It is bizarre to people who’ve never been through it, but movies like The Lake House and books like The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger call to mind experiences I had with a past love.
My quick critique of The Lake House is that it could’ve been written a lot better and it desperately needed an actor with more range than Keanu Reeves. It also had a Hollywood ending tacked on that didn’t make sense with the rest of the movie. It would’ve been much more beautiful (though sad) had the ending stayed true to the rest of the story. However, the general story touched close to home for me.
The Time Traveler’s Wife is a deep story told in an experimental and clever style. The storytelling style and events in the book are even a bit reminiscent of what my past love and I experienced. I highly recommand this book, BTW.
I’m not going to go into how these stories remind me of those experiences because unless someone has gone through it firsthand, it really just seems completely implausible. I will say that those fictional stories do not literally represent what happened to us, but there is a lot of truth in them that applies to our experiences. As a side note, no matter how much one thinks they know about the future, it hasn’t happened until it happens, and tinkering with it can throw things into wildly different directions. Oh, and that closure is a luxury only afforded to fictional characters in movies and books.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Trouble with PETA
From PETA’s mission statement,
I remember listening on TV to one individual complaining about California cheese ads with the slogan, “Real cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California.” He was going on about how the ads are misleading and how bad cows are really treated on a daily basis. From his description, one would assume conditions resembled those of WWII concentration camps. His description may have worked on someone who spent their life in New York City and has never seen open land. However, I grew up in a region that has a lot of farms here in California. I’ve seen just how cows are treated first hand. His description is misleading. Beyond that, the ads are obviously funny and not meant to be taken literally. I do understand they aren’t treated as one would treat people, but they aren’t people. They are a source of food.
This brings me to a second point: animals as food. I’ve seen pro-vegetarian literature written from both Eastern and Western perspectives. Unfounded statements generally fill pages with arguments against the eating of meat. The underlining goal is to convince the reader that humans are not meant to eat meat. This effort is complemented by some moral or ethical reasons. I just have to laugh when I see these arguments. One argument compares the human intestine to that of a wolf. Of course, the argument never makes a similar comparison to truly vegetarian animals, such as cows. That’s because the human digestive system doesn’t resemble that of either carnivores or herbivores.
In fact, our digestive system has specifically evolved to eat something that no other animal on the face of this planet ever has before. Our digestive system has evolved to take advantage of cooked meat! Even our close cousin, the Neanderthal didn’t make that evolutionary leap. 80% of their diet was raw meat, making it likely that their intestine actual did more closely resemble that of a wolf.
A third point is that all flora and fauna have the same origin. Plants, animals and fungi all have a common ancestor. From a truly unemotional perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between munching on a head of lettuce and munching on strip of bacon. Actually, there may be a difference. The bacon is already dead when we eat it. The lettuce is still alive! Experiments from the 20th Century proved that plants experienced rudimentary reactions to things happening to them (such as leaves being trimmed). The responses may be interpreted as emotional in nature, such as fear. More recently, it's been discovered that plants actually scream (Plants Really Do 'Scream' Out Loud; backup link). Should we stop eating plants now too?
How far are we supposed to go to protect other live forms? Our bodies may be invaded by parasites, such as tape worm or malaria. These are also animals. Is it wrong for our bodies to defend themselves against these invaders?
Is it ok to kill bacteria? Our body kills millions (maybe billions or trillions) of bacteria throughout our lives. Are we to take a moral stand against that as well?
Bottom line, all life feeds off of other life to sustain itself. The only reason why members of groups like PETA try to protect certain types of life forms is because we as humans tend to identify with them. If a person makes a personal choice to not use other animals for any purpose (food, clothes or otherwise), that is their choice. However, they should not try to enforce their own beliefs on to others, especially when those beliefs are based on emotion instead of fact. PETA often reminds me of a religious cult whose god is the idea that animals are somehow more special than other life forms.
My own personal belief is that we should use animals to fulfill our needs. This should be balanced with some level of humane treatment to avoid unnecessary suffering. Additionally, I believe that humans are responsible for the proper care of animals we have domesticated for co-habitation (pets or labor animals), whether born as such or feral. But how far we go in these areas should not be determined by self-righteous organizations that do not have a clear foundation for their reasoning.
“PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.”Although I do agree that humans must take responsibility for our treatment of animals, I disagree with PETA’s stand and many of their characterizations of how animals are treated by people. PETA has undertook good activities, but bringing to light some serious mistreatment, such as in the fur farms. But they’ve also overplayed their position on many occasions.
I remember listening on TV to one individual complaining about California cheese ads with the slogan, “Real cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California.” He was going on about how the ads are misleading and how bad cows are really treated on a daily basis. From his description, one would assume conditions resembled those of WWII concentration camps. His description may have worked on someone who spent their life in New York City and has never seen open land. However, I grew up in a region that has a lot of farms here in California. I’ve seen just how cows are treated first hand. His description is misleading. Beyond that, the ads are obviously funny and not meant to be taken literally. I do understand they aren’t treated as one would treat people, but they aren’t people. They are a source of food.
This brings me to a second point: animals as food. I’ve seen pro-vegetarian literature written from both Eastern and Western perspectives. Unfounded statements generally fill pages with arguments against the eating of meat. The underlining goal is to convince the reader that humans are not meant to eat meat. This effort is complemented by some moral or ethical reasons. I just have to laugh when I see these arguments. One argument compares the human intestine to that of a wolf. Of course, the argument never makes a similar comparison to truly vegetarian animals, such as cows. That’s because the human digestive system doesn’t resemble that of either carnivores or herbivores.
In fact, our digestive system has specifically evolved to eat something that no other animal on the face of this planet ever has before. Our digestive system has evolved to take advantage of cooked meat! Even our close cousin, the Neanderthal didn’t make that evolutionary leap. 80% of their diet was raw meat, making it likely that their intestine actual did more closely resemble that of a wolf.
A third point is that all flora and fauna have the same origin. Plants, animals and fungi all have a common ancestor. From a truly unemotional perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between munching on a head of lettuce and munching on strip of bacon. Actually, there may be a difference. The bacon is already dead when we eat it. The lettuce is still alive! Experiments from the 20th Century proved that plants experienced rudimentary reactions to things happening to them (such as leaves being trimmed). The responses may be interpreted as emotional in nature, such as fear. More recently, it's been discovered that plants actually scream (Plants Really Do 'Scream' Out Loud; backup link). Should we stop eating plants now too?
How far are we supposed to go to protect other live forms? Our bodies may be invaded by parasites, such as tape worm or malaria. These are also animals. Is it wrong for our bodies to defend themselves against these invaders?
Is it ok to kill bacteria? Our body kills millions (maybe billions or trillions) of bacteria throughout our lives. Are we to take a moral stand against that as well?
Bottom line, all life feeds off of other life to sustain itself. The only reason why members of groups like PETA try to protect certain types of life forms is because we as humans tend to identify with them. If a person makes a personal choice to not use other animals for any purpose (food, clothes or otherwise), that is their choice. However, they should not try to enforce their own beliefs on to others, especially when those beliefs are based on emotion instead of fact. PETA often reminds me of a religious cult whose god is the idea that animals are somehow more special than other life forms.
My own personal belief is that we should use animals to fulfill our needs. This should be balanced with some level of humane treatment to avoid unnecessary suffering. Additionally, I believe that humans are responsible for the proper care of animals we have domesticated for co-habitation (pets or labor animals), whether born as such or feral. But how far we go in these areas should not be determined by self-righteous organizations that do not have a clear foundation for their reasoning.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Sci-Fi Tipping
I read a book one time that illustrated just how complex the math gets when figuring out a split dinner bill. In this book, calculating each person’s portions of a dinner bill was used as the drive for an interstellar space craft. Apparently, the math is so complicated that simply trying to figure it out is all it takes to move a ship thru space at ludicrous speeds. I forget which book exactly, but it is one of them in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series.
I’m going into this because I got an email originally written by a former waitress that mentioned how to tip. Of course, being by a former waitress, it was complete nonsense. I replied with more correct rules for tipping. When I proofread my reply, it was so complex that it reminded me of that scene from Hitchhiker book. It goes something like this:
LOL
Sufficiently confusing?
I’m going into this because I got an email originally written by a former waitress that mentioned how to tip. Of course, being by a former waitress, it was complete nonsense. I replied with more correct rules for tipping. When I proofread my reply, it was so complex that it reminded me of that scene from Hitchhiker book. It goes something like this:
Statement: “4. For the love of GOD, leave a freakin’ decent tip. Look at your bill. The total bill including tax. Move the decimal point one place to the left and double that. There's your tip. Servers work very hard and get paid very little. Plus a lot of the cooler places pool tips which means what you leave goes in a big bucket and is divided between servers, bartenders, bussers, etc. You need to make up for the jerk wad who left $6 on his $50 bill.”
My reply: “Nope. This list must’ve been written by a waiter. Tip varies from place to place. $6 is a lot for a $50 bill in some areas (that’s well over 10%, which is common for many areas). In Silicon Valley, great or impressive service is 20%, and does NOT include the tax portion of the bill. Not-so-good to normal service is 15% of the dinner bill. Bad service is 5 to 10%, depending on just how bad. Service that is extensively rude or outright insulting is 0 to 5%, even if the meal is comp’d by the manager. However, the tip is based on service, not the food itself. Don’t punish the wait staff for the cook’s mistakes. Also, 15% of the wait staff’s tips often go to the bussers and greeters. Some people get lazy and multiply the sales tax by two to make that the tip, and this is fine too, but it depends on the area. The base CA rate is 6%, which means in some areas, doubling the tax is 12%. If the tip rate is 10% in that area, it’s fine, but if it’s 15%, that’s a bogus tip. Additionally, if the meal is comp’d or discounted, you tip based on what the full price would’ve been.”
Just as a side note, here was another person’s response: “Yes I remember working in the business and you get compensated for what you do. If you are stupid/forgetful/drunk (as most of us were in college) you get a crappy tip. Stop complaining and give good service, its your job. Oh yeah and when I was a cook, these bastards [on the wait staff] rarely split a sufficient amount of the tip. I just made the food right? It was they who carried it to a table 15 feet.”
LOL
Sufficiently confusing?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Evolution meets reality
The Theory of Evolution doesn’t exist as a counter to the bible or belief in gods. It is founded upon geology, paleontology, archeology, biology, chemistry, etc. It exists to provide common-sense, factual explanations of the evidence, as a result of using the principles upon which it stands, based on scientific discoveries made throughout the 17th to 21st Centuries.
In particular, discoveries in geology forced scientist to recognize that Earth is far older than stated by common interpretations of the bible. These discoveries are summed up in a series of geological principles. Andrew MacRae of TalkOrigins states, “Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation.”
The principles are as follows:
In science, a principle (or law) is a description of a phenomenon in a particular situation without considering the cause based on evidence. Laws are commonly retested just as everything is in science. If a scientist comes across evidence that seems to contradict a known principle or law, that scientist understands that the principle needs retesting to determine how their new data fits into the overall collection of observations. For example, the principle of original horizontality basically says that sedimentary layers of rock in the ground must be laid horizontality. However, many rock formations are made up of sedimentary layers that are nearly vertical. Is the original horizontality wrong? No. The layers where originally laid horizontally. Shifts in the Earth’s crust caused the layers to be moved into a nearly vertical position long after they were laid. This particular observation was a factor in allowing scientists to eventually discover Plate Tectonics.
What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Even before radioactive dating, these geological principles forced scientists to realize that the Earth must be at least millions of years old. Further, fossils of life forms are present in various layers of rock. The fossil record shows a progressive change in life forms on Earth over time. There is no period in which every species (particularly plants and animal) exist at the same time. This led curious minds to ask, what is the process for bringing about new species over time? Creationism said that all creatures were created in the beginning, but the fossil record shows that species come into existence and died out over different and vast periods of time.
Enter Darwin’s exploration. He studied modern examples of plants and animals, and understood the fossil record. His research and publication led to the discoveries of evolution and natural selection. Why does life change over time? It evolves. What is the main driving force of evolution? It is natural selection.
Darwin didn’t actually create the Theory of Evolution. A theory cannot be made by one person. A theory is the working explanation for repeatable observations and predictions in nature that are supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers via peer review processes. To briefly paraphrase Karl Popper, scientific theories must have testability (ability to test the theory), falsifiability (test if the theory is false), or refutability (test if the theory is refutable).
Evidence collected and verified by this process throughout the 20th Century did nothing but continue to reinforce the Theory of Evolution. The fossil record became more complete and understanding of genetics improved. Richard Lenski states, “Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor.”
In the 21st Century, new discoveries in biology are not only further proving evolution; they are actually using knowledge of evolution to make new discoveries, particularly in areas of battling diseases, as mentioned in the article “Antibiotics in Action” at Pharmaceutical Achievers. In other words, the Theory of Evolution is practical science benefiting humankind directly. This puts the Theory of Evolution in the same league as Universal Law of Gravitation, Music Theory, theories within Mathematics, and General Relativity.
So, why is this important? The key difference between notions based on Creationism such as Intelligent Design and actual theories such as Evolution is in their value to science. Intelligent Design is the end of knowledge. It cannot be tested. It leads to no further discoveries. It does not improve our understanding of the world around us. On the other hand, Theory of Evolution is the beginning of knowledge. It is a model of science being used in practical ways. It also leads to more discoveries with endless possibilities. The value of Theory of Evolution is that is expands our knowledge. Just as geology opened the door to discovering Evolution, Theory of Evolution is opening the doors to many other sciences involving biology, biotechnology, infectious diseases, genetics, environmentalism, farming, etc. It leads to a better understanding of the world around us as a logical result of the many observations we make of that world.
References:
Andrew MacRae
Karl Popper
Richard Lenski
Antibiotics in Action
In particular, discoveries in geology forced scientist to recognize that Earth is far older than stated by common interpretations of the bible. These discoveries are summed up in a series of geological principles. Andrew MacRae of TalkOrigins states, “Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation.”
The principles are as follows:
- Principle of Superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger. This is more commonly called "Law of Superposition" nowadays.
- Principle of Original Horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
- Principle of Lateral Continuity - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
- Principle of Cross-cutting Relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
- Law of Included Fragments - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
- The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today. This particular principle is not longer viewed as a necessary factor of modern science, but was important for those who lived in a time when most people considered ancient myths as fact.
In science, a principle (or law) is a description of a phenomenon in a particular situation without considering the cause based on evidence. Laws are commonly retested just as everything is in science. If a scientist comes across evidence that seems to contradict a known principle or law, that scientist understands that the principle needs retesting to determine how their new data fits into the overall collection of observations. For example, the principle of original horizontality basically says that sedimentary layers of rock in the ground must be laid horizontality. However, many rock formations are made up of sedimentary layers that are nearly vertical. Is the original horizontality wrong? No. The layers where originally laid horizontally. Shifts in the Earth’s crust caused the layers to be moved into a nearly vertical position long after they were laid. This particular observation was a factor in allowing scientists to eventually discover Plate Tectonics.
What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Even before radioactive dating, these geological principles forced scientists to realize that the Earth must be at least millions of years old. Further, fossils of life forms are present in various layers of rock. The fossil record shows a progressive change in life forms on Earth over time. There is no period in which every species (particularly plants and animal) exist at the same time. This led curious minds to ask, what is the process for bringing about new species over time? Creationism said that all creatures were created in the beginning, but the fossil record shows that species come into existence and died out over different and vast periods of time.
Enter Darwin’s exploration. He studied modern examples of plants and animals, and understood the fossil record. His research and publication led to the discoveries of evolution and natural selection. Why does life change over time? It evolves. What is the main driving force of evolution? It is natural selection.
Darwin didn’t actually create the Theory of Evolution. A theory cannot be made by one person. A theory is the working explanation for repeatable observations and predictions in nature that are supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers via peer review processes. To briefly paraphrase Karl Popper, scientific theories must have testability (ability to test the theory), falsifiability (test if the theory is false), or refutability (test if the theory is refutable).
Evidence collected and verified by this process throughout the 20th Century did nothing but continue to reinforce the Theory of Evolution. The fossil record became more complete and understanding of genetics improved. Richard Lenski states, “Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor.”
In the 21st Century, new discoveries in biology are not only further proving evolution; they are actually using knowledge of evolution to make new discoveries, particularly in areas of battling diseases, as mentioned in the article “Antibiotics in Action” at Pharmaceutical Achievers. In other words, the Theory of Evolution is practical science benefiting humankind directly. This puts the Theory of Evolution in the same league as Universal Law of Gravitation, Music Theory, theories within Mathematics, and General Relativity.
So, why is this important? The key difference between notions based on Creationism such as Intelligent Design and actual theories such as Evolution is in their value to science. Intelligent Design is the end of knowledge. It cannot be tested. It leads to no further discoveries. It does not improve our understanding of the world around us. On the other hand, Theory of Evolution is the beginning of knowledge. It is a model of science being used in practical ways. It also leads to more discoveries with endless possibilities. The value of Theory of Evolution is that is expands our knowledge. Just as geology opened the door to discovering Evolution, Theory of Evolution is opening the doors to many other sciences involving biology, biotechnology, infectious diseases, genetics, environmentalism, farming, etc. It leads to a better understanding of the world around us as a logical result of the many observations we make of that world.
References:
Andrew MacRae
Karl Popper
Richard Lenski
Antibiotics in Action
Monday, October 30, 2006
California Props 2006 (quick note)
My main problem with the California propositions this year (2006) is that most of them are trying to sneak something by the voters. I've commented on some of this on a previous entry.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)