dendodge

Sarah Palin: "Stand By Our North Korean Allies"

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:42:00 +0000

Sarah Palin North Korea Gaffe on Glenn Beck Show - ABC News

I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the following quote from Sarah Palin, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2012:

This is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do.
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck Show, quoted by ABC News

Sanctioning North Korea’s actions doesn’t sound like sound foreign policy to me. Of course, she could have meant "imposing sanctions on North Korea", and I thought she probably did, until:

Obviously, we gotta [sic] stand with our North Korean allies
ibid.

Stand with our [the USA's] North Korean allies? Either this woman has no knowledge whatsoever of foreign policy or international affairs, or she is a closet Communist. Either way, it's probably not going to help her political career.
I can't help but feel that, if she were being interviewed by anybody other than Glenn Beck, she would have received more of a grilling.

Six Days or Three Billion Years: How Did We Get Here?

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:08:00 +0000

Was the Earth really made like this?

Young Earth creationism is surprisingly popular in what is supposed to be a scientifically enlightened age. Nearly 151 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, his magnum opus, the work has still received no convincing challenge or competing theory from within the scientific community. The theory is so logical and elegant, yet many people still refuse to believe it.

In a particularly disturbing 2008 Gallup poll, 44% of American adults agreed with the following statement:

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
Gallup poll, 2008

Compare that figure to the 36% who believe that "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and the minuscule fourteen percent who believe that "[h]uman beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".

Arguments about the creationist theory after the jump.

Young Earth creationists argue that the world was created in six days by the beardy man in the sky, some time in the last ten thousand years. The vast majority of modern scientists argue that the Earth has existed for thousands of millions of years, and that life has developed gradually over a period of between three and four thousand million years (and that the universe has existed for even longer than that; the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred more than 13,500,000,000 (thirteen-and-a-half thousand million) years ago).

I used to think young Earth creationism was restricted to red-state Americans with accounts on Conservapedia (see Conservapedia Lies). However, it appears that this is not the case. On television this morning, a man from the United Kingdom was given the opportunity to use the BBC as a soapbox to denounce natural selection, asking such intelligent and informed questions as:

In survival of the fittest, the strong survive. This goes against evolution, because under such a theory, where does new information come from?
Paraphrased from Sunday Morning Live, BBC

The fact that he even felt the need to ask that question shows that he does not have any understanding of how evolution by natural selection works (genetic mutations that are beneficial to an animal's survival allow it to propagate, thus spreading the beneficial mutation to its offspring).

I picked a random creationist website, and decided to discuss their arguments in favour of creationism.

Here goes:

There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
AllAboutCreation.org

Body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually? The part about cells is certainly untrue - the most basic cells (such as prokaryotes) consist only of a cell membrane (a simple phospholipid bilayer that is easy to form), ribosomes for protein synthesis, and cytoplasm in which loose genetic information floats around (and genetic information can quickly replicate from a single string of RNA, as it did in the primordial soup, and in much the same way as these lifeforms reproduce asexually at an exponential rate).

Body parts creationists often choose to support their argument are the eye and the wing - after all, what use is half an eye? Well, it isn't difficult to see how an animal with the ability to distinguish between light and dark could have an advantage over its cousins who lack the ability, and how this could slowly evolve, over millions of years, into more and more complex eyes until one ends up with the eyes of a human being in all their complexity. The same goes for a wing - an animal with a small flap of skin under its arms will be able to fall from slightly greater heights without splatting on a nearby rock, and thus will have more chance of survival. Over thousands or millions of years, the flap could get bigger and bigger in successive generations until one has a bird or a bat.

As for transitional forms in the fossil record, I would point the creationists towards Archaeoptryx - the famous fossil half way between a dinosaur and a bird. To be honest, the fossil record is full of gaps, but that is only because of how extremely unlikely fossilisation is - very, very, very, few animals will be fossilised upon death.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.
ibid.

The failure to create life from lifelessness doesn't disprove evolution; it just implies that we are going about it the wrong way. The evolutionary process takes millions of years, and the dawn of life occurred after millennia of lifeless particles floating around in the primordial soup (which, I add, we know little about). This point proves nothing regarding evolution or creationism.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.
ibid.

DNA and RNA need only arise once (and with so much time available, it was almost inevitable that they would). Such is the nature of their replication system that as soon as a single strand of such a replicator arises, the number of identical strands can grow exponentially - as soon as a mistake is made, you have a distinct new chain. Imagine this happening over thousands of millions of years. That is evolution.

I have already covered the workings of single cells when I discussed prokaryotes. Now, imagine a prokaryote finds its way inside a larger eukaryotic cell. They live symbiotically, and the prokaryote becomes a mitochondrion. Cell organelles all have such simple explations, and over millions of years of trial and error, the design of a cell has become very complex, but there is a simple process behind it.

The writer of that paragraph also made the mistake of assuming that natural selection is a random process. In fact, it is quite the opposite. While the original mutations are somewhat random, the process by which the fittest organisms survive to procreate and the weakest die at the hands of predators or in competition for resources is anything but random.

The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.
ibid.

Yes, there are some holes in the Big Bang theory, in that we don't know what came "before" the Big Bang (if, of course, time even existed before then), but it does a good job of explaining the origins of matter, including stars, planets and, eventually, life (I can recommend some good books on the subject written for non-technical audiences if anybody is interested).

Since we don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang, we cannot reliably claim that we came from nothing. And why do things need a purpose? Can't we just exist because that's the way the universe worked out?

Plus, I add that for God to create the universe, he had to exist beforehand. Of course, that raises the important question of where anything as complex as God came from - it is difficult to argue irreducible complexity while also accepting the existence of what must be the most complex being ever.

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?
ibid.

I am hesitant to even include this here, for it does not appear to be much of an argument. To reduce that text to a single sentence, one could write, "It says so in the Bible, and that's an old book, so it must be true". That is not a valid argument. If you believe everything you read, you must also admit that there is a Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and that Peter Rabbit had best stay out of Mr McGregor's garden.

I tried to look at this as impartially as possible, but I cannot help but come out believing more sincerely than ever in the Big Bang theory and evolution by natural selection..

Slavery, Rape, and Genocide: The Christian Philosophy

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:20:00 +0000

This guy approves of such things?
But he has a halo!

The Bible is a book that seems to be respected above all others - if one dares to criticise its contents (or, worse, its truthfulness), one is condemned as a heretic (often by the same people who burned copes of Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft).

Perhaps we need to take a good, long, look at this book that is used as a basis for the morals of countless people worldwide (arguably a much larger number than the estimated 2.2 billion Christians in the world, due to the influence of Christian politicians). This is a book that, on numerous occasions, actively promotes such Christian acts as slavery, genocide, and the rape of prepubescent girls!

Choice passages and extended commentary after the jump.

Slavery

The following passages, explicitly or implicitly, support the taking and mistreatment of slaves:

The Old Testament

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
(Exodus 21:2-6)

Here we have Exodus giving guidelines on how to treat your Hebrew slaves (this seems to conflict with Leviticus, which stated that no Hebrews are to be taken as slaves (see below), but a lot can change in the space of one book, I guess). It seems to suggest that you can hold your slave's wife and kids captive until he agrees to live out his days in your service. Hostage-taking, as well as slavery? That doesn't sound very Christian!

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
(Exodus 21:7-11)

This passage supports a man selling his daughter into service as a concubine or prostitute. What more needs to be said?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
(Exodus 21:20-21)

Another one from Exodus chapter 21. In this one, you're allowed to beat your slave as long as they survive for more than two days afterwards. That isn't even a prohibition against killing the slave, it just means you have to prolong their suffering. If anything, that's less moral than killing them quickly and painlessly.

[...] you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46)

So, according to Leviticus, it's ok to take any slaves you like, as long as they're foreign. That sounds perfectly moral to me. What happened to "Love thy neighbour"? Not only is this morally questionable in its support of slavery, it also appears to be highly xenophobic; surely these are not qualities valued by Christian society?

The New Testament

In case you thought this kind of morally reprehensible hogwash was limited to the Old Testament, and that Jesus had different views on the subject, here we go with the New Testament.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
(Luke 12:47-48)

Here we have one of Jesus's wise parables, advising people to punish their servants severely, unless they didn't know that they were doing anythink wrong - in that case, you only punish htem lightly. Yes, another biblical guide on how to treat your slaves!

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
(Ephesians 6:5)

This is an instruction to slaves from the "morally acceptable" New Testament - fear your masters and do whatever they say, because the son of God says so. That is surely not a good message upon which one can base their morals!

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
(1 Timothy 6:1-2)

This Timothy sounds like a nice person. Because your master believes in a beardy man in the sky, you have to work until your bones are bare to please him.

Rape

These passages are perhaps more disturbing, as they permit - nay, encourage - the rape of innocent women (but never men, for homosexuality is a sin above all others . . .)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
(Judges 21:10-24)

This is a very long passage about the efforts of a group of men who took time out of their siege of Jabesh-gilead to rape a few of the locals. It seems they repeatedly raped these poor women in increasingly ingenious ways, then turned and took them home with them as casually as if nothing had happened. If that is what Christians are to do, then I will make sure my sister stays away from the local church!

Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
(Numbers 31:7-18)

Here we have Moses instructing his soldiers to rape every virgin they find during their attack on the city, and take them home to act as their permanent concubines.

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

This could have gone in the previous category, but I figured it was more suitable in this one. Basically, if these people surrender, they are to be made slaves, but if they don't they are to be killed and have their women raped. Again. This seems to be a common theme in the Old Testament.

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

More of the same: Rape your female prisoners of war.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

If you're raped, you have to marry the rapist. Yeah, that marriage is going to work out.

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
(2 Samuel 12:11-14)

Here, God himself takes the wives of one man and has another man rape them (note the fact that this man has multiple wives - I was sure the Bible said something about polygamy . . . )

Genocide

I'm not going to bother with any examples for this one, just take a look at the first few in the "Rape" category - most of those include orders to kill every man in the city. There are also a number of quotes in the Bible that refer to other races as "unclean" (or similar adjectives). More racism and xenophobia than a BNP rally!

What's Wrong with a Gay Prime Minister?

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:31:00 +0000

At school today, I was talking with some acquaintances of mine, and the discussion turned to homosexuality. I was shocked to find that the people to whom I was talking would not vote for a homosexual prime minister. They would not even consider the candidate's merits before making a judgemental decision based on societal prejudice.

This appalled me. What makes people think gay people are any worse than straight ones? Why does a person's sexuality matter when considering something like suitability to run the country? Where does this prejudice come from anyway?

Society seems to have a thing about homosexuality. That ever-reliable source of truth, the Bible, states:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

So, religion dislikes it. That's to be expected. But most of the people involved in the conversation were atheist, or at least agnostic, so where do they get their ideals from? Anti-homosexual prejudice is all around us, and it seems to have no definite source. It probably stems from the forcing of Christian values onto the public by a nation that has no such thing as separation of church and state; the church, the head of which is no less than the head of state, shoves its values down our throats, and we are chastised for disagreeing with them. "Gay" has become an insult, and homosexuality is thought of as a disease, or a detestable and unnatural activity, to be practised only by the bottom rung of society. Well, it isn't! It is just a different way of life, that has no impact whatsoever on a person's personality or skills.

Classification:
Religious ridicule

Oh Uganda, Land of Bigots

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:56:00 +0000

Read more on Wikinews

Uganda has introduced legislation to outlaw homosexuality. Under the new law, if it is passed, suspected homosexuals and AIDS patients may be imprisoned for life, and those found practising "aggravated homosexuality" (whatever that means) could be killed.

This is just another piece of homophobic tripe that the world's governments are trying to pass off as being for our own good. They say the law will preserve the culture of the nation, and save its people from eternal damnation (or some other such nonsense). This is, of course, complete hogwash. So what if a person prefers the company of people of their own gender? It's not like they're going on some murderous spree. Giving homosexuality the same penalty as murder and rape is taking things too far, and I fear we are turning Uganda into, if I may enforce Godwin's Law for a moment, the new Nazi Germany.

Besides, the legality of this piece of legislation is doubtful. Uganda is a member of the United Nations, and, as such, is subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

That is the most relevant article, but others could also be said to apply. I think it is quite clear from the above statement that the discrimination intended by this legislation is illegal under international law. It is a mystery to me how the current law, which allows homosexuals to be imprisoned for up to fourteen years, was allowed to be passed.

The freedom to choose whatever partner one likes should not be taken from people. Of course, it is wrong to have intercourse with chickens or goats, but because they are unable to give consent, not because it is unnatural or wrong—it's technically rape.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is between two consenting people in the privacy of their own home. The government has no right to interfere with people's private lives, especially for reasons as flimsy as those given by the government of Uganda.

Classification:
(not so) Laughable law

I Finished NaNoWriMo

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:42:00 +0000

I think an explanation is in order, with regards to the fact that I haven't posted anything for the last month. Well, I have been focusing on National Novel Writing Month, and, I am pleased to announce, I won!
That's right, I wrote a complete novel in just one month. It's called Thur's Utopia (working title), and follows a group of people as they go on a voyage to overthrow an evil sadist dictator. A full synopsis can be read on the "Novel info" tab of my profile.
This is starting to sound like a shameless plug, so I'll wrap it up now by revealing that that is indeed just what it is. I have six months to edit it, and it should be available for purchase on Amazon by June. I'll keep you updated.

I will be absent again around Christmas, and possibly then for the remaining few days of December. This is because I will be spending the festive season at my Grandma's house, and she lacks internet access.

Classification:

Cultural calamity

Image: Landscape: http://tinyurl.com/yaq4pvf Obelisk: http://tinyurl.com/yadg5ob. Both CC-BY-SA 2.0

GeoCities is Gone

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:42:00 +0000

GeoCities was hailed when it began all those years ago for allowing people to create their own websites and online identities. It soon transpired, however, that these were the wrong people.

Garish backgrounds, the <blink> and <marquee> tags, and terrible background music should be a thing of the past now, however, as GeoCities has officially closed!
In memoriam, I have collected together a sample of the worst aspects of amateur web design at reallybadsite.webs.com (not suitable for users prone to photosensitive epileptic seizures). You may think it's slightly exaggerated, but—worryingly—it's not far from the truth. If you ever attend an IT class at my school, you will be amazed by how similar the students' designs are to my parody. Seriously...

It was actually hard to create something like that, despite knowing a decent amount of HTML, and it makes me wonder how Y10 students are able to do it without thinking, "If I were supposed to be doing this, it wouldn't involve so many hacks." Alas, they are.

I am almost certain I have missed some things, so I would appreciate any suggestions on how to make my really bad site even worse.

Classification:
Technological trauma

Image: Logo of Yahoo! GeoCities. The copyright is believed to belong to Yahoo!. Use here is believed to constitute "Fair Dealing" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

BNP on the BBC

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:54:00 +0000

Read more on BBC News

The BBC has announced that it will allow Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (a whites-only fascist party in the UK) on its Question Time panel tonight.

This has, understandably, sparked controversy due to the party's unpopular racist policies. There are demonstrators outside the BBC Television Centre as I write this, complaining that the BBC is offering racists a platform to promote their views.

I am no fan of the BNP—in fact, I despise their policies and disagree with pretty much everything they say—but I think it is important to remember that the BNP, rightly or wrongly, are a political party. The idea of Question Time is that it offers all viewpoints an opportunity to express themselves. This includes the BNP. To deny what is, for the moment, considered a legitimate political party the opportunity to appear on the programme would be showing bias.

The BBC are in no way showing support of the BNP by doing this. In fact, quite the opposite: They are being perfectly impartial. Whether or not you agree with the BNP's policies, the fact is that they are a legitimate organisation that should not be denied the opportunity to debate politics with parties of other viewpoints.

If we only let one viewpoint on the show, it wouldn't be a debate, would it?

If you don't like the BNP, don't vote for them.

Classification:

Cultural calamity

Image: Nick Griffin from Flikr user Britishnationalism. CC-BY-SA 2.0

Facial Spacial Arrangement

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:44:00 +0000

Why is it that almost every animal just happens to have developed the exact same facial arrangement?

We all look something like this:

O O        Eyes
   >         Nose
\_/        Mouth

Apart from a few exceptions (Brachiosaurus had its nostrils on the top of its head, for example), every animal on the planet has a face like that.

Why do none look like this, for example?
   >         Nose
\_/        Mouth
O O        Eyes

It wouldn't be any less sensible, nor any less useful, than the current configuration. So why has it never been evolved?

Some people may put it forward as evidence of divine intervention—a creator, if you will—but I put it down to convergent evolution.

It must be a particularly good configuration, for some reason. It makes sense for the nose to be directly above the mouth, nostrils down (either that or below the mouth, nostrils up), as it plays an important part in taste, and the highly-positioned eyes provide a greater visual range (like the view from the top of a tall tower).

Or, it may just be that this arrangement was developed (for whatever reason) by the earliest lifeforms, from which all others evolved.

So, divine creator, or just evolution? The latter is more rational and has a scientific basis (while the former may have been accepted in the past, we now have more reasonable alternatives than we did then) so it gets my vote.

Classification:

Mindless musing

Religious ridicule

Manual Musings

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:47:00 +0000

I haven't had much time to post for the last week or so, so I am just copy-pasting some randomness I came up with a while back from a text document on my laptop, purely for the purpose of amusement:

It seems that every new piece of technology has a manual to go with it. Did the first ever manual, then, have an accompanying manual? Of course, this second manual would—in turn—require its own manual, which would require its own manual, which would... (OK, you get the idea). This would result in manuals all the way down, each one being identical to every other, except for the first manual (the one the second manual describes).

It may have just been easier to have a person to explain how to use the new technology, but talking was new once—would we not need a manual instructing one on how to do that, then?

Who actually reads manuals, anyway? After 100 pages, you are left with no more knowledge of how to use the appliance than that with which you started. In fact, in many cases, one is left even more confused.

The phrase “Insert rod A into slot B, and attach flange C by joint D” (and variants) is one that was undoubtedly invented for no purpose other than to confuse the reader of an instruction manual; even the people who write it have no idea what they are writing about. It is unusual in that it is the only phrase in the English language that has no meaning whatsoever.

Have you ever seen any Swedish flat-pack furniture in its fully-assembled state outside of the shop in which it is sold? It's all a conspiracy by the Swedes to increase sales. If nobody is able to assemble a piece of furniture, it therefore seems far more unique when you see it in-store.

Those greedy, monopolistic, Swedish furniture designers and their bamboozling, bewildering, booklets must be stopped!

Not very interesting or amusing, but it was the first random document I opened that was even vaguely good.

Classification:
Mindless musing

The Future Past

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:18:00 +0000

Today, a friend of mine brought up an interesting question, which I thought I would share with the world:

In the future, what will this period be known as?

We have the Iron Age, defined by the use of iron; the period defined by Roman rule, known generally (to small children, at least) as "Roman times"; the Middle Ages; the Tudor period, defined by the British royal family having the surname Tudor...

So what, in the future, will the current period be known as?

I and my friends suggested a number of possibilities, such as the "electric age" and similar, but couldn't think of anything that makes this period particularly special—after all, technological innovation will continue for many years beyond now, and that is what has so greatly defined the era so far.

For Britain, the last 57 years, 249 days, have had the same monarch, but "Elizabethan" is already taken. "Saxe-Coberg-Gothan" is a bit of a mouthful, although "Windsorian" is a possibility.

The US, however, could only give a name based on this method to periods of 8 years or less (unless you combine the Bushes and similar political families), so it wouldn't work for them.

I would be interested in hearing any suggestions anybody has via comments.

Classification:
Mindless musing

Selling Assets after the Horse has Bolted

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Read more on BBC News

Gordon Brown yesterday announced that he is going to sell £16 billion-worth of public assets, in an attempt to fight the financial crisis.

Sounds like it might be a good idea... notwithstanding the fact that these assets are worth only 15% of their peak value: Land to be sold when the development market is at its lowest point for a long time; a bookmaker to be sold when nobody has the money to waste on betting on horse races; a continental rail link to be sold when nobody is going on holiday. Not the best time, then...

Besides, we will just continue to waste and misspend, descending back into this same situation and being forced to sell more assets, a cycle that will continue until we have none left. This does not combat the underlying problem: Corruption at the top, both of the government and of the banks.

Classification:

Financial failure

Image: Gordon Brown from Wikimedia Commons. CC-BY-SA 2.0

Virtual Violence

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:10:00 +0000

My brother was recently playing on an Xbox game, Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (which doesn't seem to have the correct definition of the word mercenary, but I'll let that slide), and I was shocked at the amount of violence embodied within it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to violent games: Without violence, games, books, films, and TV programmes would not be as interesting, but this seems to be slightly over-the-top. I witnessed my brother delighting in committing acts of terrorism, like blowing up a bridge and a mansion. If the game were 18-rated, I wouldn't mind so much, but it gets away with only a 16 (in the US, it's a "Teen", meaning 13+!), and these ratings are not legally enforceable, unlike those imposed upon films by the BBFC.

To be fair to the makers of the game, this was not called for by the missions, unlike the Grand Theft Auto series, the point of which is to beat people up and steal their cars. Seriously, the idea of a game where you play as a violent criminal (a mass murderer, in fact) rather sickens me.

It's all well and good to defend your planet from an alien invasion, or to play a war game, but mindless terrorism and violent criminal acts are not good things to expose children to.

Games can be fun without all this violence and sex—look how popular Rock Band and Guitar Hero are! And Tetris is a much-loved classic that shows no desire to lose this status any time soon. As I said, violence doesn't necessarily make a game bad, but violence for violence's sake does.

Classification:

Cultural calamity

Technological trauma

Image: Cover art of Mercenaries 2: World in Flames. The copyright is believed to belong to Pandemic game publishers. Use here is believed to constitute "Fair Dealing" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

Image Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:49:00 +0000

I was on Skype last night, and somebody was asking how easy it would be to remove the blobs from the corners of this image:

I said, honestly, that it would be—for the most part—a simple clone stamp. I offered to do it for him, since the clone stamping would take me about 5 minutes. (I got told off for calling a ship a boat, but that's unimportant).

However, I hit a problem when I realised that the white blur at the bottom-right was affecting the shadow rather heavily, and a clone stamp would not be able to fix that. With a bit of work, I managed to replicate the direction of the shadow, and add a false ripple.

While I had the image open, I foolishly offered to remove the dust marks from the image. That should be a simple job, but the image was rather heavily artefacted by JPEG compression, which complicated it slightly. However, it wasn't too hard, simply tedious (there's lots of tiny flecks of dirt that cannot be seen until you zoom in to ~200%), and I eventually managed to get it cleaned up.

The end result is nowhere near perfect, but I like to think that it is better than what I started with:

Classification:
Technological trauma

Metaphysics

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:12:00 +0000

I finished reading Nineteen Eighty-Four last night, and it put an interesting thought into my head, namely:

How do we know reality doesn't change every second?

If the state of every atom and piece of radiation were to change every second, along with our minds and memories, how would we know that it had ever been any different?

If nobody remembered otherwise, and their was no trace of their former state, it is a theoretically possible scenario.

Of course, it is almost a complete impossibility, but it is impossible to prove or disprove the theory. This is a Russell's teapot scenario, in a sense. The point is, anything could be going on right under our noses, and we just don't notice... KILLER GERBILS!

Classification:
Mindless musing

Image: Stylised lithium atom from Wikimedia Commons. CC-BY-SA 3.0

the importance of punctuation

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:19:00 +0000

i am normally a stickler for grammar but this post you will notice contains no punctuation whatsoever this is part of the statement it intends to make and not a mistake on my part today at school our exam performance was analysed individually and broadcast to the whole class i was amazed at how common the problems of lack of capital letters and full stops were considering this is the top year eleven set this is not good news i dont see how students could possibly think that writing like this is acceptable when they have been taught that it is not for the last twelve years this post is incredibly hard to read i am sure and even harder to write so it seems impossible that anybody could write like this in a gcse examination i can understand perhaps the confusion of homophones like their and there but commas full stops and capital letters have no excuse on the other hand perhaps i am underestimating my peers and my class is simply full of future james joyces

Translation for people who do not wish to attempt to extract meaning from that mindless babbling:

I am normally a stickler for grammar, but this post, you will notice, contains no punctuation whatsoever. This is part of the statement it intends to make, and not a mistake on my part.

Today, at school, our exam performance was analysed individually and broadcast to the whole class. I was amazed at how common the problems of lack of capital letters and full stops were. Considering this is the top year 11 set, this is not good news.

I don't see how students could possibly think that writing like this is acceptable when they have been taught that it is not for the last 12 years!

This post is incredibly hard to read, I am sure, and even harder to write, so it seems impossible that anybody could write like this in a GCSE examination. I can understand, perhaps, the confusion of homophones like their and there, but commas, full-stops, and capital letters have no excuse.

On the other hand, perhaps I am underestimating my peers, and my class is simply full of future James Joyces...

Classification:
Ed Balls-up

The Death of English Literature

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:01:00 +0000

What has gone wrong with the world?

I recently borrowed George Orwell's famous dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four—a book I have been meaning to read for a long time—from the school library. I was the first person to borrow it from the library in the 9 years it had been there.

As I wandered around the corridors immersed in the classic book's prose, I was shocked by the number of times I was forced to have the following conversation:

Person: What are you reading?
Me: Nineteen Eighty-Four
Person: Who wrote it?
Me: George Orwell
Person: Who's that?

And, no, that wasn't a clever reference to George Orwell not being his real name. It was English schoolchildren never having heard of one of the most famous and acclaimed authors of all time. Even my very intelligent bookworm friend, who is hardly ever seen without his head in a book, had never heard of Eric Arthur Blair, his more common pen name, or his notable magnum opus. In fact, nobody I spoke to, apart from teachers, had ever heard of any of them!

What is the nation's school system coming to, when schoolchildren are not even taught of the existence of classic books or acclaimed authors? It's no wonder no adolescents read nowadays; it stems from their lack of good reading material. When we read Shakespeare or Dickens, we are limited to 3 scenes/chapters, and the only books we read all the way through are, quite frankly, boring. This is a book that pupils my age would enjoy, and they are being denied the chance to read it! In fact, I had to search for at least a quarter of an hour to find the book in the school library, before I was shown its location in an obscure corridor (guarded by a door) leading to the lift.

Classification:
Cultural calamity
Ed Balls-up

Image: First edition cover of Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949. The copyright is believed to belong to Secker & Warburg of London. Use here is believed to constitute "Fair Dealing" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988.

Blog update

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:54:00 +0000

I have decided to expand the scope of this blog to include general inane chatter and venting of my opinions on life. However, I do hope to continue Wikimedia-related content.

And please don't tease me about the new sibilant strap-line (there I go again!)—it was all I could think of.

Abuse filter

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:27:00 +0000

The abuse filter's been turned on.
Click this post title to find out more.

(I'm not in a blogging mood - I'm only posting this because I haven't posted anything since February)

Ringo needs some love

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:04:00 +0000

Ringo Starr's in a sorry state. He's the only Beatle left at B-Class. Even Sutcliffe and Best are GAs! He's a long way off GA, and I can't make it all alone.
Here's my appeal:

Make at least 5 major (i.e. not just spelling/grammar) edits to [[Ringo Starr]], point out that you have on my talk page, and receive a shiny barnstar when it gets to GA

I'm no good at content contributions, so I need a little help from my friends to increase our coverage of the world's greatest band.

(Note: All 5 qualifying edits must be made between today - 18 Feb - and the passing of Ringo's GAN)

Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:18:00 +0000

The patriot inside me has decided to actively support (and work on) the Oxford Wikimania 2010 bid. Please help!

My new less-BITEy template

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:55:00 +0000

Upon the recent blocking of 2 of my school's 3 IP addresses, I decided to leave the third a friendly message warning them against further vandalism.
I didn't want to leave another BITEy vandalism warning, so I began with a bit of (quite bad) humour:

For once, you're getting a message that isn't of the "OMG! PLZ STOP TEH VANDALIZATIONZ!!11oneoneeleven" variety.

I then went on to tell them how much more fun it is to contribute constructively. But I didn't completely avoid mention of the possible consequences and the policies they were in violation of - I warned them about their outing of me, and their BLP violations.

I then offered to help them if they ever needed it.

I was so happy with the way it turned out, I turned it into a template in my userspace.
The full text of said template is:

A friendly warning

For once, you're getting a message that isn't of the "OMG! PLZ STOP TEH VANDALIZATIONZ!!11oneoneeleven" variety.

Instead, I'm offering you a word of advice.

Yes, I know this is a school's shared IP, so, if you see this message, please pass it on to your friends.

I know it seems more fun, at first, to vandalise Wikipedia, but it's not. Trust me - you can only get so much fun out of replacing article text with comments on your teacher's moustache or how gay your friend is. And it only lasts a minute or so, anyway.

But the sense of satisfaction you can get from knowing that what you write will be read by, and used to inform, millions of people around the world certainly eclipses that sense of fun. I'm sure you use Wikipedia to research stuff for school (you might want to read WP:General disclaimer), and you wouldn't like it if you copied some text to hand in to your teacher (we all do it, even though they say not to) and it said "STEVE IS A BIG FAT GAY!" in it, would you? So please think about other people. If you know something (and you can find a reliable source for it), please add it - share your knowledge, and your edits will stick. If you're really serious about contributing, why not create an account?

It really is more fun to contribute constructively, and you don't get blocked for it!

Feel free to contact me if you want to know more. I'd be willing to adopt a user with a real desire to contribute, and I'd be happy to help anyone who needs it.

I realise that this comment is getting a bit long, so here's a TLDR summary: It's more fun to contribute than it is to vandalise!

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and an even bigger thank you if you decide not to vandalise having read this - the biggest thanks, however, go to whoever begins to contribute constructively having read this, and who urges their friends to do the same. (If you want to edit, you would do well to read the tutorial).

Thanks again, ~~~~

I urge everyone to use it when warning a school - it's a lot kinder than the standard UW templates. Simply paste {{subst:User:Dendodge/School warning|1=TEXT TO REPLACE "your teacher's moustache or how gay your friend is"}} on the user's talk page (without a header or signature).

Come on England!

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:54:00 +0000

I'm representing England in the WikiCup 2008, and anticipate that I will do as well as England usually does. You remember Eurovision?

Nil points

Well, it's going to happen again. Look who I'm against! JulianColton, Ottava Rima, Shapiros 10...

Actually, it's nowhere near as good as Eurovision - there's no Wogan!

Well, it'll be fun... I guess...

Blog reset

noreply@blogger.com (Dendodge) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:46:00 +0000

I've said some things on here that weren't received how I intended. I don't want to be forever remembered for a few throwaway comments made in anger, so I've deleted the entire contents of this blog.
It's a new year, and a chance to make a fresh start. Please don't judge me by what I said here, but by what I am going to say from today onwards.

A very happy new year to everyone.

dendodge

Sarah Palin: "Stand By Our North Korean Allies"

Six Days or Three Billion Years: How Did We Get Here?

Slavery, Rape, and Genocide: The Christian Philosophy

Slavery

The Old Testament

The New Testament

Rape

Genocide

Other morally questionable acts

What's Wrong with a Gay Prime Minister?

Oh Uganda, Land of Bigots

I Finished NaNoWriMo

GeoCities is Gone

BNP on the BBC

Facial Spacial Arrangement

Manual Musings

The Future Past

Selling Assets after the Horse has Bolted

Virtual Violence

Image Restoration

Metaphysics

the importance of punctuation

The Death of English Literature

Blog update

Abuse filter

Ringo needs some love

Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid

My new less-BITEy template

A friendly warning

Come on England!

Blog reset