Fact.

I have just deleted a huge block of text, chock-full of links to Wikipedia articles about Travis County and Social Democracy.

To summarise:

Here are some good points to discuss when talking about socialised health-care systems such as the NHS. Is it mandatory? Is it even feasible if it's not mandatory? Should the state force people to indirectly pay for abortions or drug rehab clinics they may disapprove of? Those of you who actually think it's a bad idea can probably come up with more. I ackowledge that this isn't neccesarily a situation where there is an obvious right or wrong answer, though I'm all in favour of it.

Here is an argument I find less convincing.
"I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer- and, thank God, I was cured of it – in the United States? 82 per cent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 per cent under socialised medicine.”

Hey, good use of facts to support your opinions! Except...

1)This fact is widely at odds with numbers in medical journals and NHS statistics
2)The fact came, in fact, from an article written by your campaign advisor
3)Said article was published in a partisan magazine, not a medical journal
4)His original source for the figure came out with a statement saying "Dude, that's totally not what we said, the UK has a better survival rate than the US."
5)Considered opinion is that this is pretty tough to judge but that neither system shows a significant advantage over the other
6)Even if it did, all it would prove is that the market system works for people who are former mayors of New York and millionaire knights.

Rudy Guiliani, loose a point for electioneering. Boo.

P.S. Not strictly related (let no-one say I engage in demonising my opponents), but I couldn't help but be reminded of this YouTube link.

!

Godsdamnit, I've been saying this for years!

Food for thought

Every good manifesto should start with the words "I think..."

So here are my two cents about GLOBAL WARMING!

The problem really, with global warming, is that if you say to a Climate Scientist (such as I hope to be in a couple of moons) "So, climate change. It's happening, right?" they tend to look a bit panicky.

And naturally so. They probably have a background in say, Physics or Maths, and they like things to be provable. They like graphs. They like experiments. What they don't like is when someone says "I disagree - prove me wrong" and they can't.

And that's the exact problem we face. We don't have a test earth, and it turns out Newton was wrong about some stuff, and unfortunately in the absence of a computer with a brain the size of a planet, we'll never simulate anything half as well as we'd like to.

And all this time, while we really think it's extremely likely that climate change is screwing us over even as we speak, there's nothing we can do. Personal conviction can be thwarted in the time it takes to say "Possible multidecadal oscillation - need more observations". By the time anyone has collected enough data, it will all be over¹.

The problem as I see it is not what we can do to halt climate change now², but what we can do to facilitate living with it. It's often misrepresented as a doomsday scenario - the world will end - but what I think we're most likely to have is a situation in which life continues in almost the same way for the western world, but Sub-Saharan Africans and Polar bears³ have a hell of a time. And that is what we really need to avoid. More should be done to help people in the firing line - flood defences, irrigation, hurricane proof homes.

In summation - I think we have the wrong focus. I'd love to be able to say that if we all work together, we can halt climate change, but no documentary is going to make people switch off their TVs. No concert is going to persuade people to catch the bus home if it's raining. Madonna shouting "If you want to save the planet, Jump Motherf*ckers!" solves nothing.

It's only right that climate change is a pressing issue for the generation currently in power. The issue for our generation is how we're going to live with it.

---

1. You could argue that this is a situation where we can't afford not to act. Well, tell that to the Government.
2. Though Geoengineering offers some interesting ideas, they do all sound like they have the potential to go horribly, horribly wrong. And frankly asking people in the West Midlands to recycle a bit more isn't going to do a whole lot for the rainforest.
3. Well, this cleared up a couple of my fears about Polar Bears.

Scientists gone wild

OK, in case you lot didn't know, I enjoy playing games. And I especially enjoy playing games that have a point to them, or games that involve numbers. That made the game I recently played with Nathan extra fun¹. But this is a different game, one that arose out of the fact that there's a road in Chicagoland that's called Euclid Avenue. That brought up the discussion about naming roads after people who were valuable in the sciences, not just politicians and activists.

So we got to a-thinking, about who we'd name streets after. And, just for fun, we decided that we'd limit our city plan to 26 consecutive streets, alphabetically. Sure, then we have to chose between Hooke, Halley or Heisenberg and Fr. Mendel or Mendeleev², but it's easier that way than having unending roads named after semi-obscure scientists.

So my game is: who would you have as your alphabetic roads, keeping in mind both scientific advancement and popular opinion of them?

My partial list;
(Archimedes, Boltzman, Curie, Darwin, Einstein, Faraday, Geiger, Hooke, and then I give up trying to think of an "I" without straining myself)


¹I am thinking of a rule which governs sequences of three numbers. The sequence 2-4-6, as it so happens, obeys this rule. Write down a sequence of three numbers on a card, and I'll mark it "Yes" for fits the rule, or "No" for not fitting the rule. Then you can write down another set of three numbers and ask whether it fits again, and so on. When you're confident that you know the rule, write down the rule. You can test as many triplets as you like.
²I really wanted to link to the Oscar Mayer Periodic table, but after 10 minutes of searching, I couldn't find images of Bolognium.

If only I could tell the ram to scram...

Today, kids, I'm going to rant about stupid people, yet again. Or, not necessarily stupid people, just people who don't think too well.¹

The first type of people are the partisans, those who don't think beyond what they're told. This came up since I've recently been reading a lot of the Daily Kos, a Democratic website devoted to winning at any cost. Now a lot of these people are pretty good thinkers, but the majority are just reactionary. If the Republicans say something, it must be bad, by the virtue² that the GOP is supporting it. It's thoroughly frustrating to read some of the comments.³ And, unfortunately, it's hard to avoid these people when there's so gosh darn many of the them and our nations espouse democracy.

The next ones I loathe are the sheeple. Those who just think as they're told. A good number of these people start out as malleable children and evolve⁴ into the partisans. That's what learning to answer a question on a test does as opposed to learning for the sake of learning or expanding the mind. And they don't think beyond what the media says.

Which brings me to the media. This is the worst group. But there's so much to say about this that I can't be bothered to type it all up. Perhaps when I have more spare time. Let's just say that I rue the media slightly less than I loathe politicians and the government.

What started this rant? Well, the inspiration was something I absorbed from the media. I'm not sure if I read it on the interwebs, heard it on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News, or read it in a newspaper (so I can't provide a reference), but it was an opinion by someone about our use of oil.⁵ They were saying that we should be ashamed at using oil for (solid) plastics when it's so much more valuable to burn. That's just a perfect example of group number 2. Why would oil be better to burn? Once it's burnt, it has no use whatsoever (except to grow things very indirectly), whereas in solid form it's practically indestructible and so reusable (and, I daresay, recyclable). Additionally, it's far, far cheaper to make alternatives to fuel than it is to petro-chemicals of most sorts. This is a perfect example of not thinking through an argument. And it made me mad.

So there you go. Sorry for a half-baked rant. Here, go play some games designed to make you think. The Illinois one is not fun at all, but it is fun being an oil god.

¹Full disclosure. I'm not stupid. I'm quite smart, in fact. I'm in the top 5 percentiles for both Mathematical and Verbal tests, and I do quite well analytically, too (but have never been tested aside from essay writing, which was broadly marked and in essay form. So far, I've written 5 essays since leaving high school, so practice may help on that front). I am, I have to admit, smart, and so slightly, ever so slightly, biased against people who judge and don't think things through.^6
2I get the irony.
³This may be due to the fact that I prefer the Republicans marginally, but I do get annoyed at similar right wing websites, so I'm going to believe it's the people, not the policies.
⁴Unless they're creationists, in which case they're set on a path by God himself and so shouldn't deviate from party lines.
⁵Every medium I use now tends to blend together, mainly because of the sheer volume I use, but also due to the facts that they all report 80% of the same news with different spins.
⁶Which, quite often, means that I'm biased against myself. But it's OK, I'm Catholic, so I feel guilty about it.

Point, Counter-Point.

There are unexpected downsides to re-entering the real world after three or more years in Oxford. The city doesn't feel like the real world, and the University encourages you to remain inside your four, comfortable walls (three in the case of Mansfield quad) and think only of your studies. Today I slept in until 12 completely accidentally because home is so incredibly quiet by comparison. Move to a real city and you'll start wondering why there aren't any Japanese tourists, people wearing rowing kit or chamber music concerts.

And then there are the people. Debate is pretty common-place in Universities¹ or so I hope. It's pretty standard to be challenged, to defend your point and if needs be, to concede. But entering the real world, all that changes. Take the following, which happened today:

My brother: The pope is a bigoted idiot, he hates women and his only reason is "because I want to".
Me: That's bollocks - what on earth are you talking about? He holds views that represent the fact that he's a Catholic.
MB: Yeah, but he has no reason for it. He can't back it up.
M: He's one of the most eminent theologians alive today - I think he can pretty much back up his arguments.
MB: Shut up! You don't know what you're talking about. I've studied this - I did GCSE RS.
M: GCSE RS? That includes a full critique of the pope's theology?
MB: *Continuing rant* Shut the fuck up, I know this because I've studied it - have you studied it? NO? THEN SHUT UP!

Exeunt MB.

---

1. Russell group, anyway.

Calculus and Liberalism

It has occured to me that, for a blog names after an obscure bible verse, it is only appropriate to get all up in some ethical philosophy every so often.

Therefore, further to Charlie's last post, let's do some internetting. I particularly like Morality Play and the PG-13 Taboo. Comments in the comments!

Failure is just success rounded down

Today, as you certainly know, is Approximation to Pi day. It is a global day of celebration for anyone who's ever approximated π. That is to say, used π. (If you can explain why the terms 'used' and 'approximated' are synonymous in the case of pi, you are an Approximation To Pi Day King/Queen).

Why today? Well, because today is the 22nd of July, or 22/7- and 22 sevenths is a bit more than three- in fact, it's about 0.001 more than π.

But heck, AtπD isn't just for scientists, mathematicians and other people who argue on which of Euler's equation or Maxwell's Laws is more elegant. It's for everyone! Go on, bake a pie. Or something similar to a pie. Maybe something you can use in place of a pie.

Me, I've got some Cottage Pie and some Banana bread in the oven. I'm kinf od worried about the banana bread, actually. Since I have no idea how to make it, I googled it and took whatever Link One said as gospel. Let's just hope it wasn't hoaxrecipes.com. I guess time will show if my loaf turns out to be a twenty-two seven or an Alabama.

Capitalist bastards

I have a long running debate with a friend of mine¹. Starbucks, everyone's favourite coffee shop, have several lines of coffee available in the shop. However, only one of them is fairtrade. Similarly, fairtrade coffee is available for no extra cost, but you have to ask. Now, are Starbucks doing enough considering the considerable power they wield over the world's coffee market?

I have always argued no. Although making fairtrade available is a good thing, many coffee chains (AMT, Coffee Republic) offer only fairtrade coffee. You might argue that people should make up their own minds and choose their own morals, but I usually argue that it's the luxury of the Western world that allows us that freedom, and many people are not so lucky. Companies should consider their responsibilities. Also, most people aren't that switched on. It's one thing to say you'll buy fairtrade and another thing altogether to remember to.

However, having had a "behind the scenes" look (woo, I'm a barista) I am changing my mind. Two things spring to mind - Many coffee shops are changing to fairtrade to try to attract customers, but there simply isn't another chain the size of Starbucks, and there may not be the supplies immediately available without huge amounts of groundwork and masses of investment. Secondly, Starbucks (to the best of my knowledge) don't recycle a damn thing. Perhaps they should sort that out before anything else.

1. Can you really ever be "friends" with a scot?

I don't care if you're Black/Asain/Jewish/Arab, just don't try to get my money

I've been a little bit bored from time to time, but it's nice to be able to see how biased I am and where I fit in spectra. I could link to the obvious¹, but really, who cares about that. That is SO last year. So, I'm going to link to the not so obvious. And the down right unobvious^2,3. And my summary is; Libertarian. I don't discriminate against Asains, Blacks, Arabs, Jews, and the disabled. I hate Jefferson and Roosevelt (FDR) and Bush equally, but favor Lincoln (a lot), Grant and Carter (a little). I am slightly biased against gays and the overweight, and I associated the sciences with men and the liberal arts with women. I don't think that most of the situations deserve money, or at least certainly not paid to the government (SPOILER - You're not supposed to know this before taking the test - I was about $72,300 below the average of $72,300 and change).

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

¹I did!
²Yes, there's a word for this, but I'm too tired to google it.
³Admittedly, this links to the not so obvious at the end. And a few others.

Rather good

Quote for the day comes from George Mikes, 1960:

"A man in a queue is a fair man; he is minding his own business; he lives and lets live; he gives the other fellow a chance; he practices a duty while waiting to practice his rights; he does almost everything an Englishman believes in doing."

My Wacky Friend

Circa scrubs. I like parodying scrubs, but only scrubs series 1-3, because 4 and 5 weren't really all that funny. 

I am so often amazed by how generic people are. I realised this today when I was looking at my own facebook profile and I noticed that I had a favourite quote which was nothing more than one of my friends volunteering to have sexual relations with the other. It occurred to me that just about everyone in the whole world has something along these lines (either that or the line 'We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars'). I couldn't decide whether to feel ashamed ('U laf at me coz Im different, I laf at u coz ur all the same!!!1') or ever so slightly socialist ('Everybody belongs to everybody else'). 

I went for confused. 

Raving Vermonsters

Old news, I'm sure, but can any of you Yanks give me an update on how Vermont's secession bid is going? From the lack of coverage¹ I'm assuming it's being viewed in the same way we used to view the Raving Monster Loony Party trying to win seats², although to be honest the fact that they're gone for good took me by surprise. Come to think of it, the last thing I heard from them was that the leader had died and had passed on the leadership to his cat, so maybe it wasn't such a big shock.

Still, it seems people are insistent that the purpose of the party that everyone assumed was a big joke (no, really?) was actually a series of political protests designed to highlight inconsistencies in public policy.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced.

1. It'd make the UK the 50th state rather than the 51st, so it's of great national importance, and a lot of bands will want to know about it.
2. With policies like "reduce class sizes by making children sit closer together", you can't lose!

Scariness

Dear Gosh! I can fit into the Panama Canal over 44,300 times and still have room to stretch! Fortunately, a T-Rex can only do it 6700 times. The real question is, how many of me does it take to make a T-Rex no longer hungry?

Vote Took/Brandybuck in Oh-Eight

Further excepts from my Adium logs.



Nathan: Faramir for President in 2008.
ActionMan: Who?
Nathan: The younger son of Denethor II, steward of Gondor? He's got the governing-dynasty action going on that the Americans love.
ActionMan: O right
Nathan: Plus, humility and education.
ActionMan: Didn't he lead a doomed force to a massacre?
Nathan: Osgilliath? Well, yeah, but only in order to gain the approval of his ineffective ass-bag of a father, who had failed in the same war.
Nathan: Wait a second...
ActionMan: See, you did it unconsciously.
Nathan: OK, what about Eowyn?
ActionMan: Well, she was meant to have good leadership skills.
Nathan: Though thinking about it, liberals won't like her hawkish record and conservatives are unlikely to vote for a woman.
ActionMan: Isn't Aragorn the logical choice?
Nathan: Man, I don't know. I mean, he is aweXsome, but I was never too comfortable with that "Numenorean master race" thing. I'd still pick Faramir and my first choice, maybe with Eowyn as VP.
ActionMan: You do realise that you can't vote for a president? Not even a fictional one?

Jimmy Carter Oh Em Gee

Jimmy Carter, southern gent and one of my all-time favourite Presidents, is going to be giving a lecture in Oxford this summer, and a fair few of us here are invited.

What does anyone know about this Hands Lecture business? Am I going to have to comb my hair? Should I shine my shoes? Will I have a chance to shake his hand? Would it be appropriate to wear Jimmy Carter merchandise?

When I argue I see shapes

That's a lie. But when I shut my eyes at the moment all I see is boats going past me. On the plus side, now they're rowing well.

When I open my eyes I either see revision or the guilt of non-revision. Probably the most nauseating aspect of blogging is the much-used phrase "hey guys, sorry I haven't updated recently..." as if anyone reads¹, but I feel an explanation, if not an apology, may be relevant as anyone who didn't know better might think I'd jumped off a cliff considering how much I write normally.

So anyway, topical observations - oral sex gives you cancer? Little known fact - it also gives you second hand cancer if you're in the same room as someone else doing it.

More to the point, everything that someone somewhere enjoys doing² will eventually give you cancer. Luckily, I don't think it's going to put anyone off. In the words of some James Bond baddie, 'there's no point in living if you can't feel alive' - although the Christian Right may argue otherwise.

On a less topical point, Scotty has been beamed back to Earth. Of course, we've only got his word for it that he made it to space at all. I'm skeptical.

---

1. Self-loathing is my forte.
2. Sorry, I mean receiving.

War heroes and men of letters

The death of dear Jerry and a fit of Wikipedia has left me wonderin'. I wonder, specifically, how the Deep Reds¹ (as I like to call 'em) see Britain. I figure it's a fifty-fifty mix of admiration for all the wars we've fought together and contempt for all the wars we've fought.

In any case, I wonder how the Megachurch folk would react to what I have just read on Wikipedia: our TV-watching population voted Darwin (who you may remember from the £10 note) number four in the list of "Great Britons". While we're on the topic, quite a few of my picks didn't make the top 100, but I am very glad to see number 28 make an appearence. And America, you'll probably be interested to know that we found room for Thomas Paine. I'm not sure what he'd have made of that.

1. YOU DECIDE.

Heresy in a Box

I always thought I would have been more like Zeus. Perhaps 'cause I always liked the Greeks. Oh well. I'm not sure how which finger I picked, or how I like my one, matters much, but since this is on the tinternet, it must be scientific. I must say, though, I'm not turned off by omnipotence.

Which God or Goddess are you like? Your Result: Jesus You are God's lovechild. You love all and most love you. You help those who need it, and those too. The girls all chase you, and some boys too. You love to have fun, but you keep a serious life of working as well.Congratulations!! You are Christ!!
The Christian God
Budha
Goddess Bast
You are your own God or Goddess
Goddess Sekhemet
God Zeus
Satan
Which God or Goddess are you like? Make Your Own Quiz

And I have to say, whomever added "Child-like sense of wonder" to the labels, that's pretty much perfect for me. So kudos to you.

Send a droid

Sometimes, Science runs up against a brick wall. This tends to happen quite a lot in biology, what with their "high-level non-linear" jazz.¹ Let's say you want to know which combinations of protein folds and seasonings cause or cure, say, AIDS or cancer or whatever. Hey, I have an idea! Let's just try 'em all and check each one!

Back in the day, we had obsessive men of science like Tycho Brahe and that Napier guy. They advanced the cause of human endeavour by doing the same calculations over and over in minutely varying circumstances and making enormous tabloes of numbers. Today, we have robots to do the work of OCD aristocrats.

The idea is to let your computer do serious work instead of runnin' a screensaver. If the "good of humanity" angle doesn't strike a chord, think of it as an MMO: a series of slowly-filling progress bars that earn you arbitrary numbers of meaningless points. And there are no recurring fees!

In the last few days my computer has done about 30 hours of computation, in between me watchin' old episodes of Johnathan Creek and reading internet forums² about toast. Coincidentally, in that time I've worked 24 hours. Blarggh.

1. Honestly guys, it's much easier when you're trying to work out the properties of a single proton and a single electron in an infinite empty universe. Make a note of that.
2. Fora?