Ann Druyan; 'saving the appearances'
now my inner dialogue is heaving with detest.
im a fool.
im a fool.
wait a second... why kind of idiot would claim that heavier than air flight was impossible, when kites were known to exist? and birds?
the bruce effect
i like this sentence because it seems that i know nearly none of the important words in it:
For synapsis to occur between a chromosome with a large intercalary deficiency and a normal complete homolog, the unpaired region of the normal homolog must loop out of the linear structure into a deletion or compensation loop.
the waiting drove me mad.
youre finally here and im a mess.
okay, so im looking at the page for electromagnetic radiation, and its giving a layman's example for each major wavelength classification, i.e., radio goes from building sized to human to butterfly, where it then becomes microwave, infrared is needlepoint, visible is protozoans, ultraviolet is molecules, x-ray is atoms, gamma ray is atomic nuclei. so im thinking about how those waves are generated by objects at those respective scales; gamma rays tend to be emitted from atomic nuclei, x-rays are generated by knocking electrons off of atoms at very high energies, microwaves are generated by butterflies (joke, yes). okay, what im curious about, is gravitational waves, must have extraordinarily long wavelengths, which you cant really imagine being generated by small objects. gravity waves only really make sense in terms of very large objects, just as gamma rays only really make sense in terms of very small objects. i feel like this is a very important observation.
you are the perfect drug.
cause this life is a farce. i cant breath through this mask, like a fool.
Star Simpson: Socket to me
the funny part about ignorance is: you are not (in general), privileged with the knowledge of what you are ignorant of. we dont know what we dont know.
next time someone asks, 'whats the point?', them if they only wants to have sex to procreate. since otherwise its 'worthless'. the analogy to mathematics is exact.
i find it frustrating that people can think if something is not productive, or not generating income, then it is somehow less valuable. i am of the opinion that a life focused on generating income is a miserable waste of time.
forall x, i heart x
i am trying to stay away
i am getting by in other ways
is Yivo the flying spaghetti monster?
"Similar behavior is also seen in male lions, among other species, who also kill young cubs, allowing them to impregnate the females. Unlike langurs, male lions live in small groups, which cooperate to take control of a pride from an existing group. They will attempt to kill any cubs that are roughly 9 months old or less, though as in other species, the female will attempt to defend their cubs viciously. Males have, on average, only a two year window in which to pass on their genes, and female lions only give birth once every two years, so the selective pressure from them to behave like this is strong. In fact it is estimated that a quarter of cubs dying in the first year of their life are victims of infanticide."
how is this species successful? oh, right, its NOT.
nobody told you
its not how its supposed to be.
"Conditions growing worse; why don't you answer? . . . we are going slower . . . the world will never know about us."
could we use FM or PM or AM techniques on visible spectrum waves?
okay, heres my plan as president: we spend a certain amount of money on military, A, some fraction of that money goes to pay for equipment, call that amount B, and some goes to pay personnel, call that C. take some fraction of B and some fraction of C, call these b and c. now split b into two parts, call them f and g. take f, and add it to c, to pay the same fraction c/C of personnel, and buy them exercise bikes (so they get a pay increase and an exercise bike), hook the exercise bike up to a generator and sell the electricity. then take the other part of the equipment money g, and use it to pay lower everyones college tuition, and their mortgage payments, and their debts. holy shit, how can i be a complete antitheist, who downright loathes religion, living in a highly religious world, be the only one interested in forgiving my debtors?
if i seem conceited, its probably because i have been urged by many different people to be so, and so i probably am.
just because im not interested doesnt mean youre not.
jenny block: open: love, sex, and life in an open marriage
i want to hurry home to you.
i try to unconvince the believers.
i think that, throughout the majority of history, in the majority of cultures, and continuing to present day, that religion has been the greatest single cause of misery to human kind.
when they kick at your front door, how are you gonna come?
with your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun?
when the law break in, how you gonna go?
shot down on the pavement, or waiting on death row?
-the guns of brixton
me: yesterday Corey and i got stopped in davis square by a girl who asked us if we wanted to go to a bible discussion group on thursdays at MIT's student center. i told her we might be the wrong people to ask, since im anti-religious, and Corey said he wasnt interested. but i told her i might be interested. and i got her number.
Tom: Haha getting girls numbers good job. You are totally going to be assasinated one day.
me: both Corey and Collin expressed great skepticism in any likelihood that i can change anyone. it worries me, if everyone is so hopeless, it seems like the problems will persist for much longer. you know, i dont claim that everyone can be turned, or that there arent religious fanatics that are completely closed off to critical thinking, all im saying is that applying pressure to those infected with religion, (given that the pressure is applied correctly), the quicker humanity will be healed, or at least the closer it will become to being healthy. i guess sticking with the disease analogy, i do not believe that religion is a fatal disease to the human species, nor do i think it should be necessarily chronic.
i should write to Dawkin's with Stefan's suggestion of using 'godfree' rather than 'godless' to describe atheism.
the fundamental flaw in the concept of supernatural phenomena is the idea that there is something that lies outside or beyond nature, but nature is just the observable world, and by the definition of observable, nothing can be said of anything outside of nature. i do not believe it is my very limited imagination that prevents me from conceiving of something truly inexplicable, the difficulty in being inexplicable is that we can begin describing it immediately, as 'inexplicable' (!). we can then expound with further detail: dice are 'inexplicable' in some ways, so we describe probabilistic laws that allow us to push our description as far as we can. can 'randomness' ever be explained? well, quite possibly in principle, but then it forfeits it's status as 'random'. but we can continue to designate something as random, and it seems a far cry from anything someone might call religious, spiritual, or god... except possibly for gambling addicts. randomness might be god. or the devil. though a cursory knowledge of the related mathematics would banish such devils.
holy crap: feet and computer
how do quantum fluctuations influence heat death?
hold onto your potatoes
is it something about works of fiction that no longer entertain me?
the tv told me that your heart is irresistible
so my ambivalence bullshit probably made her psycho.
me: someone told me that basketball players are wusses.
tyler: well, at least they play one on tv.
i think its silly to think that the human mind is 'non-algorithmic' or special in any way that we might think it is out of our reach.
im willing to bet that either one of two outcomes is true: either the origin of life is not nearly as uncommon as we might expect, and it has probably occurred multiple times throughout the history of earth, but such secondary origins have been ill to compete with the more developed, evolved life forms from the first origin, or, that the panspermia hypothesis is correct, and though life originated elsewhere, it was the favorable environment provided on earth that allowed it to grow so wide spread. in either case, i would imagine that life itself is quite common throughout the universe, but that for higher forms, such as multicellular, mobile, visual, and most of all, intelligent life, only forms under the more rare circumstance of a highly favorable/hospitable orbit and environment as experienced here on earth.
granted, i really dont know what im talking about.
i need to remember to make a list of links to interesting biological phenomena, since the list is getting too long to reliably track in my memory.
an infinitely large universe (spatial or temporal) necessitates an infinitely large solution space, furthermore, what sort of influence does relativity have on the solution space? lack of simultaneity seems like it might have a large influence on probability in this sense.
get the kisses out.
i want no end in sight.
and danger around every bend.
well this sounds like bullshit. let me see if i understand this correctly: microsoft has collected information from computers to investigate botnets, and they try not to tell anyone. so microsoft's spyware has helped take down botnets, which were created when security flaws in microsoft's software were abused... so instead of making secure software, microsoft will just spy on us to help catch the people who exploit the insecurities...?
i am dancing
youre a parade
we always knew youd let us down.
you were thinking out loud
i wait but it doesnt kick in.
let me destroy us.
so my ambivalence BULLSHIT probably made her PSYCHOTIC.