Some men see things as they are and say, “Why?” I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not?”

-– George Bernard Shaw

It is easy to be apathetically indifferent. The world has its problems, sure, but hey, life is short and one should take care of oneself first, no? Yet the danger is that there are a *lot* of issues on which the silent majority is not sufficiently aware to care one way or another, and a small but outspoken minority gets to drive their agenda, because the other people who know the first group is wrong find it too uncouth to engage them in debate. To spread the word to the masses. To do something.

Read more...

Quoting David Berlinski [Commentary magazine]:

In a remark now famous, Feynman observed with respect to quantum electrodynamics that its control over the natural world is so accurate that in measuring the distance from New York to Los Angeles, theory and experiment would diverge by less than the width of a human hair. Einstein’s theory of general relativity is in some respects equally accurate. We cannot account for these unearthly results. The laws of nature neither explain themselves nor predict their success. We have no reason to expect such gifts, and if we have come to expect them, that is only because, as the saints have always warned, we expect far more than we deserve.

Foremost among the undeserving are evolutionary dogmatists of the brand represented by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and marketed by their apostle Hitchens. Although theirs is not an undertaking notable for imaginativeness, it does seem to have conjured up a kind of god. Unlike the God of old, who ruled over everything, this god rules over lapses in argument or evidence. He is a presiding god, but with limited administrative functions. With gaps in view, he undertakes the specialized activity of incarnating himself as a stopgap. He may be called the god of the gaps.

As a rhetorical contrivance, the god of the gaps makes his effect contingent on a specific assumption: whatever the gaps, they will in the course of scientific research be filled. It is an assumption both intellectually primitive and morally abhorrent—primitive because it reflects an absence of curiosity, and abhorrent because it assigns to our intellectual future a degree of authority alien to human experience.

What the neo-atheists tend to ignore, when assembling their pantheon of scientists that whittle away the gaps where the divine, in their opinion, is reduced to, is the contributions made by the Socrates of our time: Kurt Goedel.

In showing that there are truths that are impossible to prove, Goedel opened the way for a stable coexistence between faith and science: unless science directly contradicts a particular article of faith, in which case it has to adapt, having faith itself is hardly an irrational position.

From Paul Lamere's Duke Listens!:

ffwd is new service (still in private beta), that is hoping to help you find discover web video. I've taken it for a quick spin. They have a pretty nifty enrollment process - where you click on shows that you like so they can get an idea of your taste. Once you've selected your shows they assign you a video personality based upon your selections (I'm a 'comedy writer', apparently I like comedies). Once you are enrolled you can start to discover videos.

Sounds really interesting. MovieLens, LibraryThing, etc. have been around for a while, but even though in a way they are 'Web 3.0' services (peer recommendations), in another way they are still stuck in the past, when it comes to integration: sure, you get access to the IMDb or Amazon page for the item, but that's the extent of integration offered.

ffwd promises that -- the video is available in the same interface, so you can quickly act on a recommendation. There's still a problem, in that the service still relies on network effect in what is nearly a zero-sum game: more users here means less users for other peer recommendation services. Some people would be using multiple services, which means their data likely won't be up to date in all, which means the services will offer suboptimal recommendations (so it's bad for all concerned).

Take the new Data Portability initiative into account, though, and a market in recommendation services could soon spring up. Use various services, and give them authorization to pull your rating data from each other. The user gets to experiment with which site has the algorithms and user base to provide good ratings in which situations, and the services get to compete on how good they do their jobs, not merely how well they can gobble up and lock their market down (think Wintel).

Hillary is *leading* in NH ?!!

from rfmcdpei:

( my result: )

Romney: "Don't turn the pharmaceuticals into the big, bad guys."
McCain: "They are."

[WaPo]

Huckabee's 35% is a whopping 11% over Romney's. McCain came in fourth with 12%, barely topping Ron Paul (11%, fifth). This is almost as good as he was expecting -- Thompson came in third with 14%, so he probably would not withdraw yet, but apart from that this is as good as can be expected going into the New Hampshire primaries.

Obama just beat Edwards and Clinton, 33-33-32. Not sure if the vote tally is finalized (edit: it is), and this is technically a 3-way tie, but this is almost Hillary's nightmare scenario!

Looks like each party's most phoney candidates are on the way out.

Update 22:02 -- over 120,000 people in the Republican caucus, and over 200,000 people in the Democratic caucus! Whoa

Update 23:28 -- Obama is substantially ahead of Edwards and Clinton (38-30-29), and McCain is actually much closer to Thompson (and further ahead than Paul -- 13-13-10) than earlier projected [wapo].

I know very little about some of the people on my friends list, and some of the people in the wider blogosphere. Some people I know relatively well. (Some I know too well. ha!) I read your journals, or we have something else in common and we chat occasionally. Some of you I hardly know at all. Perhaps you lurk, for whatever reason. But you friended me and I thank you for your interest in my words.

But here's a thought: why not take this opportunity to tell me a little something about yourself. Any old thing at all. Just so the next time I see your name I can say: "Ah, there's so and so...they listen in rapture to the love-music of she-turnips." (Think of it as your Chanukah/Christmas/New Year present to me!)

I'd love it if every single person who friended me would do this. Yes, even you people who I know really well. Then post this in your own journal and see what gems of knowledge appear. C'mon I've got 77 Livejournal friends on top of an unknown number of people outside of Livejournal. Surely some of you can answer this, yes?

(taken from rfmcdpei with minor modifications)

Wishing you all a happy Christmas/Chanukkah/Kwanzaa/Winter solstice

This one is for Say-hien:

spent hours trying to rhyme hat
until I say, well screw that
writing can be such a bore
lost count of pages I tore

Your gasoline is almost tax-free
And your SUV knows not efficiency
Education, health care, minimum wage
All cowers against your rage

So, dear car driver, is it too much to ask
To wait your turn when I cross the road?

Rory Bremner impersonated Ahmadinejad, defending Iran's need for nuclear weapons (and pointing out that Iran had a democratic government in the past -- that was toppled by the British and American because of oil).

He suddenly talked funny morphed into Tony Blair, and proceeded to defend the decision to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, and morphed back and apologized for losing his head :P

If you like downtempo artists such as Emiliana Torrini, Air or Portishead, Émilie Simon is your cup of tea. A very intimate video goes with a heartbreakingly cute voice.

i·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-) 
n., pl. -nies.

1. 1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
   2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
   3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit¹.
2. 1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “He noted the irony of a girl blissfully smoking while wearing a Vanderbilt Center t-shirt” (Michel Salim).
   2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Modified from Answers.com

Originally posted on hircus.vox.com

From French news blog Rue89's English edition, Street89, came this story about an interview with Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) published in Politique International. An excerpt, on the Iraq war:

"It is a defeat for the United States, indeed. And we will pay the consequences for this defeat for a very a long time.There is no longer any way to turn this defeat into victory. It is too late."

But did Obama really said that? As it turns out, no: the interview was conducted by Alexis Debat, a political scientist with the (conservative) Nixon Center. Do read the full story to find out this person's .. colourful .. past, it is rather incredulous.

One question that must be asked: is this simply a personal act of fraud, or is it part of some grander Republican smear campaign against one of the two Democratic front-runners? It is quite well-known that some Republicans are hoping Hillary would seal the nomination, banking on her high unfavourable ratings in the past, and regardless, it would be a good thing for them to paint Democrats as unpatriotic defeatists anyway.

The Nixon Center should fire this person, at the very least. They are hounding a senator of their own (Larry Craig) for what is, arguably, a morally lesser crime (paying people for oral sex in public places. Unfortunately, Craig is homosexual, and that is no-no for Republican "traditional value" voters). But sadly, the Republican climate nowadays is that political crimes committed in the name of conservatism is OK. Witness Karl Rove's career.

PS I linked to the story through reddit.com; please vote the story up if you like it so more people will see it.

Originally posted on hircus.vox.com

Planet-F1 is reporting that McLaren is being brought back before the World Motor Sport Council
in relation to the espionage saga:

The Stepneygate crisis has exploded once again with the FIA confirming that they are in possession of new evidence relating to the spying and espionage scandal...

and quotes an FIA spokesman, at the initial July hearing, as saying any ban could extend to the 2008 season as well:

If it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite...McLaren back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship

Now, left unsaid is that 2008 is the first year consumer teams are officially allowed to enter Formula 1 (leaving aside the technicalities of whether Super Aguri and Scuderia Toro Rosso are legitimate -- had they been more competitive, there would have been louder complaints and an official investigation). Dave Richards' new Prodrive outfit is close to a deal with McLaren to run same-specification cars next year. Prodrive has not announced its driver line-up..

If the hearing is over quickly, and McLaren *is* indeed banned from the rest of 2007 and 2008, what's stopping them from loaning Hamilton to Prodrive? In such a situation Alonso would presumably manage to break his contract and go back to Renault, but provided enough personnel is loaned to Prodrive as well -- Hamilton might well be world champion with a rookie team?

It all depends on whether the ban would include supplying cars, in addition to racing them, and whether certain key personnel will be barred from working in F1 or not. But intriguing thought exercise, nonetheless.

Originally posted on hircus.vox.com

Interesting. Hope I'm not actually overdoing it and coming across as holier-than-thou.. or hypocritical,

Originally posted on hircus.vox.com