...'Michael Moore' the first time around, which would have been...weird.

Friday, November 2, 2012, 9:33am PST. Just got a call from Rachel.

I get da nuts! I just need a little more time, Squeezle.

9 years doing interviews in the field. Best pen for my work is a Pigma Micron 002 black. You can get them at Michaels and Joannes (craft stores) for about $3 each. If you order them online in bulk, you can get them down to around $1 each. Thinnest line, doesn't run, reliable. The only down side for me was that I wore the writing tip out in about 3 weeks per pen, but that's pages and pages of notes per day.

Make jokes about stealing a space shuttle, something capable of dropping orbital nukes, and everyone thinks it's the funniest thing. But make one remark at the airport about how you thought that great new movie was 'the bomb' and they hall you away...

It's gonna be great! Academy awards, no doubt!

Freedom Of Religion, for me, means I can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without you interfering in my worship.

Freedom Of Religion, for you, means you can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without me interfering in your worship.

Freedom Of Speech, for me, means I can say (almost*) anything, including insulting your religion.

Freedom Of Speech, for you, means you can say (almost*) anything, including insulting my religion.

* Exceptions for things like yelling "fire" in a theater that isn't on fire.

When I insult your religion, I am using my freedom of speech, but I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. That is why the guy who made that anti-muslim video can make a video like that. He is exercising his freedom of speech. This does not prevent any follower of Islam from practicing their religion. Your freedom of religion affects your actions, not mine. I can stand out front of a mosque with a sign saying 'Islam is wrong,' because I am exercising my freedom of speech but I am not preventing you from entering the mosque and exercising your freedom of religion. If, on the other hand, I block the entrance to the mosque, then I would be preventing you from exercising your freedom of religion, and I would be in the wrong.

Allah/Jehovah/etc. is not so weak that the words of a person can harm them. I think that, whatever the nature of the deity, they are probably more upset with all of the hate and pain done in their name than with the words of a person as a direct attack on them. This is what these rioters are, in effect, saying when they riot: "My god and my faith in my god are so weak that he can't take care of himself, so I have to go around killing people."

On the other hand, if you believe that god wants you to run around rioting, killing, etc., and it's okay to do these things, then you don't get to also expect not to have your ass kicked by a superior military power. If violence is the way, then you're going to get your ass kicked and you shouldn't complain about it. If peace is the way, then you shouldn't be running around killing people. I'm not talking about whether any particular conflict is justified or not; just the internal logic of the rioters.

All rambling aside, if there's one message I would like the muslim world to get, it would be this:

Allah is great. He doesn't need you to run around killing people for him. He put jerks in the world to test you. Get over it, pass His test, and get on with your lives.

I have a hard time taking either side (true believers of global warming vs. deniers of global warming), in part due to the use of weasel words. For example:

"All time low" vs. "all time low within the satellite record."

This level could be common over the last few hundred/thousand/tens of thousands of years. How far back does the satellite record go? I know it goes back further than this, but you could say something like 'the arctic ice is at an all-time low for measurements made in the last 5 minutes." The time range might make it a meaningless statement, but it would still be designed to project the idea of "all time low."

"NASA climate scientist James Hansen has declared the current reality a 'planetary emergency' " vs. "NASA has declared the current reality a 'planetary emergency' " vs. "NASA has declared a planetary emergency."

This third option is what it sounds like the article is trying to project. But it's not NASA, it's one guy who works / has worked for NASA. I have, for instance, a great deal of respect for astronauts, but I don't automatically take their word for everything because I might be talking to that a diaper-wearing, boyfriend-stalking nut case. "...the current reality..." smells weasel-y. Either there is something that warrants a declared emergency or there isn't. Use of "the current reality" feels like it's saying "there is disagreement over the meaning of these data, but what I think is the correct interpretation, so everyone should accept my perception of these data as reality."

"The thaw this year broke all the records we had previous to this and it didn't just break them, it smashed them."

See above RE all records, last 5 minutes, etc.. "It smashed them" tries to project an idea but doesn't actually mean anything. Let's say my highest annual income was $50,000 prior to last year, but last year I made $50,001. I can say, truthfully, that I 'smashed my previous earnings record' because 'smashed' isn't tied to do any quantifiable meaning.

"Not sure why your mainstream press isn't covering this story."

There's a post above where another Slashdotter note several mainstream sources covering the story. Similar to my issue with "smashed," "mainstream press" doesn't really mean anything either. Side A: "The story isn't being covered in the mainstream press." Side B: "The story is being covered by PBS and CNN- those are mainstream." Side A: "But it's not on the front page of the New York Times or the cover of People." Because the term "mainstream press" isn't quantifiable it doesn't mean anything. If, instead of "mainstream press isn't covering this story," it said "neither news source A, B, C...Z are covering this story," then it might mean something. Also there's the "your" in "your mainstream press." This implies a difference between "your mainstream press," "my mainstream press," and "the mainstream press." The idea the statement "not sure why your mainstream press isn't covering this story" is trying to project is that the story isn't being covered. Stripping away any weasel words leaves only "there is some undefined list of news sources that aren't covering this story."

"Global warming's terrifying new math."

"Terrifying" doesn't actually mean anything here because it's a subjective statement. I might watch a comedy movie and my wife might walk into the room, remark that "this movie is stupid," and walk away. It is incorrect to say, in absolute terms, that "this movie is stupid" because that implies the person making the statement to be the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't stupid. A correct statement would be "I like this movie but my wife does not." Someone may find the data in the article to be terrifying, but that doesn't mean the data are terrifying or that anyone (ex: the reader) should find the data terrifying. There may be someone who is terrified that somewhere there is a duck staring at them, but that doesn't mean I should be terrified if I see a duck staring at me.

Overall

What the article is trying to project appears to be this: "New data by the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicates that the Arctic ice pack is at an all time low. NASA has declared a planetary emergency. The degree of ice pack drop is vastly greater than ever before. The mainstream press is not covering this story."

The article doesn't actually say any of these things, but appears to be trying to convey these ideas to the reader. This is the problem I have with weasel words in general and the pro- vs. anti- global warming arguments specifically. This article tries to convey a set of ideas using lines of reasoning that do not support these ideas. Because I encounter so many weasel words, whargarbl, and assorted BS, I'm not inclined to expend much time or interest to either side.

Complaining in a Slashdot post, on the other hand, is worth all the time in the world.

Ad Populum, or the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

What X number of people believe in no way affects whether or not God exists / created mankind / etc..

Han was lying.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run

A most unusual planet...One million stars for the location...

(just mod me into oblivion, why not)

The above should read:

          The above should have read "...where I would have been struck by a *meteor* if I lived in an above-ground house?"

(apologies for self-commenting faux pas...)

The above should have read "...where I would have been struck by a *meteor* of I lived in an above-ground house?"

No, you don't. It's not a meteorite unless it hits the ground, so unless the object hit the ground and bounced back up, it's not a meteorite when it hits someone.

Semantics aside, this says nothing about the over- or under- population of your planet. You could be living on (pre-crash) Trantor and have nearly all of the very few meteors hit a residence (leaving the out open-air palace garden area) or you could be living in the lone shack on a planet hit by very many meteors. Or you could have an abandoned planet with lots of residences and no residents. The number of meteors impacting residences, by itself, tells you nothing about the population density of the planet.

There's a good question...If the planet is (nearly-) covered by a single building like Trantor, does the roof become the planetary surface (if not dirt/bedrock), with the people underneath then hit by meteorites instead of meteors?

What if I live in a cave? A meteor strikes the ground (becoming a metorite), then enters the roof of my cave, then hits me? Have I been struck by a meteorite, where I would have been if I lived in an above-ground house?

I think that's it. Thanks everyone!