Wednesday, February 27, 2008

  So, I'm watching this program about parallel universes.  They work their way up to M Theory, and they offer this in an explanation for the Big Bang.

  Basically, each universe is a membrane that ripples, and when a ripple from each one collided.  Okay.  I'm pretty much following, though I'm not quite sure how our universe is a membrane shape that thinner than everything in it.

  "It was the ripples that went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang."

  What?!?  You're going to tell me that colliding membrane ripples created matter, but give absolutely no explanation of exactly how that happens?

  I really like science.  I really like theoretical science.  I understand that a lot of this stuff is just mathematical equations, and I have no problem with that.

  I don't like is when someone tries to "explain" these theories while leaving huge gaps.  How the hell does a membrane collision translate into the creation of matter?  Without that, the whole theory is completely useless as an explanation for the Big Bang.

  That's like me telling you all about putting together a television set, and then saying, "and then you get to watch TV".  Well, how?  Magic?

  Let's say they're right, and membrane collision creates matter, and that's the Big Bang.  I'm compelled to say, so what.  The universe is a big feakin' membrane that ripples!  What the heck created that, and what started it rippling, dude?  Why is there more than one membrane?

  Don't even get me started on what they said about how gravity is weak in this universe because it's shared.  How is it shared?

  Don't half-ass it.  Jeez.

Thursday, February 28, 2006

  If it turns out that either Hil-Loki or O-bomb-us the Cult Leader becomes President, I would like it to be because absolutely no Republicans or Conservatives voted.

  I want the Republican to exist in the reality that he didn't lose because more people voted for the Democrat, but instead because everyone supposedly "on his side" completely rejected him for not being all he should be.

  Give the Republican party a wake-up call just like what happened with the House.  They didn't lose because the Democrats were better (as is evidence by the current record low approval rating).  They lost because they were behaving too much like the Democrats and were rejected by Republicans.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

  I just watched a program called T-Rex: Warrior or Wimp.  Basically, new evidence lead some to believe that T-Rex may have been a scavenger instead of a killer.

  This program provided an excellent example of something that really irks me about some of these people calling themselves scientists, or at the very least how they and programs like that present their evidence.

  One scientist thinks T-Rex was a scavenger because of teeth marks found in a location they would not be found from a killing bite.  Maybe they just left out some massively important information, but that sounds like one of the dumbest things ever.

  For that to make any kind of sense, they would have to be suggesting that the T-Rex only killed the prey and never ate it.  The teeth marks were in a place that could be reached only if the prey were lying on its side.  Well do you think it remained standing after it died?

  Some other scavenger evidence is the shape of the teeth.  They compared the T-Rex tooth to a velociraptor tooth.  The T-Rex teeth are more rounded, good for crushing bone, while the velociraptor teeth are more blade-like, good for slicing flesh.

  Here's my thinking. The T-Rex is like 5 or more times the size of a velociraptor.  The T-Rex has an enormous mouth and enormous teeth.  The velociraptor has a smaller mouth with smaller teeth.

  I'm going to use size-exaggerated examples to better get my point across.  Let's say the prey is a chicken.  Imagine a dog eating that chicken compared to a rat eating that chicken.

  Is the rat really going to have any use for bone-crushing teeth?  Is the dog going to get more meat from the carcass with flesh-cutting teeth or bone-crushing teeth?  Think access.

  And if you're taller than your prey, and attaching their neck from above, which type of teeth do you think will get you through that spine?

  Next we have the guy who heard the scavenger idea and noticed something about the tail vertebrae of a duckbill dinosaur.  A specimen, by all evidence, was bitten by a T-Rex, but it was not a killing blow, because the bone had new growth.  It had time to do some healing.

  He considers that evidence against the scavenger theory, because it was the actions of an attacker.  My question is: Do you really think that is the only possible scenario by which a T-Rex would have bitten a duckbill?  Is trying to kill it to eat it really the limit of your imagination?

  Do you think maybe that it's within the realm of possibility that the T-Rex was just pissed off at it for some reason?

  Of course, it couldn't possibly be that the T-Rex was both a hunter and a scavenger.  That's crazy talk.

  This kind of thing happens in various debates, but more frequently in scientific ones.  They see evidence suggestive of one thing, and then it can't possibly be anything else but that one thing.  It's especially ridiculous when they see only one example it, as if it could not have been an isolated incident.

  I love science, but it's disappointing to see people putting so much hard-core faith in it, especially in light of how many "scientific" beliefs have been disproved in modern times as well as throughout history.

  A real scientist says, "This is how it appears" and not "this is how it is".  You can say, "This is how it is" when you create and control all the conditions, and I do mean ALL.

Monday, March 3, 2008

  While I was in the shower this morning, I was thinking about water boarding, because that's among the type of stuff I think out in the shower.  I also thought about Chinese water torture, via an episode of Mythbusters in which the Mythterns endured some.

  I was wondering what some people think when they see or hear about these so-called tortures.  What kinds of thoughts go through peoples' heads?

  Do you think things like "that's awful" or "it's a shame that people do that"?  Do you think about the state of mankind that any of us would do such things?  Do you quake at the thought of any of it being done to you?

  Or are you like me and wonder, "what kind of mindset would I have to put myself into in order to successfully endure that for an indefinite amount of time"?

  I've never seen anyone water boarded, but I've heard it described by various American citizens who have undergone it in their training.  Yes, they've had it done to them.  They've said it gives the sensation of drowning without actually harming the person.  Basically, it's a psychological trick, which means it's not torture, in my book.

  Anyway, I've almost drowned a number of times.  Not for lack of ability to swim, but simply by in taking a quantity of water the wrong way.  Most of the times were in my house and not in a shower or bath.  Each time I maintained mental awareness and control and worked through the sensations.

  I'd like to be water boarded just to see if it lives up to the hype.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

  Well, today was vote day.  I voted for Duncan Hunter.  I knew it's wasn't going mean anything this time around, but maybe it'll help him out down the road.  Who the hell knows?  Not like MmcC CcaAiInN needed it.  As much as I don't like MmcC CcaAiInN, he's better for defense than Huckabee, so at least it won't be a total reaming.

  O-bomb-us the Cult Leader will undoubtedly get the Democratic win.

  There's a part of me that gets a little bit of pleasure from seeing morons suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, though only when they follow it up with being stupid ABOUT the consequences.  I'm not proud of it, but there it is.  That part of me is fine with seeing O-bomb-us the Cult Leader win the presidency.

  The only thing that kills the satisfaction is when the people are so incredibly stupid that they don't even recognize the consequences even when they're experiencing them.  I just don't know how long it will take before enough people actually wake up to it.

  Universal health care is failing miserably in Canada and the UK.  The US is swimming in debt because of massive overspending.  Both Hil-Loki and O-bomb-us the Cult Leader want to add billions per year to that debt AND reduce revenue.  All for what?  This pleasing illusion that they'll get "health care" for free?

  Further evidence of their stupidly is their continued use of the phrase "health care", when what it actually is is health insurance.  The health care is the best in the world.  It's the health insurance that's fuck-nut, because it partly government controlled.  And they want to give the government MORE control over it?

  Free market = lower prices and higher quality.  Not to mention greater variety.

  Maybe my adaptability is contributing to my willingness (such as it is) to let it happen.  I don't want for much, and I don't expect things to be handed to me, so I'll be personally less effected.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

  I just thought of something.

  I really like the show, House.  The last episode I saw was a rerun that I had missed.  He had a patient that seemed paralyzed but wasn't.  Etc....  She's in surgery when he sees her nasty big toenail and bam, it's scurvy.  Drink orange juice.  Hooray!

  So here's the thing.  Given the number of times in the show that something superficially observed has provided the crucial clue, why is it that a full outer-body inspection is not standard procedure?

  I mean, it makes sense to me that if the patient has a puzzling ailment, that one of the first things you'd do is actually look at all of the outside of their body to see if there might be a clue.

  While I'm on the topic of annoying oversights, there's Doctor Who.  Again, great show, specifically the new ones, but it really bugs me when something obvious is ignored.

  The most recent episode I saw was "Blink".  There are alien creatures that aren't visible until they are in someone's field of vision.  The Doctor considered it a great defense because you can't kill stone.

  Yeah, but you can break stone.  They say absolutely nothing about that.  They don't even offer a reason why breaking the statue would not kill the creature.  Give me a break (no pun intended).

  Still, it was a very good episode.  Another power of the creature is that instead of killing, it just sends the opponent back in time.  I don't recall it verbatim, but that episode had one of my new favorite Doctor lines.  To paraphrase, 'They don't have to kill you.  They just pop you back in time and you live to death.'

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

  I've noticed something these passed few weeks.  Reading and hearing examples of Liberal fascism has put a spotlight on it for me, but there's one word that seems comes to mind when I step back.  Conformity.

  Liberalism wants to make you all talk a certain way, eat a certain way, live a certain way.  It's considered a bad thing when someone earns more money than someone else (unless they are a Liberal).  No one is allowed to disagree (with Liberals).

  Don't say this, don't eat that, don't believe the other.  Don't let nature change.  Preserve everything just as it is.  Conform, conform, conform.  Obey, obey, obey.

  Force every person to be as robotically equal as possible.  Let no one experience pain or failure.  If anyone falls, just prop them up back in line.  Slowly do away with that pesky freewill that makes total control more difficult.

  You must conform.  You must obey.

  Staying to Help in Iraq

  by Angelina Jolie

  I'd really like to see her beat the snot out of Sean Penn.  But that's not directly related to the article.

  I just heard a commercial claim that your body works to fight off pain.  Um.  No it doesn't.  Someone obviously is terribly ignorant about pain.