McCain panders at every turn.

So McCain's running mate is a 44 year-old right-wing woman, with no national political experience, and less than 2 years of state-wide experience. Scan that sentence and look for the reason she was picked. Hard isn't it? Is it the right-wing part? Nah, probably not. There were plenty of other conservative candidates he could have picked. Was it her youth? Well, probably not. McCain hammers Obama for being too young and inexperienced. This move sort of concedes the point, doesn't it? But if you guessed the part where she's a woman, you're right.

He wants to woo former Clinton supporters. This may be a misguided strategy. Any Democratic woman that supported Clinton would be appalled at Palin's policies. Sure, they might draw some independent women, but she undermines the ticket in so many other ways. I think it's rather insulting to assume women will flock to any female candidate you put in front of them. Even the tone of her speech made it clear that's what they were after. Using the rhetoric Clinton used in her concession speech was cheap and pedantic. It shows a lack of respect for women.

Above: John McCain's inner dialogue.

Also, when I first looked at this pic I could have sworn Sarah Palin was standing next to a decomposing corpse. I mean, the comparison really accentuates the negatives for McCain. He's more than old enough to be her father, and that's a little creepy. Case in point:

Above: Can you tell which one of these is real, and which is a cunning photoshop?

McCain's VP choice is a PR stunt. He can't seriously expect people to believe that he thinks she can run the nation. He complains that Obama with his years as a Constitutional law scholar, state legislator, and US Senator doesn't have enough experience. But he's fine with Gov. Palin? He's picked her for her vagina, plain and simple. Her years as a "commercial fisherman" don't really count as pertinent experience. Nor does being mayor of a town of 5000. It's just such an odd choice that I have to believe he's working the woman angle... and it's ridiculous.

A Creationist Gets Destroyed.

I just recently got a comment on my post "ZOMG! Survival of teh fittest!". And holy crap is it a riot. "Michael" said the following:

"Teh" Truth fish eating the Darwin legged fish somehow illustrates evolution? Not sure how you arrived at that illogical crossroads, but all it's very clearly llustrating is that The Truth will always overcome a lie. Sorry you missed that.

I think you might also have missed the irony behind the Darwin legged fish as well. The Darwin legged fish is a perfect example of exactly why logically-thinking people do not accept the notion that living creatures evolved in such a transient(definition 2 in Webster's) manner--nobody has ever found such a transitional form. Oh, and that silly little ol' thing about life springing from non-life ... it's surely been witnessed, right? It hasn't? Oops. "Well, nevermind that. Science will discover the hows and whys eventually," the people chant.
How can we say the Scientific Method is still being used if a theory is embraced and the very thing being theorized cannot be proven even after 150 years of study? Oops again. Politics/big money would never, ever tilt the results of research to fit their agendas, would it? Oops again. Money talks, babe, and crooked scientists are people, too.

Don't ever think people are stupid just because they don't agree with you, all right? That's about as intolerant and egocentric as it gets and I know you're a better man than that."

Well, I've decided to tear ol' Michael to pieces. I mean... he sort of asked for it by posting something so poorly researched and without merit. In addition to destroying his non-arguments and misconceptions, I'll also be poking fun at him. So, without further ado... why Michael is completely wrong:

Point One-

Michael Says:

""Teh" Truth fish eating the Darwin legged fish somehow illustrates evolution? Not sure how you arrived at that illogical crossroads, but all it's very clearly llustrating is that The Truth will always overcome a lie. Sorry you missed that."

My Response: Oh you... trying to cut me to the quick with your witty repartee. Having this post start off by accusing me of reaching an "illogical crossroads" is so ripe with irony I can scarcely comprehend it. Obviously the "truth" fish in this scenario is supposed to be more "fit". Otherwise it wouldn't be preying on the Darwin fish. The "truth" fish is being successful at what it does, thereby beating out the Darwin fish. We call that natural selection. Try to stay with me. We can ale it a step further by assuming the two fish to be memes. The ideas fight for dominance in a sort of ideological natural selection. In the creationist mind the "truth" fish is superior, and thus, wins. So it's based on natural selection in two distinct ways.

Point Two-

Michael Says:

"I think you might also have missed the irony behind the Darwin legged fish as well. The Darwin legged fish is a perfect example of exactly why logically-thinking people do not accept the notion that living creatures evolved in such a transient(definition 2 in Webster's) manner--nobody has ever found such a transitional form."

My Response: Ah, now we get to the crux of your asinine objection to evolution. Do you know what it is? Give up? You object because you don't know anything about it! Don't despair though, this can be fixed with a little reading. You contend that "logically thinking" people reject the concept of fish evolving terrestrial traits. I have to wonder if you feel this way because of the comical way the Darwin Fish is presented (I think I'll explain just to be safe). Clearly, the plaque is a caricature of a transitional species. No one thinks that a fish sprouted human-like feet.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Paleontologists just wander about digging up nothing in particular. To put it simply, there are a great number of known "transitional fossils". In fact, if you'd like to learn more about the real life "Darwin Fish" it's called Tiktaalik and there's a book all about it called "Your Inner Fish". Do yourself a favor and pick it up. If you want to see details on the many other well-researched transitional fossils (and I know a sharp young man like you will) , do please follow this wikipedia link.

Point Three-

Michael Says:

"Oh, and that silly little ol' thing about life springing from non-life ... it's surely been witnessed, right? It hasn't? Oops. "Well, nevermind that. Science will discover the hows and whys eventually," the people chant."

My Response: It's funny how any discussion of evolution with dim-witted creation advocates comes back to this. The origin of life isn't really all that pertinant to evolutionary theory, but I'll discuss it nonetheless. I hate to break it to you, but biological molecules are fairly well understood at this point. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are ubiquitous and abundant. In fact, spectrographic studies have recently spotted molecules with amino bonds in nebulae thousands of lightyears from Earth.

Protiens are the basis for all life on Earth. And guess what Michael, they can self assemble. Protein function is governed by shape, and shape is governed by low-energy stability. Proteins attain their functional shape automatically. If the right proteins are formed, all the rest can follow. Now stay with me, Michael... similarly, cell membranes self assemble from lipids. Nucleic acids? Yep, same deal. I'm not saying it's likely... but that's not even taking into account the possible catalytic activity of Ribozymes (just google it, I'm too lazy to explain everything to you). Most early nucleic sequences (probably RNA at first) were probably just junk. In billions of years though you get a lot of chances to get it right. But given all the billions of chemical reactions that would occur on a planet without life to stir it up, doesn't it start to look more reasonable even from your (admittedly foolish) point of view?

Point Four-

Michael Says:

"How can we say the Scientific Method is still being used if a theory is embraced and the very thing being theorized cannot be proven even after 150 years of study? Oops again. Politics/big money would never, ever tilt the results of research to fit their agendas, would it? Oops again. Money talks, babe, and crooked scientists are people, too."

My Response: You seem to have a simple case of "biased jerk disorder" here. Not much to argue with you about. Maybe this is a case of that old "theory" misunderstanding. A scientific theory is different from a day to day life "theory". In science, if we call something a theory, that means it is strongly supported by the evidence, and experiments showing this are reproducible/repeatable.

I have taken part in research, and I can assure you that the evidence for evolution is real. The genetic and fossil evidence is irrefutable. The only people that really dispute it are those that haven't got the ability to crack a book. See how I just called you dumb in so many words? Just thought I'd point that out so you didn't miss it.

Point Five (wherein Michael tries to make me feel bad, and fails)-

Michael Says:

"Don't ever think people are stupid just because they don't agree with you, all right? That's about as intolerant and egocentric as it gets and I know you're a better man than that."

My Response: Well, look at you. That's right, you stand up to the nasty, godless evolutionist. In this case, I do think that people who don't agree with me are stupid. To disagree with me you must ignore scientific knowledge and accept a child-like view of the world. That's stupid. What exactly makes you think I'm "a better man than that"? What if I feel justified in that point of view? To feel bad about that I'd have to accept the implied assertion that yours is a valid point of view. It's not, and you, my friend, lose.

The Internet owns me, and I can live with that.

So I just had a minor internet outage scare. Many people, should their internet go out at 1:00AM, would shrug their shoulders and go to bed at a somewhat reasonable time. Not me... oh no, not me. Here I was, happy as a clam, when an internet outage interrupted my Digg commenting and wikipedia meandering. I whipped my head around and stared down the modem, hoping to affect some change in its circuitry. Confused, I did all the usual troubleshooting to no avail. The pattern of flashing lights on the modem didn't look good, not good at all. Clearly, this can only mean one thing, the Internet is trying to kill me.

My pulse quickening, I dialed the number for Comcast. To my tepid surprise, there was someone there at 1:15AM. This is the only positive thing about Comcast that comes to mind. Surely they would know if my modem had died or if it was just a temporary outage. He attempted to access the modem, but his fumbling led no where. I inquired if he know of any service outages. I was informed that, in fact, the systems that monitor that kind of thing were down. I was actually not as surprised as I thought I'd be. Comcast's outage tracking systems are currently experiencing an outage. The irony is still palpable.

It was sheepishly suggested to me that I wait until morning, when the aforementioned systems should be back up. Going to bed was simply not an option, not while there was a mysteriously unresolved computer problem. My sleep would be tortured... 1s and 0s would fly through the air, pelting me as I tried to reach the modem's power cord. Circuit boards would be flung at me like shurikens. If only I could power cycle it one last time it would work! If only I wasn't being attacked by technology! I pushed these disturbing images aside. I quickly tried to think of a store where I could purchase a cable modem at such an unreasonable hour... there are none. It seemed hopeless.

I got off the phone with Comcast and valiantly continued attempting to fix the problem. Then, suddenly, everything was working. The hallelujah chorus could be heard somewhere off in the distance. Like those of a junkie taking a hit, my hands ceased their trembling. My heart rate returned to normal. Simple Comcast outage, or the Internet reasserting its dominance over me? I'm not sure.

Although all is well now, I still find myself glancing back at the modem every few seconds, waiting for the time when it will try to destroy me again. Like the grim specter of death, I am stalked constantly by my inability to deal with a lack of connectivity. The Internet has me in its clutches. If it required a blood sacrifice, I'd have to seriously consider it.

Above: not an unreasonable proposition.

I cite this as an example, kind reader. Proof positive that I am, without a doubt, the biggest nerd you shall ever encounter... EVAR!!!1one

* To be clear, this is largly satirical. I don't need to be told to go outside.

Badminton? Really?

So I didn't know that Badminton was an Olympic event. It's kinda neat I suppose. It gives hope to the geekiest among us that we too could win an Olympic gold metal. Now, I'm not saying that Badminton requires no athletic skills or training... but really, if you compare it to say, swimming or wrestling it's sort of in a class of its own. I know I couldn't just hop into the Badminton court (?) and win, but I think I'd have a better chance than in any other sport. Okay, so here's why I think I'd have a shot:

1) The court is small. That means less running... that's good.

2) The shuttlecock is a "high-drag" projectile. This means it goes slower, which is good. Certainly slower than a ball. I'm no good with tennis balls, footballs, or any of the faster projectiles.

Above: the truth

3) Years of playing computer games have put my hand-eye coordination in a good place. Not great. I'm not going to be smacking down any volleyball serves or hitting a baseball, but I think I could track a shuttlecock fairly well.

4) The constant opportunity to say "shuttlecock" would be a good motivator.

5) The rackets are light, they only weigh between 79 and 91 grams. I don't like carrying around heavy things, so that's a plus.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall I was pretty good at Badminton in gym class when I was young. Surely, if I had known there was a world of competitive Badminton out there, I could have altered my life trajectory a bit. I got winded today pulling weeds out of my yard. I am not what you would call "athletic". But if there was ever a sport I could play, Badminton would be it. If there's hope for me, there's hope for all of us.

Why is this so creepy?

I love robotics... but why is it that it's so weird to see something man-made moving in an organic way? Seeing Asimo walk around is mildly odd, but you always get the feeling that he's a banana peel away from a cartoon-style fall that would cost Honda millions. But having robots walking around that seem able to adapt to terrain is, well... creepy. Case in point, Big Dog:

Above: These will be chasing you down in a post-apocalyptic future.

I have to admit, I didn't even think this level of locomotion was possible yet. Aside from being creepy, it's also really cool. The damn thing is already more mobile than C3PO. They actually try to knock it down in the video. So when some AI becomes self-aware, I think we can guess what mechanical construct it will choose to load itself into.

But congrats to Boston Dynamics for building a really neat robot. I have to wonder what kind of computer(s) that thing has to tote around to do all this crazy shit. What I wouldn't give to kick it like that guy in the video.

My least favorite thing about moving? Comcast.

Sometimes I cannot believe that Comcast survives as a company. The level of ineptitude is staggering. I have never, NEVER had any contact with the company that has ended positively. I moved recently (hence the lack of updates), and of course, had to deal with Comcast to get my cable transferred. The tech brought the wrong cable box and then forgot to take my old cable modem. The cable modem thing is probably fine though, since the new modem doesn't work. Yeah, big surprise, they gave me a broken modem.

After just realizing I still had the working old modem I thought everything would be fine. Alas, it was not to be... now several HD cable channels are not working. A call to Comcast resulted in me being told it wasn't their fault, it was the local affiliates. I informed the rep that that made no goddamn sense because then no one would have these HD channels (most do), and it would be very unlikely that multiple stations had messed up HD feeds at the same time.

So after being served a giant, piping-hot plate of logic, they changed their tune and admitted fault. They promised to fix it soon and would send a tech out later in the week if it wasn't. I don't have high hopes. Bah humbug, Comcast... I wish you weren't a monopoly.

The Large Hadron Collider Makes Me Proud of Humanity

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is nearly finished. This is an ambitious project from the European research group CERN. A particle accelerator is for... well... accelerating particles. Protons are magnetically accelerated to nearly the speed of light and slammed into each other. This encourages them to spew forth all their quantum insides, like a sorority girl that's had too much tequila.

Above: this is a detector where the aforementioned "quantum spew" is analyzed. Note the size of the person standing next to it.

The sheer magnitude of the project is unbelievable. It's the most complicated engineering project humanity has ever undertaken. Like most particle accelerators, it consists of a circular track with superconducting magnets to keep the proton beam moving along. The LHC has over 1600 magnets, many weighting multiple tons. One of the goals of the project is to spot the elusive theoretical Higgs boson. The theory holds that this particle is what gives matter mass. You'd think we had that little detail pinned down, but no. Oh yeah, and the collider ring is 27 kilometers long!

The gigantic ring there? That's the main collider.

The engineering that went into this is of a scale we've never seen before. This is the most complicated scientific tool ever built, and it's about to be activated. There's been some bluster about the possibility that the LHC may produce micro black holes and other super-dangerous sounding things. Even though physicists have explained that something sounding dangerous isn't the same as it actually being dangerous, some people can't come to terms with that. I guess they figure those 5 episodes of "Star Trek: Voyager" they saw made them experts on black holes. Really though... even if the LHC did destroy us all, I can't think of a way I'd rather go than "death by black hole".

So, have one more look at this. The most complex example of engineering we have created. It's a tribute to our big juicy brains, and our quest to understand the universe. This is what Homo sapiens has done.