X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Recent Comments by MilkmanDan
 | comment listing type: Top Sift for Nov 29th, 2009Friends O' the Sift Top New Scifi Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Scifi Sifters of All Time Top 9 Scifi Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         |
Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
So much of global warming science comes from computer climate models. The problem with modeling something as complex as climate with computers is that it is nearly impossible to understand the whole system well enough that you can isolate one experimental variable to vary and compare to a control group. As time goes on, we keep learning about more and more variable inputs to the whole system of climate. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases create a greenhouse effect. The sun has a periodic sunspot cycle and other random (as near as we can figure) fluctuations.
Climate Science is a good thing, because we will gradually learn to understand more and more of those contributing variables. But before anything radical is done in reaction to computer models, those models have to be proven viable. One way that can be done is to feed old, recorded data into the model and see if it can accurately "predict" the past.
For that to be done, the system that the computer models use must be fully disclosed, open, and accepted.
Johannes Kepler came up with some scientific, mathematical equations to describe the physics of how bodies in space interact with gravitational pull. By applying those equations, we've sent men into space and to the moon, maintained orbits of satellites, and done all sorts of fantastically useful things. Until climate science can take data from 2 decades ago and accurately describe what happened 1 decade ago, I think it makes sense to be at least a little skeptical in our reactions to what those models say will happen 10-100 years from now.
Our Small World
First, I was surprised how large our moon was in comparison to Earth (relatively speaking -- if I were to draw relative sizes of how I guessed they compared, I'd have pegged the moon with half the diameter). Then, I was surprised that the sun wasn't larger in comparison to the planets (I'd have guessed 30% bigger diameter). And then my mind was blown by the sun, an object so immense that it is basically beyond the limit of my human comprehension, being dwarfed by other stars.
I guess the scientific part of my mind has always been best suited towards understanding Biology. With animals there is variation between members of a species, but their physical characteristics generally fall into a bell curve without an extremely high standard deviation; the tallest human to ever live won't be orders of magnitude larger than the shortest. I guess I had been tempted to think of celestial bodies as falling into groups like "species" in animals: asteroids, planetoids, solid planets, gas giants, stars. Clearly I'll have to rethink that, because there aren't many ants the size of a house running around.
I wonder how the physics of things like solar flares, etc. works on those super massive stars -- do their flares scale up in size in a direct linear scale with diameter or mass, or are any increases bound by a more logarithmic scale?
Anyway, thanks for the good sift!
Amazing Kenyan contortionist makes his first TV appearance
I'm rather baffled at how that routine is even physically possible without missing a few vertebrae.
A hilarious take on Matrix Reloaded (Rifftrax)
You shall, like, not pass... OK?
Loop the Loop in a real car
So very cool to have my assumptions be proven wrong, and lots of fun to watch!
Use your head to increase the range of your car remote
George Carlin vs. Fred Phelps
A way to watch Twilight and actually enjoy it. [RiffTrax]
Buffy - I don't like the idea that vampires (with a few exceptions) are inherently evil because they don't have a soul. That cheapens them and turns them into guilt-free cannon fodder. Vampires should be generally evil because they have power, and have had time to be corrupted by losing their (potentially limited) human reluctance to abusing power.
Anne Rice - Look, the occasional person is actually firmly heterosexual, and no amount of time spent being undead would chip away at their inhibitions to reveal a raging omnisexual being within. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In addition, while the series starts out well with old vampires that know nothing of any god and have 'never learned any secret that would save or damn their soul', the later books are shroud of turin, god and devil obsessed dreck.
Blade (based on movies not comics) - Blade's origin doesn't seem so unique that he would be the only 'daywalker'. I also don't really like silver as a weakness for vamps -- one silver bullet grazes an arm and they are dusted? Also, 'born' vampires and vampires that can age annoy me.
Twilight - The whole weakness to sunlight thing comes down to vampires being sparkly in the sun? ...Right. In addition, Edward requires massive fortitude to resist the temptation of eating Bella if she draws blood from a tiny scratch, but there is no mention made of him having to avoid her for ... ahem ... several days a month.
Vampire the Masquerade (based on PC games) - Although I am an atheist and personally dislike Rice's later books due to overly strident religious references, the treatment of Cain of Cain/Abel as the original vampire, and his 13 fledgling vampires as the founders of 13 'clans' with different traits in VTM is quite cool. A negative is that I can't actually imagine that the masquerade-enforcing Camarilla would be able to completely keep vampires off of the human radar with anarchy loving Sabaat around. Plus stake to the heart = paralysis makes no sense.
But since we're talking fiction, there is some suspension of disbelief required anyway, so all of these flaws don't necessarily ruin the final product for me.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic (sort of) ramblings.
A way to watch Twilight and actually enjoy it. [RiffTrax]
This, however, was so fantastic that I am now going to have to look up more from rifftrax -- thanks for the link Rosekat!
The Future History Of The Beatles
However, good enough for an upvote for John, Paul, George, and Scottie Pippen.
GOP Introduces Reagan Purity Test - Reagan Fails
Between 1000 and 5000 Meters The Ocean Is WEIRD
The low point was usage of 'u' as a shortened form of 'you' in the intro. If the next David Attenborough makes documentaries employing lolcat speak, I'll become a grumpy old bastard well before my time.
/edit:
Also just noticed that the text says 1000-5000 meters deep, versus the title of 1000-5000 feet. Not sure which is correct, but a quick google search lists the Marianas Trench at about 11000 meters deep, so the figure in meters is at least possible.
Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution
(snip)
Maybe the 'how-dare-you' stares were because you were LITTERING (and on your own Campus no less!)
Entirely possible, and I must confess that clearly the correct course of action would have been to deposit it in the nearest receptacle with the other trash. I can at least take comfort in confessing my sins...
Rejected Mortal Kombat Fatalities Ep. 3
Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution
OH I would of loved to be one of the recipients of that "gift". I am strong like sea otter and would of immediately known what was going on and went to page 50 and Yanked it out. Politely saying thank you for the book.
I went to Kansas State. One day, there were people around the campus handing out pocket-sized versions of either the old or new testament, I can't remember which. I couldn't see what exactly the books were, but being a college student on a budget I assumed: woohoo, coupon book!
I rather eagerly accepted the book from one of them, said thank you, and started walking away. After a few yards of walking, I noticed that instead of a practical coupon book, I had been given a half-bible small enough to make the claim that the least damaging feature of it was eyestrain-inducing print size.
I loudly said "Dammit, this isn't a coupon book!" and chucked it over my shoulder. Out of the other students around me, about half gave me icy how-dare-you-blaspheme stares, and the other half chuckled and grinned. So it goes.
/true story
Sarah Palin Latenight Show Joke Compilation
In any case, good stuff!
Visualizing Empires Decline
No offense to Canada, but land area is not the best indicator of empire strength and influence. GDP would be good, or even population would be better.
Agreed, but on the other hand, it is one dimension of potentially interesting information. I took a high-level computer graphics course when I was going to university, and we spent some time talking about how difficult it is to add more dimensions of data to a visualization without making it more convoluted.
We studied one example of a chart by a French historian named Charles Minard showing Napoleon's march to Moscow that successfully included many dimensions of data while being fairly easily understood at a glance, with more information represented in details. Basically it is map with line width representing Napoleon's troop strength over time (420,000 march in, 10,000 leave) and color coded for initial advance versus retreat. It also shows the date and daily temperatures to link the effect of deaths from exposure. Academics will gush on an on about this work, calling it "the best statistical graphic ever drawn" etc. It is actually pretty cool, and watching this visualization made me wonder what a modern Minard would have done with animated computer graphics and this data. Then again, I am a nerd.
If that didn't all sound so very boring, you can check out the graph I am talking about in English here, and then perhaps a larger original version in French with better details here. The wikipedia article on the French Invasion of Russia also references the chart.
Tom Cruise's Leaked 'New Moon' Audition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL-8SL8cFVQ
Eddie Izzard - Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (2009)
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
And *that* feeds into why I, as a conservative, am highly annoyed with the GOP these days. All kinds of right-wing nut stances are being pushed as "Republican" ideals. Marriage, gay or straight, has jack all to do with the government. Hands off. Abortion is an old issue, but I think that it is best left to individual people. Those that are against abortion can promote alternatives and provide assistance to Mothers-to-be in bad situations, but I don't think this is an issue for the *government* to muck around with. Hands off.
To me, Palin was a poorly planned gimmick response to Hillary being a force in the primaries before the election. I think that the GOP bigwigs in their smoke-filled rooms came to the insulting conclusion that women were going to universally back Hillary as "one of their own", and decided to counter that by putting Palin on the ticket without knowing *anything* about her. She then eclipsed McCain, "went rogue", and is now attempting to convince people that the way forward for the Republican party is by kissing the ass of the far-right fundies.
I'd like to see a strong Republican party to keep the Democrats in line, and a strong Democrat party to keep the Republicans in line. From my perspective, if Palin represents the best and brightest future of the GOP, the party has imploded. It will retain the support of the fundies and lose everyone else, just as it has lost me. Good luck with that.