Have you ever wondered why Delta Airlines is not call Alpha Airlnes? Well, I will tell you. It's because they are not anywhere near the top of the list in quality air travel. I recently flew cross country. On the way out I flew Continental, and I have to say it is by far the best airline out there. Not only do they still serve food in the main cabin, but they also give you the whole can of soda when the beverage cart comes around, and they offer Direct TV for each passenger for 6.00 (which is incidentally the same price as alcoholic beverages) that can be paid for using a credit card.
Compared to that my flight back on Delta made me feel like I was riding home in a stripped down rental car. The seats were so old they squeaked and groaned when reclined, the service was lackluster and the TV's (gasp) were the old kind that are square and hung from the center of the isle. I personally saw three tall men hit their heads on them.
It's bad enough to be crammed in on a plane for several hours without having to suffer unnecessarily broken tray tables, and avoidable thirst.
I would gladly pay an extra $20 or $30 to fly Continental. You might want to consider it too.
Ammonite
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Un-believable!
There is a frightening new trend on the rise among the more insane families littering the US. I read yesterday on line about parents who have decided to "unschool" their kids. Unschooling means the parents don't make their kids go to school, nor do they require learning, or anything else from their children. The kids are simply free to do whatever they want, and the idea is that they will figure everything out on their own. If for example they decide they want to be a doctor then they will go to school of their own free will and make it happen. But if they decide they want to be a stay-at-home couch potato that's fine too.
WTF? Are these parents serious? I understand teaching kids to make their own choices, but there is an age where that is appropriate. If a child cannot understand/bear the consequences of the choices they are given, then I don't think they should be making them. A five year old brain is not developed enough to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. You wouldn't give a kindergartner charge of the family finances, so why would you let them decide they don't want to go to school? I think these parents are irresponsible, and should be penalized for experimenting with their children's lives in this way.
If these parents think this is such a great idea why don't they start their unschooling right from the start? Let their two year old decide for themselves they want to be potty trained, and see how much fun they have with that.
I don't know. Maybe I am wrong, but what is the upside of something like this? What is the advantage? Maybe the kids have more fun (who wouldn't with unlimited freedom and no responsibility) but does that help them become productive healthy members of society? I don't see it. What do you think? Check out the video interview (I can't find the associated article I read sorry).
WTF? Are these parents serious? I understand teaching kids to make their own choices, but there is an age where that is appropriate. If a child cannot understand/bear the consequences of the choices they are given, then I don't think they should be making them. A five year old brain is not developed enough to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. You wouldn't give a kindergartner charge of the family finances, so why would you let them decide they don't want to go to school? I think these parents are irresponsible, and should be penalized for experimenting with their children's lives in this way.
If these parents think this is such a great idea why don't they start their unschooling right from the start? Let their two year old decide for themselves they want to be potty trained, and see how much fun they have with that.
I don't know. Maybe I am wrong, but what is the upside of something like this? What is the advantage? Maybe the kids have more fun (who wouldn't with unlimited freedom and no responsibility) but does that help them become productive healthy members of society? I don't see it. What do you think? Check out the video interview (I can't find the associated article I read sorry).
Friday, April 16, 2010
Evolution...what it ain't
The more I read about Darwin and his theories, the more I notice how mis-interpreted he and his ideas are by the general public. I am discovering that when people say "the theory of evolution" they don't really understand what it means. So I thought I'd take a minute to clarify a couple very important points.
1. Evolution is NOT a theory. Natural selection, are punctuated equillibrium are theories, but not evolution. So when one says "the theory of evolution" what they really mean is "the fact of evolution through the theory of natural selection". Keep that in mind when people say "Well...it is after all just a theory..." No it's not. There are hundreds of examples and proofs that evolution occurs. From the fossil record, to the history preserved in our mitochondrea, there is literally proof of evolution everywhere. It's a done deal folks. If you don't believe it, then you may as well just abandon reality all together.
2.Darwin himself never referred to his theory as "evolution". He called his theory "descent with modification". This is because evolution was already in use (see below) and because it implies progress (i.e. After years of practice the boy evolved into a fine violinist). Darwin did not believe that evolution was necessarily progressive and he did not think there was higherarchy in the natural word. He did not think sponges and ameobas were any lower than humans. He didn't think dog were higher than turtles. Many people during the time of Darwin called his theory "transmutation", because the word evolution was already in use to describe the process by which preformation (see earlier post) supposedly occured.
3. Darwin was not the first person to come up with the idea of evolution (as we know it today). There were lot's of people who thought up something simmilar before, but Darwin was the first person to come up with a solution to how it would work (i.e. natural selection). He was also one of the first to hold firmly to the idea that man was created by the same meachanism (natural selection) as every other animal, and that our consciousness and our brains are just the the by product of that process. (In contrast A.R. Wallace, who came up with the same idea as Darwin at almost the same time, thought that natural selection applied to every living thing except the human brain.)
For anyone interested in a more thorough reflection on this subject see the essay "Darwin's Delimma in Stephen Jay Gould's Ever since Darwin.
1. Evolution is NOT a theory. Natural selection, are punctuated equillibrium are theories, but not evolution. So when one says "the theory of evolution" what they really mean is "the fact of evolution through the theory of natural selection". Keep that in mind when people say "Well...it is after all just a theory..." No it's not. There are hundreds of examples and proofs that evolution occurs. From the fossil record, to the history preserved in our mitochondrea, there is literally proof of evolution everywhere. It's a done deal folks. If you don't believe it, then you may as well just abandon reality all together.
2.Darwin himself never referred to his theory as "evolution". He called his theory "descent with modification". This is because evolution was already in use (see below) and because it implies progress (i.e. After years of practice the boy evolved into a fine violinist). Darwin did not believe that evolution was necessarily progressive and he did not think there was higherarchy in the natural word. He did not think sponges and ameobas were any lower than humans. He didn't think dog were higher than turtles. Many people during the time of Darwin called his theory "transmutation", because the word evolution was already in use to describe the process by which preformation (see earlier post) supposedly occured.
3. Darwin was not the first person to come up with the idea of evolution (as we know it today). There were lot's of people who thought up something simmilar before, but Darwin was the first person to come up with a solution to how it would work (i.e. natural selection). He was also one of the first to hold firmly to the idea that man was created by the same meachanism (natural selection) as every other animal, and that our consciousness and our brains are just the the by product of that process. (In contrast A.R. Wallace, who came up with the same idea as Darwin at almost the same time, thought that natural selection applied to every living thing except the human brain.)
For anyone interested in a more thorough reflection on this subject see the essay "Darwin's Delimma in Stephen Jay Gould's Ever since Darwin.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
I Feel a Draft...
The NFL draft is swiftly approaching. I must admit that I don't know a darn thing about who is in the running for what position. But I do know that the Packers need a new left tackle (sorry Clifton) and maybe a bit of young blood in the defensive backfield. But that's my opinion. And who knows who we will get. The Pack sure did a good job last year. Raji wasn't super great (only started one game because of injury) but Clay Mathews (whom I call "Little Hawk" lol) was awesome! AND he is about the best looking guy in a football uniform you can come across in terms of height and proportion. He has a fantastic body and I don't mean that in a smutty way. Anyway.
On a general note Brandon Marshal got traded to the Dolphins. That may or may not be a good move. He had an attitude in Denver that McDaniels couldn't tame. Will he do better in Miami with the distractions of South Beach at his disposal? We will see.
I am also pretty interested in McNabbs move to Washington. And what is up with Rex Ryan taking on both LaDanian Tomlinson AND Santonio Holmes? It will either amount to super sweet success or horrible defeat. Either way they will get a lot of attention. Maybe that was the point? Only...five months until football season! Woo hooo!
Note: I actually made it to day three of the Draft in New York!!! My littlest bro got us tickets as a surprise while I was visiting. It wasn't as exciting as I would have hoped but I did get my picture taken with the Lombardi trophy, and saw the Packers Super Bowl rings in real life!!! It was such a fun day:)
On a general note Brandon Marshal got traded to the Dolphins. That may or may not be a good move. He had an attitude in Denver that McDaniels couldn't tame. Will he do better in Miami with the distractions of South Beach at his disposal? We will see.
I am also pretty interested in McNabbs move to Washington. And what is up with Rex Ryan taking on both LaDanian Tomlinson AND Santonio Holmes? It will either amount to super sweet success or horrible defeat. Either way they will get a lot of attention. Maybe that was the point? Only...five months until football season! Woo hooo!
Note: I actually made it to day three of the Draft in New York!!! My littlest bro got us tickets as a surprise while I was visiting. It wasn't as exciting as I would have hoped but I did get my picture taken with the Lombardi trophy, and saw the Packers Super Bowl rings in real life!!! It was such a fun day:)
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Oh! What a Theory!
Last week I read a really interesting book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by one Julian Joyce. It reminded me of reading "Ages in Chaos" by Emmanuel Velikovski when I was a teenager.
The main premise of the book is that human consciousness only developed a few thousand years ago, and before that the human mind was split in two, with the left portion of the brain taking orders from the right portion of the brain without realizing that the right side was really part of the same entity. Joyce claims humans interpreted the "commands" of the right temporal lobe as the voice of gods, and thus the supernatural and religion were born. Outrageous right? Of course it is, but it's not insane...and that's what makes it a good idea. That's what makes it an original idea.
That being said, I can't say I buy the theory. I love the idea of it, but there just wasn't enough...irrefutable data to make me shout "Eureka!" and jump on the band wagon. I don't think his "evidence" was concrete enough, nor were his arguments in favor of his idea all that compelling. Too much of what he discussed was conjecture, based largely on interpretations that cannot be proved correct or wrong with our present resources.It could be true, but how could you prove it? There is simply no way of knowing (unless more data comes to light) but it did get me thinking about a lot of strange things, which I will probably write about in the weeks to come. But in this post I wanted to focus on his the nature of his idea as a whole (as a single entity). I wanted to emphasize the fact that I really do like it despite the fact that I don't really buy it.
His theory is interesting, and a good one (in a theoretical "what-if" sense, not a practical test-worthy one) to me not because he is right necessarily, but because he is asking questions and positing solutions to things that perhaps only a handful of people on the planet have ever even bothered to ask. He is (or was, he died in 1993 I think) thinking fully and excitedly "outside the box", and provides a new idea crazy enough to be true, true enough to be possible, and possible enough to stoke the fires of my imagination. Now that's what you call a theory!
The main premise of the book is that human consciousness only developed a few thousand years ago, and before that the human mind was split in two, with the left portion of the brain taking orders from the right portion of the brain without realizing that the right side was really part of the same entity. Joyce claims humans interpreted the "commands" of the right temporal lobe as the voice of gods, and thus the supernatural and religion were born. Outrageous right? Of course it is, but it's not insane...and that's what makes it a good idea. That's what makes it an original idea.
That being said, I can't say I buy the theory. I love the idea of it, but there just wasn't enough...irrefutable data to make me shout "Eureka!" and jump on the band wagon. I don't think his "evidence" was concrete enough, nor were his arguments in favor of his idea all that compelling. Too much of what he discussed was conjecture, based largely on interpretations that cannot be proved correct or wrong with our present resources.It could be true, but how could you prove it? There is simply no way of knowing (unless more data comes to light) but it did get me thinking about a lot of strange things, which I will probably write about in the weeks to come. But in this post I wanted to focus on his the nature of his idea as a whole (as a single entity). I wanted to emphasize the fact that I really do like it despite the fact that I don't really buy it.
His theory is interesting, and a good one (in a theoretical "what-if" sense, not a practical test-worthy one) to me not because he is right necessarily, but because he is asking questions and positing solutions to things that perhaps only a handful of people on the planet have ever even bothered to ask. He is (or was, he died in 1993 I think) thinking fully and excitedly "outside the box", and provides a new idea crazy enough to be true, true enough to be possible, and possible enough to stoke the fires of my imagination. Now that's what you call a theory!
A Bookmark
I created this (again) in AutoCAD. I used the middle picture which was a photograph, and I constructed the "younger" and "older" made-up versions from it. (In reality I think Mendel wore glasses his whole life, and I don't believe he ever wore a beard in old age.)But whatever. It's my drawing so I can do whatever I want to.
Monks, Peas and Dirty Knees
I am currently reading a biography of Gregor Mendel, the "Father of Genetics" as he is called. The book I am reading is called "A Monk in the Garden" by Robin Marantz Henig. It's really a great read, and I recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about this Augustinian Monk, and his experiments. It's his life that interests me more than his research at the moment. I already know what he did, and how. I was curious about learning more about who Gregor Mendel was. Here's what I have learned so far:
It appears that Mendel had some sort of condition throughout his early and middle life that left him bed ridden for weeks to YEARS at a time! I am no doctor, but it seems to have been more psychological than physical. Maybe today it would be diagnosed as a sever anxiety disorder or chronic depression. Basically Mendel couldn't handle any stress, and when he was confronted with it he just fell apart.
In retrospect he was perfectly suiting to living in a monastery and tending generation upon generation of peas, because there really isn't all that much (besides frost maybe, or the possibility of burning in hell) that should stress out a gardening man of the cloth.
His life at first seems simple and confined. After all he was a monk living in a monastery. But at the same time on a certain level it appeals to me in that life was predictable, and known, and he didn't have to worry about paying the bills, or providing for his retirement, or any of the million other things that most of us deal with on a daily basis. (Maybe I am just saying that because I am under a lot of stress right now?) Whatever the reason, reading about Mendel's lazy days kneeling in his garden pollenating and picking his beans, his afternoons in the greenhouse sitting and counting and sorting them, or playing chess, or just thinking, the world class meals he was served three times a day (and a snack!)that he ate without ever having to step into the kitchen or wash a dish, the evenings in the Library (or the hall that held all the books that the monks read that was behind the library)sitting in an overstuffed chair perusing any number of topics in their extensive library....(it goes on) feels fairytale like to me, and I am fascinated by the idea of it. Doesn't that sound like heaven? Except for the whole celibacy thing, the fact that the monastery apparently was freezing year round,and that he had to sit through a church service everyday, I believe it sounds perfect.(I guess I should note that Mendel did teach classes at a school in Brunn during the week, but even so, it still seems like a pretty good life.)
I wonder if given such time and circumstances I could come up with such a breakthrough theory of scientific importance?
Probably not, but boy would I love the chance to try.
It appears that Mendel had some sort of condition throughout his early and middle life that left him bed ridden for weeks to YEARS at a time! I am no doctor, but it seems to have been more psychological than physical. Maybe today it would be diagnosed as a sever anxiety disorder or chronic depression. Basically Mendel couldn't handle any stress, and when he was confronted with it he just fell apart.
In retrospect he was perfectly suiting to living in a monastery and tending generation upon generation of peas, because there really isn't all that much (besides frost maybe, or the possibility of burning in hell) that should stress out a gardening man of the cloth.
His life at first seems simple and confined. After all he was a monk living in a monastery. But at the same time on a certain level it appeals to me in that life was predictable, and known, and he didn't have to worry about paying the bills, or providing for his retirement, or any of the million other things that most of us deal with on a daily basis. (Maybe I am just saying that because I am under a lot of stress right now?) Whatever the reason, reading about Mendel's lazy days kneeling in his garden pollenating and picking his beans, his afternoons in the greenhouse sitting and counting and sorting them, or playing chess, or just thinking, the world class meals he was served three times a day (and a snack!)that he ate without ever having to step into the kitchen or wash a dish, the evenings in the Library (or the hall that held all the books that the monks read that was behind the library)sitting in an overstuffed chair perusing any number of topics in their extensive library....(it goes on) feels fairytale like to me, and I am fascinated by the idea of it. Doesn't that sound like heaven? Except for the whole celibacy thing, the fact that the monastery apparently was freezing year round,and that he had to sit through a church service everyday, I believe it sounds perfect.(I guess I should note that Mendel did teach classes at a school in Brunn during the week, but even so, it still seems like a pretty good life.)
I wonder if given such time and circumstances I could come up with such a breakthrough theory of scientific importance?
Probably not, but boy would I love the chance to try.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bravo Little Worm
I was reading a book about something totally unrelated to earthworms, yet, that's just what it got me thinking of. Maybe it's because the sidewalk in front of my house is strewn with the crispy corpses of the little guys who didn't make it back to the soil after the last rain.
Anyway, just when I thought worms were about as primitive and boring as a thing could be,I stumble upon something remarkable about them.
Everyone has at some point or another has chopped a worm in half. Whether it be by accident while gardening, or more malicious in nature (i.e. you want to watch them squirm), it is pretty likely you can form in your mind a picture of what happens.
The two pieces of the worm start wiggling around frantically...or do they? I have done a little looking on line, and I have discovered while the tail end wiggles a lot,the head end usually doesn't. The reason for this is because there is some sort of chemical that is produced in the head area of worms which suppresses the action of wiggling. When the head part is separated from the tail the chemical suppressant is no longer able to inhibit the natural writhing motion, and so it convulses.
Isn't that interesting? What's even more interesting is why a worm might have evolved such a chemical in the first place. And if you think about why that might be of great use to a worm, suddenly this odd quality borders on genius. The fact of the matter is a worm head can grow a new tail, but a severed tail cannot grow a new head. So if you cut a worm in half you don't get two new worms. You get one shorter (but will probably live) worm, and one dead tail. Now think about what would happen if say you were a worm that was unfortunate enough to get caught by a bird, and you were snapped in half to be consumed in two bites. At that point you must face facts and wave goodbye to your tail, there is no helping it. But your head part could continue on living (and reproduce) if you could only get away. And what better decoy (or distraction) for a predator than a (now useless) tail jumping and thrashing about? It draws the attention away from the still viable head part of the worm, so it has, at least a small chance of escape! Ingenious I say.
Bravo little worm.
Remarkable isn't it that such an apparently simple animal could have developed such a solution to a problem? Well, maybe the worms didn't develop the strategy, but natural selection did, through the worm.
I have always been the kind of girl who saves worms from puddles, and hot sidewalks, I just never realized how cool a thing I was saving.
Anyway, just when I thought worms were about as primitive and boring as a thing could be,I stumble upon something remarkable about them.
Everyone has at some point or another has chopped a worm in half. Whether it be by accident while gardening, or more malicious in nature (i.e. you want to watch them squirm), it is pretty likely you can form in your mind a picture of what happens.
The two pieces of the worm start wiggling around frantically...or do they? I have done a little looking on line, and I have discovered while the tail end wiggles a lot,the head end usually doesn't. The reason for this is because there is some sort of chemical that is produced in the head area of worms which suppresses the action of wiggling. When the head part is separated from the tail the chemical suppressant is no longer able to inhibit the natural writhing motion, and so it convulses.
Isn't that interesting? What's even more interesting is why a worm might have evolved such a chemical in the first place. And if you think about why that might be of great use to a worm, suddenly this odd quality borders on genius. The fact of the matter is a worm head can grow a new tail, but a severed tail cannot grow a new head. So if you cut a worm in half you don't get two new worms. You get one shorter (but will probably live) worm, and one dead tail. Now think about what would happen if say you were a worm that was unfortunate enough to get caught by a bird, and you were snapped in half to be consumed in two bites. At that point you must face facts and wave goodbye to your tail, there is no helping it. But your head part could continue on living (and reproduce) if you could only get away. And what better decoy (or distraction) for a predator than a (now useless) tail jumping and thrashing about? It draws the attention away from the still viable head part of the worm, so it has, at least a small chance of escape! Ingenious I say.
Bravo little worm.
Remarkable isn't it that such an apparently simple animal could have developed such a solution to a problem? Well, maybe the worms didn't develop the strategy, but natural selection did, through the worm.
I have always been the kind of girl who saves worms from puddles, and hot sidewalks, I just never realized how cool a thing I was saving.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Clash of the Storyline
I went to see Clash of the Titans yesterday, and had I been by myself I would have walked out. It was TERRIBLE!
I hardly even know where to begin! The writers (or whomever) took one of the great classic stories from Greek mythology and made almost unrecognizable (and much worse than the original)! It is truly a shame. What's even worse is that millions of Americans will think they know the story of Perseus, and have no clue that the garbage they watched was almost completely false. Here are just a few of errors:
1. There were in fact no Titans in the movie. How ridiculous is that? The Titans were the parents and aunts and uncles of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, and they were definitely not in there.
2. In the movie Zeus actually liked people...Ummm...since when? Zeus if you recall, only tolerated humans. He seduced women incessantly (afterward turning them into animals, or worse allowing them to be murdered by their husbands for their transgression), and even condemned the Titan Prometheus to having his liver eaten out every day forever because he (Prometheus) felt bad that man was upon the earth and freezing and stole fire from Zeus to warm them. Zeus was a bastard, and nowhere in Greek mythology was he a champion of man.
3. Since when does Perseus marry Io (who by the way as the original story goes was seduced by Zeus, turned into a cow and given to his wife Hera), and not Andromeda? The answer is never. Even in the constellations Perseus, and Andromeda are together. What is the deal with messing up that fundamental part of the story?
4. Zeus didn't give Perseus the sword, Hermes did. And Perseus never got his helmet of invisibility or his winged sandals that were a part of the original story.
5. I am pretty sure I would remember giant the scorpions in the original story had there been any. I do recall reading that the blood dripping from Medusa's severed head produced serpents in the desert, but I hardly see how that could be interpreted as giant man eating scorpions that occurred before they even encountered Medusa.
6. The creatures with the blue eyes...WTF? I don't even know where to begin with that one.I have no idea what they were supposed to be or why they were added. They reminded me of something I'd seen in Army of Darkness.
7. Why was pegasus black? And why wasn't he born from Medusa's severed head like he was supposed to be?
OK, I really don't have the time to rant any longer, but really if you have any interest in mythology do NOT go and see this movie. It was a colossal failure.
I hardly even know where to begin! The writers (or whomever) took one of the great classic stories from Greek mythology and made almost unrecognizable (and much worse than the original)! It is truly a shame. What's even worse is that millions of Americans will think they know the story of Perseus, and have no clue that the garbage they watched was almost completely false. Here are just a few of errors:
1. There were in fact no Titans in the movie. How ridiculous is that? The Titans were the parents and aunts and uncles of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, and they were definitely not in there.
2. In the movie Zeus actually liked people...Ummm...since when? Zeus if you recall, only tolerated humans. He seduced women incessantly (afterward turning them into animals, or worse allowing them to be murdered by their husbands for their transgression), and even condemned the Titan Prometheus to having his liver eaten out every day forever because he (Prometheus) felt bad that man was upon the earth and freezing and stole fire from Zeus to warm them. Zeus was a bastard, and nowhere in Greek mythology was he a champion of man.
3. Since when does Perseus marry Io (who by the way as the original story goes was seduced by Zeus, turned into a cow and given to his wife Hera), and not Andromeda? The answer is never. Even in the constellations Perseus, and Andromeda are together. What is the deal with messing up that fundamental part of the story?
4. Zeus didn't give Perseus the sword, Hermes did. And Perseus never got his helmet of invisibility or his winged sandals that were a part of the original story.
5. I am pretty sure I would remember giant the scorpions in the original story had there been any. I do recall reading that the blood dripping from Medusa's severed head produced serpents in the desert, but I hardly see how that could be interpreted as giant man eating scorpions that occurred before they even encountered Medusa.
6. The creatures with the blue eyes...WTF? I don't even know where to begin with that one.I have no idea what they were supposed to be or why they were added. They reminded me of something I'd seen in Army of Darkness.
7. Why was pegasus black? And why wasn't he born from Medusa's severed head like he was supposed to be?
OK, I really don't have the time to rant any longer, but really if you have any interest in mythology do NOT go and see this movie. It was a colossal failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)