Trying to get out unscathed - 1 April 2007
Apr. 2nd, 2007 01:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptGuess the joke on me is not today but tomorrow, when I’ve got a lot of very important things to be doing. Including searches that need to produce results, discussions of presentations (both this week and next), and making sure that I turn in all the things that are due this week. If I get through tomorrow with everything I need, then I’m doing better for the week. Just need lots of practice at the presenting bit. And I will probably have to put together another presentation for next Wednesday this week, too. So lots of work this time around. Get through the next two weeks, and I should be able to coast (ish). That’s the plan, anyway. Hope it works out.
If any of the following links turn out to be 1 April hoaxes, let me know, and I’ll redact or correct them. I hope I haven’t been bit by too many, if any at all.
ThinkGeek got their 1 April joke twisted back on them when the demand for an 8-bit tie (the joke) was enough for them to start making it. From the picture presented... yeah, I’d buy one of those myself, if I had the cash. Which is probably why the joke failed, but the business part will laugh all the way to the bank.
Students are bringing a case against a plagarism-detection service, claiming that it violates copyright laws. The service compares papers against a database of other papers, and then keeps the comparative papers for use later. The students contend that the service is using their intellectual property without permission in a manner that doesn’t fall under fair use. Depending on how far you stretch the idea of “educational purposes”, these students probably have a case.
In Salon, Glenn Greenwald proposes an object worth considering by the mainstream media - one of the Republican candidates is in favor of the President arresting U.S. citizens without review, and another would let the lawyers debate about it before deciding. Yet, right in the Constitution, and in Supreme Court decisions, the matter of moving quickly to a trial by jury, rather than indefinite detention and kangaroo courts, is guaranteed. It certainly hurts the credibility of any Republican candidate if they’re willing to accept or discuss the idea of giving the President that kind of power (or “keeping” it from the previous Administration).
Staying in politics, Paul Jacob says by requiring all contributors to any political campaign to be documented and reported, campaigns are harmed significantly. In the case of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, the generally-cited fear is one of reprisal, apparently, in case someone on another side of an issue should find out and use it in some intimidating or nefarious manner. Firing someone because they don’t lean the same way you do is generally cause for a wrongful termination suit. Problem is, most likely, proving that was the reason for it. (We have enough trouble when it comes to potentially religiously-motivated firings, political ones could only be worse...) One can, as far as I know, still contribute anonymously, right? It’s not a perfect solution to the competing factions of disclosure and privacy, but it might be a workable enough kludge until something better arrives.
The Pastafarian suspension story strikes somewhere else. Apparently, the eye patch was a bit too much for the administrators, and it was a distraction to the others. The teachers didn’t seem to mind, according to the article.
Something![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sharkcowsheep may want to take into account: Durians are stinky, spiny, and are "like hell in your mouth", apparently. Having never been close enough to a durian to confirm any of this, I’ll leave this out and then step well away from it, just in case it stinks like the durians are supposed to.
The images are very good on the following “magic effect” - a deceased and mummified fairy in his yard that has apparently undergone a forensics examination. The detail work on the object is pretty good, and might provide for some inspiration if someone else wants to add on these kinds of magical effects.
The following is musical fun. Namely, one man, many cello parts, all put together to produce A Cello Rondo. The graphics aren’t necessarily worth watching, but listening to the piece, and seeing that it’s all done on a cello is pretty cool.
Last for tonight is the Einstein-Monroe Optical Illusion. Kind of makes me think of how 3-D images are shifted just so to be recombined into one with depth by the eyes. The fuzziness of the image probably has something to do with it, too.
And because there was Palm Sunday today (a Catholic(just them, or others?) holiday that celebrates the return of Yeshua to Jerusalem before he is arrested as an insurrectionist and put to death), Newsweek releases a new poll91 percent of people believe in a (Christian?) god, 48 percent reject evolution, and 34 percent of colelge graduates take Genesis as a fact. This, among other religiously-inclined statistics. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed say that atheists can’t be moral.
If any of the following links turn out to be 1 April hoaxes, let me know, and I’ll redact or correct them. I hope I haven’t been bit by too many, if any at all.
ThinkGeek got their 1 April joke twisted back on them when the demand for an 8-bit tie (the joke) was enough for them to start making it. From the picture presented... yeah, I’d buy one of those myself, if I had the cash. Which is probably why the joke failed, but the business part will laugh all the way to the bank.
Students are bringing a case against a plagarism-detection service, claiming that it violates copyright laws. The service compares papers against a database of other papers, and then keeps the comparative papers for use later. The students contend that the service is using their intellectual property without permission in a manner that doesn’t fall under fair use. Depending on how far you stretch the idea of “educational purposes”, these students probably have a case.
In Salon, Glenn Greenwald proposes an object worth considering by the mainstream media - one of the Republican candidates is in favor of the President arresting U.S. citizens without review, and another would let the lawyers debate about it before deciding. Yet, right in the Constitution, and in Supreme Court decisions, the matter of moving quickly to a trial by jury, rather than indefinite detention and kangaroo courts, is guaranteed. It certainly hurts the credibility of any Republican candidate if they’re willing to accept or discuss the idea of giving the President that kind of power (or “keeping” it from the previous Administration).
Staying in politics, Paul Jacob says by requiring all contributors to any political campaign to be documented and reported, campaigns are harmed significantly. In the case of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, the generally-cited fear is one of reprisal, apparently, in case someone on another side of an issue should find out and use it in some intimidating or nefarious manner. Firing someone because they don’t lean the same way you do is generally cause for a wrongful termination suit. Problem is, most likely, proving that was the reason for it. (We have enough trouble when it comes to potentially religiously-motivated firings, political ones could only be worse...) One can, as far as I know, still contribute anonymously, right? It’s not a perfect solution to the competing factions of disclosure and privacy, but it might be a workable enough kludge until something better arrives.
The Pastafarian suspension story strikes somewhere else. Apparently, the eye patch was a bit too much for the administrators, and it was a distraction to the others. The teachers didn’t seem to mind, according to the article.
Something
sharkcowsheep may want to take into account: Durians are stinky, spiny, and are "like hell in your mouth", apparently. Having never been close enough to a durian to confirm any of this, I’ll leave this out and then step well away from it, just in case it stinks like the durians are supposed to. The images are very good on the following “magic effect” - a deceased and mummified fairy in his yard that has apparently undergone a forensics examination. The detail work on the object is pretty good, and might provide for some inspiration if someone else wants to add on these kinds of magical effects.
The following is musical fun. Namely, one man, many cello parts, all put together to produce A Cello Rondo. The graphics aren’t necessarily worth watching, but listening to the piece, and seeing that it’s all done on a cello is pretty cool.
Last for tonight is the Einstein-Monroe Optical Illusion. Kind of makes me think of how 3-D images are shifted just so to be recombined into one with depth by the eyes. The fuzziness of the image probably has something to do with it, too.
And because there was Palm Sunday today (a Catholic(just them, or others?) holiday that celebrates the return of Yeshua to Jerusalem before he is arrested as an insurrectionist and put to death), Newsweek releases a new poll91 percent of people believe in a (Christian?) god, 48 percent reject evolution, and 34 percent of colelge graduates take Genesis as a fact. This, among other religiously-inclined statistics. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed say that atheists can’t be moral.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 12:25 pm (UTC)Now cross-referencing the statistics, 6% of the total respondents didn't believe in a God of any sort, 3% were unsure... so assuming no gross contradictions (that someone self-identifying as Christian doesn't believe in God), 67% of the atheist/agnostic group don't believe in God. So at least 15% of the people who don't believe in God think that He had a role in the creation of humans. (And that's assuming that none of the agnostics said that God didn't play a role in the creation of humans.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:50 pm (UTC)If that's the case, though, they're doing very, very bad things with the statistics, the kinds of things that would make infant deities weep.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 02:59 pm (UTC)I'm also wondering how they get 3% atheist. Did they come right out and ask "are you atheist" or did they go based on if you said you don't believe in god?
Good statistical reporting would include a link to the actual survey questions, as well as a breakdown of each answer.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:23 pm (UTC)It's sad that people feel the need to ridicule fairies. Damn it, they ARE real, and they DO live in Ann Arbor :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:48 pm (UTC)15. People who don't believe in God are called atheists. Do you personally know any atheists, or not?
People who do not believe in the Christian God are called Atheists by Christians. However, not believing in just the Christian God doesn't make you an atheist, it just means you aren't Christian. AFAIK, being Atheist means you do not believe in the Christian God or any other deities. Therefor, that is an incredibly flawed question. It should read "do you know any non-Christians", or change the definition they are providing.