Right, new plan: I won't post news stories up here any more, I'll actually post the links on my new Twitter Account! (Sure hope that link works for yas...)
So if you want updates from different news sources: Clickedy-clack that "follow"-button!
Freitag, 21. September 2012
Mittwoch, 19. September 2012
News stories and stuff, 19.9.2012
The first story is about how Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy.
This is a really nice article, describing in quite some detail why Creationists want to latch on to the outdated notion of non-feathery dinosaurs. And let's be clear about this: Some dinosaurs did have feathers. They are either the direct ancestors or close cousins of modern birds. Birds ARE dinosaurs.
This quote sums up the article quite nicely:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next story is about the recent/ongoing violence from some fundamentalist Muslims. (I call them "offended Muslims".) Sam Harris wrote an excellent piece on the issue: On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
I've also written something here, which I think sums up the whole issue.
Here's the gist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another story is Carl Zimmer's condensed version of the E. Coli long-time study. Read it, it's so worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article is one exploring Nuclear Fusion Reactor "ITER". I'll give my views on the issue in a LoR post, but basically Fusion is a distant objective and we need to get there, but in the mean time we need other means of producing clean energy. In other words: Fission.
This is a really nice article, describing in quite some detail why Creationists want to latch on to the outdated notion of non-feathery dinosaurs. And let's be clear about this: Some dinosaurs did have feathers. They are either the direct ancestors or close cousins of modern birds. Birds ARE dinosaurs.
This quote sums up the article quite nicely:
If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next story is about the recent/ongoing violence from some fundamentalist Muslims. (I call them "offended Muslims".) Sam Harris wrote an excellent piece on the issue: On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
I've also written something here, which I think sums up the whole issue.
Here's the gist:
By the way, this has yet to be posted. It proves what Aron said about the evolution/creation debate: We're not using the same terminology.
For example, when an offended Muslim (meaning the ones who riot, as opposed to the majority who don't) says the following: (Quote from the NY Times article)
“We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights,” ... “The West has to understand the ideology of the people.”
they don't use the same "rights"-definition as we do.
To use that particular example:
Personal rights are usually (roughly) defined as "anything I can do without harming you". Combined with "Freedom Of Speech" it means that I can say negative things against you (with exceptions such as slander, etc.) and that wouldn't be a violation of your "right".
In their view, a "right" is "believing anything and everything without it being subjected to criticism".
I'm sure we all agree those two "definitions" are quite different.
I don't agree that you should have the right to get offended at something like that. I think what one SHOULD get offended at is honour killings, killing people for being a member of the Country in which an offence against your loony beliefs took place, the Inquisition, circumcision and the (almost systematic) abuse of small children.
Funny enough, the very people who talk about having their rights protected don't seem to care about the rights of others.
As both I and Hytegia pointed out though, there are those who don't take that view and disagree with the offended Muslims. They're the vast majority, but the problem is that they're not as vocal. Or maybe... just maybe, our press relishes the conflict. DogmasDemise, is it entirely possible that your experience of the protests, protesters and of Muslims in general is formed by the press only? Because mine isn't. I routinely frequent Muslim countries and I can, with some confidence, say that my opinion is a more objective one. What I'm saying is: Your opinion was made by others.
In any case, the article mentions one other thing and it is something I want to address:
"... the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that “the West” had imposed laws against “those who deny or express dissident views on the Holocaust or question the number of Jews killed by Hitler, a topic which is purely historical, not a sacred doctrine.”"
First, one needs to point out, as was mentioned in the article, that the US don't have that ban.
Second: Yes, that's precisely the point. Well, the words are the wrong way round, it should be "scientific history" and "merely doctrine". The difference between the two is that one can be absolutely proven to have taken place, while you can't say, with any certainty at least, anything about the other, aka your religion. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge". (At least, that's the difference I see.)
There's another difference, though: The historical fact of the holocaust cost people their lives, 6 million in fact. That's not something one can or should trivialize.
Your belief though, whether it be true or not, does not play in the same category, in fact it can never. I'm trying to organize my thoughts on how to express this, but it seems that the English language is inadequate to express what I want to say. I shall try again soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another story is Carl Zimmer's condensed version of the E. Coli long-time study. Read it, it's so worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article is one exploring Nuclear Fusion Reactor "ITER". I'll give my views on the issue in a LoR post, but basically Fusion is a distant objective and we need to get there, but in the mean time we need other means of producing clean energy. In other words: Fission.
Mittwoch, 5. September 2012
News stories 5.9.2012
Yesterday I talked about two things that I'll talk about again: The circumcision issue and whether or not organic or bio products are good for you.
FAZ: Öko-Debatte im Bioladen -> Ecological debate in Bio-stores
This is basically the same story as the Guardian's yesterday, so I won't have to repeat myself. I did however manage to find the actual paper the stories are based on:
Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau, Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger, Maren Pearson, Paul J. Eschbach, Vandana Sundaram, Hau Liu, Patricia Schirmer, Christopher Stave, Ingram Olkin, Dena M. Bravata; Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?A Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012 Sep;157(5):348-366.
This is only the short version by the way, the whole article is only for people who have money, which I don't. It shows one thing I didn't see in the Guardian story, so here it is:
FAZ: Berlin stellt Beschneidungen straffrei -> Berlin allows circumcision
... with certain rules. Only certified doctors can do it, it has to be in a sterile environment, etc. That's a huge improvement over what was done before, but it's still mutilation. Westerwelle (German Minister of Foreign Affairs) wants to "preserve Jewish and Muslim traditions".
To which I say: No, fuck em! It's not tradition, it's mutilation.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
There's an excellent video that explains DNA, watch it then come back. Don't read the comments though, they're quite stupid. Or actually, DO read them and try to figure out just WHY they're stupid.
Done? Good.
Now I'm not sure about you, but this seems like slightly out-dated news to me. We already knew that non-coding DNA had something to do with the regulation of gene expression. We're just finding out that it plays a bigger part than we thought.
Now I'm going to wait until one of two things happens:
1) An expert in the field blogs/talks about it and I find out I've been wrong.
2) I get my hands on the actual research.
I couldn't find the actual research yet and Encode seem to have published their last paper in 2011, so it's unlikely that the article is referring to that...
FAZ: Öko-Debatte im Bioladen -> Ecological debate in Bio-stores
This is basically the same story as the Guardian's yesterday, so I won't have to repeat myself. I did however manage to find the actual paper the stories are based on:
Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau, Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger, Maren Pearson, Paul J. Eschbach, Vandana Sundaram, Hau Liu, Patricia Schirmer, Christopher Stave, Ingram Olkin, Dena M. Bravata; Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?A Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012 Sep;157(5):348-366.
This is only the short version by the way, the whole article is only for people who have money, which I don't. It shows one thing I didn't see in the Guardian story, so here it is:
Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.Again, not surprising. I'm still buying organic food if I can.
FAZ: Berlin stellt Beschneidungen straffrei -> Berlin allows circumcision
... with certain rules. Only certified doctors can do it, it has to be in a sterile environment, etc. That's a huge improvement over what was done before, but it's still mutilation. Westerwelle (German Minister of Foreign Affairs) wants to "preserve Jewish and Muslim traditions".
To which I say: No, fuck em! It's not tradition, it's mutilation.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
There's an excellent video that explains DNA, watch it then come back. Don't read the comments though, they're quite stupid. Or actually, DO read them and try to figure out just WHY they're stupid.
Done? Good.
Now I'm not sure about you, but this seems like slightly out-dated news to me. We already knew that non-coding DNA had something to do with the regulation of gene expression. We're just finding out that it plays a bigger part than we thought.
Now I'm going to wait until one of two things happens:
1) An expert in the field blogs/talks about it and I find out I've been wrong.
2) I get my hands on the actual research.
I couldn't find the actual research yet and Encode seem to have published their last paper in 2011, so it's unlikely that the article is referring to that...
Blog-newsreel and plans
A few days ago, some people from the LeagueOfReason came together and discussed a potential new format for LoR-blogging and videos and the like. We'll see how that develops, but in the mean time I thought I'd start blogging again myself.
My new content will be mainly about news stories, on the topics of science, morality, economics and politics. That's a lot to cover, so I'll only take stories that interest me and I'll pretty much focus on Europe and German-speaking countries.
So without much ado, here's the first story:
Guardian - Organic food no better for you, suggests US study
The whole thing is basically the summary of a study (when, which one?) that suggests the above. To be honest, I'm not terribly shocked. Why would organic food have more nutrients than "normal" food? With the amount of fertilizing being done, I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it turned out that organic food actually has less nutrients in it.
Impact of this story on my life? 0%. None. Nada.
I'll still buy organic foods as much as possible for two reasons:
1) It's better for the environment and, if we're talking about meat, it's also better for the animals.
2) In most cases, organic food is also local food. Not importing food from far away means that a) the farmers from lower economically developed countries (LEDC's) actually have a shot at subsistence economy and b) you need less fuel to bring it to your plate, thus lowering the total CO2 output.
And if those are not enough reasons for you to buy organic food, except of course if you really can't afford it, then you're a twat. Simple as that.
The second story comes from the fabulous and extremely well researched "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". (FAZ) Yeah I know, German. In fact, many of my stories will come from that newspaper. I'll give you the gist:
FAZ - Wissenschaftler als Arbeitstiere -> Are scientists workaholics?
The short answer is "yes". They link to an excellent scientific paper, henceforth known as paper, which explains the study in English. Go, read it!
Done? Good.
The examiners basically looked at the amount of downloads of scientific papers done by scientists over a course of eight days. They looked at how many papers they'd download and when during the day. Unsurprising fact? Scientists work a lot during the weekend and they work very late at night.
Slightly surprising fact, at least to me? Chinese scientists take their lunch- and dinner-breaks very seriously, but they work more during the weekend.
The researchers conclude that scientists are working too much and should balance their workload with... a life. But then, who would do that when there's cancer to be cured and DNA to be sequenced? And particles to be smashed? AND!!!
The next story is also from the FAZ:
FAZ: Europa droht die Schlusslaterne -> Europe to be last in race for patents
The article basically suggests that everybody's passing Europe when it comes to making patents. I'm not going to dispute that, but one thing the article does not mention: How successful are the articles? I mean I could patent an object that removes boogers from my nose, but who will want that?
In any case, Europe: Pick up the fucking ball!
That was kinda short, so let's go to...
FAZ: Jacobs Beschneidung -> Jacobs circumcision
The article explores the depraved Leo Latasch's comparison of an eight day year old's (Jacob) circumcision to a girl getting her ears pierced. There are two videos right at the bottom, I'll link to em here:
"The Circumcision of Jacob Chai" (uncut cut version)
Kylie's ear piercing trauma
Now the "good" Jewish doctor suggests the following: We don't know if the babies (at a circumcision) are crying out of pain or out of hunger, because they haven't eaten in a few hours, which is standard medical procedure. I think if you watch the video, it's clear the boy is crying because he's being a) disturbed in his sleep and b) having his penis cut!
He then compares the whole thing to a girl getting her ears pierced and, because the girl cries longer, suggests that they're at least on equal footing.
No, they're not you inhumane asshole! Here's why:
1) To remove the blood from the boys penis, a man (usually the rabbi) takes a mouthful of wine and sucks the blood from the boys genitalia. Sometimes, he even covers the genitalia with his mouth to "disinfect" the wound. Here's the problem: It doesn't actually disinfect, it INFECTS. That's right, people can actually die from that. The kids can get herpes, permanent brain damage and they can die.
As much as I dislike kids with pierced ears, I have never heard of one dying from it. Ever.
2) One is done for a religious reason, the other isn't. As weak a reason as "being pretty" may be, "because God said so" is an even weaker one. The one can heal and close again if she doesn't want it, the removal of foreskin is permanent.
Leaving that aside though, I'd condemn both of those actions. If your child is old enough, say 12 or so, she can get her ears pierced. But if she's only 4 or 5, you do not do it for her and she doesn't get a say in the matter. It's the same thing with circumcision: If your boy wants to get circumcised when he's of age, he can do that. But DO NOT make that choice for him. It's inhumane. And that's an understatement.
My new content will be mainly about news stories, on the topics of science, morality, economics and politics. That's a lot to cover, so I'll only take stories that interest me and I'll pretty much focus on Europe and German-speaking countries.
So without much ado, here's the first story:
Guardian - Organic food no better for you, suggests US study
The whole thing is basically the summary of a study (when, which one?) that suggests the above. To be honest, I'm not terribly shocked. Why would organic food have more nutrients than "normal" food? With the amount of fertilizing being done, I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it turned out that organic food actually has less nutrients in it.
Impact of this story on my life? 0%. None. Nada.
I'll still buy organic foods as much as possible for two reasons:
1) It's better for the environment and, if we're talking about meat, it's also better for the animals.
2) In most cases, organic food is also local food. Not importing food from far away means that a) the farmers from lower economically developed countries (LEDC's) actually have a shot at subsistence economy and b) you need less fuel to bring it to your plate, thus lowering the total CO2 output.
And if those are not enough reasons for you to buy organic food, except of course if you really can't afford it, then you're a twat. Simple as that.
The second story comes from the fabulous and extremely well researched "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". (FAZ) Yeah I know, German. In fact, many of my stories will come from that newspaper. I'll give you the gist:
FAZ - Wissenschaftler als Arbeitstiere -> Are scientists workaholics?
The short answer is "yes". They link to an excellent scientific paper, henceforth known as paper, which explains the study in English. Go, read it!
Done? Good.
The examiners basically looked at the amount of downloads of scientific papers done by scientists over a course of eight days. They looked at how many papers they'd download and when during the day. Unsurprising fact? Scientists work a lot during the weekend and they work very late at night.
Slightly surprising fact, at least to me? Chinese scientists take their lunch- and dinner-breaks very seriously, but they work more during the weekend.
The researchers conclude that scientists are working too much and should balance their workload with... a life. But then, who would do that when there's cancer to be cured and DNA to be sequenced? And particles to be smashed? AND!!!
The next story is also from the FAZ:
FAZ: Europa droht die Schlusslaterne -> Europe to be last in race for patents
The article basically suggests that everybody's passing Europe when it comes to making patents. I'm not going to dispute that, but one thing the article does not mention: How successful are the articles? I mean I could patent an object that removes boogers from my nose, but who will want that?
In any case, Europe: Pick up the fucking ball!
That was kinda short, so let's go to...
FAZ: Jacobs Beschneidung -> Jacobs circumcision
The article explores the depraved Leo Latasch's comparison of an eight day year old's (Jacob) circumcision to a girl getting her ears pierced. There are two videos right at the bottom, I'll link to em here:
"The Circumcision of Jacob Chai" (uncut cut version)
Kylie's ear piercing trauma
Now the "good" Jewish doctor suggests the following: We don't know if the babies (at a circumcision) are crying out of pain or out of hunger, because they haven't eaten in a few hours, which is standard medical procedure. I think if you watch the video, it's clear the boy is crying because he's being a) disturbed in his sleep and b) having his penis cut!
He then compares the whole thing to a girl getting her ears pierced and, because the girl cries longer, suggests that they're at least on equal footing.
No, they're not you inhumane asshole! Here's why:
1) To remove the blood from the boys penis, a man (usually the rabbi) takes a mouthful of wine and sucks the blood from the boys genitalia. Sometimes, he even covers the genitalia with his mouth to "disinfect" the wound. Here's the problem: It doesn't actually disinfect, it INFECTS. That's right, people can actually die from that. The kids can get herpes, permanent brain damage and they can die.
As much as I dislike kids with pierced ears, I have never heard of one dying from it. Ever.
2) One is done for a religious reason, the other isn't. As weak a reason as "being pretty" may be, "because God said so" is an even weaker one. The one can heal and close again if she doesn't want it, the removal of foreskin is permanent.
Leaving that aside though, I'd condemn both of those actions. If your child is old enough, say 12 or so, she can get her ears pierced. But if she's only 4 or 5, you do not do it for her and she doesn't get a say in the matter. It's the same thing with circumcision: If your boy wants to get circumcised when he's of age, he can do that. But DO NOT make that choice for him. It's inhumane. And that's an understatement.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)