Oh my, I’ve done it now. All hell broke loose after I naively suggested to somebody he “work harder, or smarter or backtrack and work differently” when he asked (probably rhetorically, but I didn’t make the connection then) why he doesn’t have the productivity of X. X being a common acquaintance, not me – my work can’t be measured in quantitative terms (what I do, that is). Excluding the possibility of him just snapping or having an external pressure of reaching the same productivity, is it so unreasonable idea? Continue reading
If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.
I’ve never understood why that’s not understood. Now, why do we asume lack of property for proof of existence? I mean, suppose cdm isn’t made of wimps, we don’t have enough machos to make it work, and somehow everything else comes up short – what’s that mean? Is our tent stolen, Watson?
I’d rather say we’ll find proof of supersymmetric theory when we try again, but is it just hope? Everything we’ve done so far is test and exclude. We have property – gravity, mass. We have something else – dark energy, a seeming impossibility (uniformity, constant density). What if one of them is a property of the other?
After a session of self-inflicted criticism, my need to be right pointed me to yet another article about dark matter. There’s no pleasing me, ye know? Maybe I’m a bit of a narcissist because I sure as hell ain’t a perfectionist. So this one’s gonna be cryptic. Blowfish-like, with 256 bit S-box..
Like I said the other bad day, most cold dark matter isn’t baryonic so the effect on normal matter is done either by gravity or by weak interactions. Buuuuut I’m seeing no evidence for low-mass wimps experimentally (and they’ve done the experiments so much there can’t be much left to chance). LUX nil – cold dark matter 1. Take that! So CoGeNT et others were wrong? Well, the term seasonal oscillation should raise a few eyebrows (sure raised mine), especially since XENON100 found nothing in the range suggested by them.. Dark photons ruled out too. Lovable *childless* neutrinos, zilch. Sooooo, what the hell? Can I change my assertions or do I wait until LHC run 2? Because I’m …. nervous.
Normally I’d add a disclaimer (as a post scriptum) right about here but today I’m preemtively going to punish myself by working on my vb.net hobby project. Hey, don’t judge just because it’s vb, it’s not like I’m doing asm, popping and pushing. I’m trying to relax and unwind, you know, I’m worth it. CDM can bloody wait.
Dangerous things happen when I think. After all, I sometimes make the mistake of opening the moving pictures box and it bugs me to no end. Apparently people think democracy means they have the right to say or do anything on behalf of everybody just because they’re part of a majority. The dictatorship of many sounds to me just like the dictatorship of the few, a dictatorship.
Why do people think they have the right to censor shit just because it offends others? Why remove mandatory vaccination on the grounds they know better what’s right for their children but think that should apply to everybody’s children?
My ethics teacher told me once that my freedom ends where his freedom begins. But is that right? Since every individual is rather unique in terms of education, health, moral compass, IQ, wouldn’t that mean nothing would ever get done because there would be somebody who doesn’t like it regardless of truth? If I pay taxes and you pay taxes, the government collects the taxes and the government needs to have a public consensus on say vaccination of children, if you’re offended by that why do you pay your taxes and why my kid isn’t vaccinated? Or, why do you benefit of medical care? Assuming one pays taxes to support public health… Oversimplified, of course. Why should you have the right to say you don’t want kids to be vaccinated and I can’t say I want them vaccinated?
According to my now daisy-pushing teacher, democracy would mean that in refusing consensus you create a consensus – and I get screwed. I mean think AND – I get what I want only when you want the same thing as me.
Say I’m pro 1 and you’re pro 0. Those are mutually exclusive logical values, 0 is not 1. Using AND:
0 ^ 1 = 0
1 ^ 0 = 0
1 ^ 1 = 1 (consensus, but only when you think my way)
0 ^ 0 = 0
So unless you want what I want, I get screwed. But hell, if you get it wrong (especially with vaccines), I pay for your kid’s treatment alongside with mine’s. You add a hidden variable in the equation at my expense. How’s that for democracy?
Thing is, if we disregard the truth, what I’ve said can easily be applied to the other side of the debate. I agree that we shouldn’t generalize everything. But who decides what is the truth? Are vaccines dangerous? Is the alternative more terrifying?
How about we apply the above to the teaching of sex education, or scientific theories.. How many kids, or for that matter how many adults do you think can classify the planets of our solar system? How many you think believe in astrology or parapsychology? Should we put those in the curriculum, then? Who decides what is necessary for everybody?
If something is true or false, why is there need of a majority and where does democratic choice fit into this? Think about that one for a second. Symmetry breaking right there. I really think every choice we make ought to be personal. I drink – ergo I should pay more to insurance. I beat up somebody? I ought to be facing cellmates instead of doing community service. Personal responsibility, personal accountability. I refuse (at a public hospital) to perform an abortion on Christmas day (if abortions are legal) on religious/moral grounds? Jail time right there or loss of job and so on depending on the gravity of the situation and why the hell did I go to med school if I knew this could happen…
I’d avoid saying this if I thought it would make a difference but Obama’s kinda right in my book – religion per se is not a good explanation for violence, individuals are. Honor killings, racism, shit like that is the work of individuals (even if there’s more than one). It’s our actions (or lack of) that say whether we’re good or bad. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The below article really makes my point:
“Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.
After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.
Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I’m off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.”