by havoc [ posted: 17.Nov.2005 10:03 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
Steve Petermann gives us a nice, succinct summary on http://telicthoughts.com/?p=374”>You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if...

Summarizing in a Jeff Foxworthy manner:

• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if the truth-values of your statements are of no particular interest to you.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if you don’t take the time to thoroughly understand the debate or get your facts straight before you pontificate. Have you actually read or studied what you are criticizing?
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if you don’t rigorously craft and substantiate your arguments in a well founded way.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if you think that bluffing is a powerful tactic.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if it never occurred to you that you might be wrong or even worse that it didn’t matter.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if people are constantly disputing your facts and complaining about you misrepresenting them.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if occurrences of the above are not just isolated instances.
• You might be a [bovine eschatologist] if you think that none of this ever applies to you.

It's actually rather more enlightening that you probably think it is. You should read Petermann's post in full to get for full, beautiful, enlightened effect.

Nice.

by havoc [ posted: 11.Nov.2005 10:35 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Since moving to the Pecos Valley too many years ago, I've been struck over and over by the loyalty I see to Farmall tractors. You see lots of them around here. There are many small farmers who depend on old Farmalls to do all of their work, and man more who have old Farmalls around for various jobs. There's also a strong culture of restored Farmall fans. In any parade, you're likely to see 40 or more restored tractors, with the largest majority of those being Farmalls. Then, there's the many hundreds (possibly thousands) of rusting hulks setting in "equipment yards" waiting for their day in the sun, to be loved, to be restored to their former glory, and to be paraded down main street by their proud owner.

If you're interested in restoring an antique, or older tractor, drop me a line, I can probably find someone who's willing to dicker with you on a price for their prize....

Canon EOS 10D, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, ISO:100, 1/79sec f/10, cloudy day. Copyright Jody Harris, 2005.

by havoc [ posted: 11.Nov.2005 09:49 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
The boys and I stopped by the meat store to pick up some ground beef for supper. While checking out, the clerk said, "I'm cooking spaghetti tonight!," and Thing2 just happened to be standing right there. "Spaghetti!? Yum!" [insert over-exaggerated lip-slurping-noise, and visual of tummy-rubbing]

That was neither the plan, nor the time schedule.

Honestly, I really liked the idea, and it suddenly dawned on me that I hadn't cooked spaghetti in ... several years! I made a half-hearted attempt to talk him into burritos, then we walked across the street to the grocery store for a fresh onion, garlic clove, bell pepper, and whatever else we needed (and didn't have).

I decided to celebrate the first pan of my home made, from scratch, spaghetti in ... maybe three (!) years by "shooting it." It usually takes a minimum of 2 hours just to let it simmer....

It ain't Italian, but it is good... Yum!

Canon EOS 10D, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, ISO:400, 1/60sec f/1.8. Copyright Jody Harris, 2005.

by havoc [ posted: 11.Nov.2005 09:37 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
In a lot of ways, this image fails formal critique, but I really like it. Even at full-res, it's sharp, and you can count the little girl's eye lashes. This is how the image looks at the default settings I use in Bibble Pro. Effectively, "straight from camera."

I took this photo back in September at Family Camp, but I never got around to pulling the images from the camera until last night. The last several months have been really, really show for me photographically. For October 2005, I have a grand total of 4 images!

Canon EOS D10, Canon EF 50mm f 1.4, ISO:400, 1/1614sec f/8, available light. Copyright Jody Harris, 2005.

by havoc [ posted: 7.Nov.2005 06:55 AM ] [dura-link][Print]

The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choices words lose their power when they are used to overpower.

-- Edwin H. Friedman

by havoc [ posted: 3.Nov.2005 01:38 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
From time to time, radiometric dating comes up in conversation, and certain groups of Christians casually and off-handedly dismiss radiometric dating because they've been told that it "has been proven unreliable." I am taking a risk in linking to this paper without having read it in full, but I have heard it referenced before by sources that score high in my trust matrix, so I'm going to link to Dr. Wiens' paper before I read it on those endorsements....

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

HTML: Radiometric Dating, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens, Los Alamos, NM
PDF: Radiometric Dating, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens, Los Alamos, NM

yes, yes. I'm going to read it.

by havoc [ posted: 3.Nov.2005 11:18 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Dinosaurs are not birds' ancestors

Alan Feduccia and colleagues say fossilized structures found in China that some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were not feathers. Instead, Feduccia -- a professor of avian evolution, paleobiology and systematics -- says the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today ... is a big mistake."

A report on the team's research appears in the online Journal of Morphology.

EvoWiki doesn't think much of J. Alan Feduccia

The only point being that the "established" path of bird evolution is troubled.

by havoc [ posted: 30.Oct.2005 07:46 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
I stumbled across Ubuntu Blog today. It looks promising. I've added it to my links to the right, and to my RSS feeds.

by havoc [ posted: 27.Oct.2005 11:00 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Seafloor creatures destroyed by ice action during ice ages

The team’s research will lead to a radical rethink of the evolutionary history of Antarctica as the work challenges all the accepted theories. The scientists argue that shallow water animals were retreating to the deep ocean and then returning to recolonise Antartica’s shelf seas. Clues to how these two very different communities could have achieved this may lie in the animals’ DNA.

Stick insect forces evolutionary rethink

The lowly stick insect has forced a rethink of one of the key rules of evolution - that complex anatomical features do not disappear and reappear over the course of time.

Fruit Fly Prompts Rethink

SCIENTISTS are having to rethink theories of evolution after discovering a "new" gene passed on by fathers that helps fertilised eggs develop.

Continued evolutionary surprises among dinoflagellates

This new paradigm in the relationship of these species forces us to rethink many aspects of dinoflagellate evolution.

Three Fossilized Chimp Teeth Might Trigger A Shake-up In The Theories Of Human Evolution

For years, scientists believed that first human ancestors left the jungles and moved east to the less wooded lands, In their opinion, this migration caused the evolutionary split between the human and chimp lines.

But that might totally change now, since the discovery of ancient chimps and humans in the same area. Yes, we are talking about rethinking the entire evolution process!

by havoc [ posted: 26.Oct.2005 09:11 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
I asked my cousin Josh for recommended text books for biochem:

Currently in vogue and very rigorous: Biochemistry 3rd edition by Donald and Judith Voet. Probably more depth than desired...
I hear that Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts is also quite good.
For evolution I liked Mark Ridley's (former grad student of Richard Dawkins), but I thought it somewhat "multicellularity"-centric.
--J

At least I should be able to find that here.

by havoc [ posted: 24.Oct.2005 10:18 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
Bird-like dinosaur forces rethink

A rooster-sized dinosaur with a long, slender snout and wing-like limbs is forcing a rethink on bird evolution.
The 90 million-year-old reptile belongs to the same sickle-clawed group of dinosaurs as Velociraptor and feathered dinosaurs from China.

Buitreraptor gonzalezorum, from the Neuquén Basin in central Argentina may provide tantalising evidence that powered flight evolved twice.

Details of the discovery appear in the academic journal Nature.

One theory suggests the lineage of dinosaurs the new animal belonged to, the dromaeosaurs, originated in the Cretaceous Period (144 to 65 million years ago).

But this discovery suggests their lineage can be traced further back in time, to the Jurassic (206 to 144 million years ago), experts say.

...

"evomarks" will be used to keep track of stories that are centered on phrases like, "is forcing a rethink on [X] evolution."

by havoc [ posted: 21.Oct.2005 08:57 AM ] [dura-link][Print]

By a strange conjunction of events, as I sit here writing about the systematic campaign of oppression waged against Christians behind the Iron Curtain, Jonathan is taking a call from someone who can't risk discussing ID by e-mail, lest he lose his position. This is not an isolated incident. Intelligent Design isn't Christianity, but philosophical materialists view it as a Trojan Horse for Christianity, and as such are determined to suppress it.

--Amanda Witt

source

by havoc [ posted: 9.Oct.2005 10:56 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
Senate Passes Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

by havoc [ posted: 5.Oct.2005 07:41 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
[insert angelic voices soundtrack]
Coffee!

Adult-onset (type 2) Diabetes
antioxidants
exercise benefits
Parkinson's disease
and the list goes on and on...

Of course, you could just drink it because you like it, and get all of these for free....
But NOT Starbucks!

by havoc [ posted: 27.Sep.2005 10:34 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
The Filson hat I've been wearing for... 5 (?) years just isn't cutting it any longer. It's too hot, and I've had trouble with the last one I ordered. I'm giving up on Filson.

I hate shopping for a hat. It's a pain. It's embarassing. I don't want a hat that looks "good." I want a hat that looks "me." Being a bald guy and living in New Mexico, going without a hat is just not an option.

by havoc [ posted: 21.Sep.2005 09:21 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
"If you're going to throw a [golf] club, always throw it in the direction that you are going to walk."
-- Dr. Fazale Rana

by havoc [ posted: 19.Sep.2005 10:39 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
    ⁹ But if I say, "I will not mention him
       or speak any more in his name,"
       his word is in my heart like a fire,
       a fire shut up in my bones.
       I am weary of holding it in;
       indeed, I cannot.

by havoc [ posted: 19.Sep.2005 10:01 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
This is a very... different take on debt and money and power...

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/19/111143/226

hmm?

interesting thinks to think.

by havoc [ posted: 16.Sep.2005 05:10 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
Scrolling back in time to my younger days, Nintendo's new controller looks to have lots of possibilities: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1509691/200....es=true The really good stuff should start when programmers start using it in ways N never intended -- like one player using two controllers, one in each hand, for some games....  What happens when you strap one to each leg?  of course, that all assumes that the console can talk to multiple controller units....

(* Well, killing millions of people by the misapplication of TNT and it's derivatives wouldn't normally be filed under "Fun," but as a general rule, things generally get more interesting after they leave the hands of their inventors.)

by havoc [ posted: 13.Sep.2005 11:04 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
11 steps to a better brain.... hmm?

by havoc [ posted: 12.Sep.2005 02:48 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
Jack Kelly: No shame

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

by havoc [ posted: 8.Sep.2005 11:08 PM ] [dura-link][Print]
If you're feeling the need for safety glasses with all of the political finger-pointing at W and the Republicans in the aftermath of Katrina, ya might need to do a little fact-checking. (Hat tip: Red State)

by havoc [ posted: 5.Sep.2005 08:53 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Design v. Evolution:
http://www.bigpig.org/conflagration/

get ready to rumble?

by havoc [ posted: 2.Sep.2005 08:56 AM ] [dura-link][Print]

THE FALLACY OF FALSE ANALOGY

Few techniques of reasoning are so potentially useful-or so potentially dangerous-as analogy. When we reason by analogy we attempt to advance our position by likening an obscure or difficult set of facts to one that is already known and understood and to which it bears a significant resemblance. The fallacy of false analogy arises when the comparison is an erroneous one that distorts the facts in the case being argued. Drawing attention to likenesses can be extremely useful so long as the two things being compared resemble each other in important respects and differ only in trifling ways. If, on the contrary, they are alike in unimportant ways and different in important ways, then there is no valid analogy between them and a fallacy of false analogy results. Merely to seize upon some slight similarity as a basis for concluding that what is true of one is also true of the other will usually lead one astray. ... To expose a false analogy-or an imperfect analogy, as it is sometimes called-it is necessary to establish that the two things being compared resemble each other in insignificant ways, while they differ in significant ways.

Engel S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, Fourth Edition, 1990, pp.150-151.

by havoc [ posted: 1.Sep.2005 08:29 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Evolution and the Stages of Grief

...J. B. S. Haldane remarked, “Theories pass through four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.”

I like to flesh out Haldane’s four stages as follows. First the idea is regarded as preposterous—the ruling elite feel little threat and as much as possible ignore the challenge, but when pressed confidently assert that the idea is so absurd as not to merit consideration. Second it is regarded as pernicious—the ruling elite can no longer ignore the challenge and must take active measures to suppress it, now loudly proclaiming that the idea is confused, irrational, reprehensible, and even dangerous (thus adding a moral dimension to the debate). Third, it is regarded as possible—the ruling elite reluctantly admits that the idea is not entirely absurd but claims that at best it is of marginal interest; meanwhile, the mainstream realizes that the idea has far reaching consequences and is far more important that previously recognized. And fourth, it is regarded as plausible—a new status quo has emerged, with the ruling elite taking credit for the idea and the mainstream unable to imagine how people in times past could have thought otherwise. With intelligent design, we are now at the transition from stage two to stage three—from pernicious to possible. This is the hardest transition.

and...

Evolutionists Anonymous: A 12 Step Program

by havoc [ posted: 31.Aug.2005 09:34 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wiskerke/artikelen/string.html
"Now I think of it: did anyone ever try to shoot a gun with this as a stabilizer?"

You'd want to be selective about which gun you tried this with... too high of a co-friction with the shoes added to the recoil of a S&W 500 Mag would decidedly make for a bad day.

by havoc [ posted: 31.Aug.2005 09:23 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Most scientific papers are probably wrong,

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.

"We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery," Ioannidis says.

In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.

Now, read this very carefully: that's what makes it science!

Think about it!

As I'm drifting off to sleep, I have one of those semi-lucid epiphanies that we engineers are so fond of. I enthusiastically reach up, turn on the light (much to my sweet wife's irritation), grab a pen and pad, scratch it down, look it over, turn the light off and drift off to sleep with a warm, smug feeling of superiority. If, in the morning, I can look at my scribbles, and not see the the obvious failures, I pursue the work. I formulate a more-or-less proper hypothesis, and do some research. This leads to a meta-study from available information, then some stubby-pencil calculations. At this point, I submit it for "peer review" to "Clint." ("Clint" is my code name for my best friend from college, a brilliant engineer.) If Clint doesn't see any obvious problems, we start working on simulations, if applicable, and some design prototypes. 99% of the time, somewhere along the way, it all collapses in a steaming pile of the overlooked obvious. But that's what science and research is about!

The whole process is packed full of presuppositions, ignorance, blind spots and pit falls. It's great. It's awesome. It's fun. It's science. The best part of science is not what we know, it's what we don't know. The great paradox of science is that we don't know what we don't know. It just happens to be a fact of science, that the very best way to find a hole is to fall into it.

by havoc [ posted: 31.Aug.2005 08:56 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Five mistakes GNU/Linux neophytes make.... That's really, really good advice for someone coming to Linux for the first time.

New users tend to make some common mistakes when trying out GNU/Linux for the first time. The reasons for these mistakes are varied: because GNU/Linux is a different kind of operating system; because Windows fosters bad habits; because users choose the wrong distribution; because Mercury is in retrograde; and myriad other possibilities. Here are some solutions to five commonly encountered GNU/Linux problems.

by havoc [ posted: 30.Aug.2005 08:46 AM ] [dura-link][Print]
Before:

The Darwin Principle

by havoc [ posted: 29.Aug.2005 09:32 PM ] [dura-link][Print] Today, I present the Darwin Principle. Darwin Principle: The inherent property of the universe by which any given thing can happen at any given moment with or without a recognizable cause. There. That's my contribution to science.