedures. One of the best examples of this reckless stupidity was seen in "New Ground", where a "soliton wave" propulsion idea was tested for the first time. Did they test on a miniature test rig? No, they tested it on a full-sized ship. Did they test it in a vacuum chamber? No, they tested it in open space. Did they point it at an uninhabited moon? Of course not. They launched it directly toward a populated colony! The lead researcher explained that "if our theories are correct, the wave will envelop the ship and push it into warp," but if he had done proper testing beforehand, he would have had something to go on besides his "theories", and he wouldn't have been at a loss for words when everything went wrong and the Enterprise had to save the day. This is a fine example of the way that Star Trek insults the engineering profession; in their world, they go straight from pure theory to full-scale implementation with civilian lives at risk: something that no engineer would ever do. And this is just one example; how many times throughout Star Trek has some totally new idea been tried out by using the entire ship as the test rig? This is insane; would an aerospace engineer try out new theories on fully loaded passenger jets?

3. They routinely make the same mistake over and over again. In real life, when a failure occurs, a quality-certified engineering operation will immediately perform what is known as a FEMA, or Failure Effects Mode Analysis. The purpose of a FEMA is to figure out what caused the failure, what resulted from the failure, and what changes could be made to prevent this sort of failure from re-occurring. But in Star Trek, the same systems can fail over and over again (particularly when it comes to holodecks and warp core ejectors) and they seem to take no action whatsoever! Imagine if no corrective action was taken after a certain 92 cent O-ring destroyed the Space Shuttle."

*Snork*

Quote: "Ladies and gentlemen, Star Trek engineering is idiot engineering. If real-life technology were routinely designed this way, we would be extinct. The writers of Star Trek may wax poetic about their renowned chief engineers, but the way the ship is designed, their engineers must be morons. Worst of all, this flying disaster-in-waiting is supposedly the product of the finest engineers the Federation has to offer."

Engineering and Star Trek (Should almost be Engineering *vs.* Star Trek)

"Star Trek's insults to the engineering profession don't stop with their insane ignorance of basic safety principles. Here are a two more recurring Star Trek technology clichés which have irritated me over the years:

1. They never use any low-technology solutions; can you imagine seeing a bucket or a wrench in Star Trek? When their kids go to the beach, they probably take a portable forcefield generator instead of a bucket and shovel. But in real life, engineers don't always use the most advanced technology. In fact, the most elegant engineering solutions are those that require the least technology, not the most. A good example is a machine gun; it uses a simple, elegant and robust mechanical system to eject each cartridge and load the next, based on gas pressure, springs, rods, and other low-tech principles. The simpler, the better. With modern technology, we could design a machine gun that uses miniaturized robotics instead, but why? The resulting weapon would be far more expensive, and far less reliable. It would require a power source, and software. It would be far more difficult to maintain. But in the world of Star Trek, that's exactly how they would do it. In a world where medical isolation bays use forcefields instead of walls, and where dumbbells have touch-screen controls on them, even the dumbest application of excessive technology is not only approved; it's mandatory.

2. They never follow any sort of prudent testing procedures. One of the best examples of this reckless stupidity was seen in "New Ground", where a "soliton wave" propulsion idea was tested for the first time. Did they test on a miniature test rig? No, they tested it on a full-sized ship. Did they test it in a vacuum chamber? No, they tested it in open space. Did they point it at an uninhabited moon? Of course not. They launched it directly toward a populated colony! The lead researcher explained that "if our theories are correct, the wave will envelop the ship and push it into warp," but if he had done proper testing beforehand, he would have had something to go on besides his "theories", and he wouldn't have been at a loss for words when everything went wrong and the Enterprise had to save the day. This is a fine example of the way that Star Trek insults the engineering profession; in their world, they go straight from pure theory to full-scale implementation with civilian lives at risk: something that no engineer would ever do. And this is just one example; how many times throughout Star Trek has some totally new idea been tried out by using the entire ship as the test rig? This is insane; would an aerospace engineer try out new theories on fully loaded passenger jets?

3. They routinely make the same mistake over and over again. In real life, when a failure occurs, a quality-certified engineering operation will immediately perform what is known as a FEMA, or Failure Effects Mode Analysis. The purpose of a FEMA is to figure out what caused the failure, what resulted from the failure, and what changes could be made to prevent this sort of failure from re-occurring. But in Star Trek, the same systems can fail over and over again (particularly when it comes to holodecks and warp core ejectors) and they seem to take no action whatsoever! Imagine if no corrective action was taken after a certain 92 cent O-ring destroyed the Space Shuttle."