Thursday, 25 February 2010
Monday, 22 February 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
I sincerely hope people actually read the following before deciding that I need castrating for being a sexist pig or what have you.
If this does not convince you, consider logic. The male victim is often mocked for his inability to function normally while suffering from the infection, and is ridiculed for his perceived lack of stamina in comparison to the typical female. However, male bravado in the face of physical discomfort is a far more prevalent behaviour, however unnecessary it may be. Males are often seen to be engaging in activities which are highly likely to cause significant physical distress (e.g. contact sports, heavy drinking, drug abuse, sexual intercourse with Paris Hilton etc.). The fact that they succumb to this virus should be deeply troubling.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
You ever just let your mind wander?...
Hello! It's me, Science! The anthropomorphic personification of science to be precise. Some people might think it's weird for an abstract concept to write a letter to the massed collective of a specific type of inanimate object, but it's more common than you might think. Or 'they' might think, you probably don't think, what with being a bunch of spoons. Or do you? I'll come to that later.
There was that time that 'Compassion' sent an angry letter to all the plant pots in the world, something to do with stifling growth. I didn't really listen to be honest, it all sounded like new age crap to me. And there was that time that Whimsy wrote to the totality of bulldozers, complaining about the damage they do to natural habitats (I'm pretty sure badgers were mentioned, they usually are when whimsy is involved). Long story short, what I'm doing is based on established principles. It usually is with me, except when it isn't.
Normally I'd give you some background as to what I'm on about before revealing the actual point/complaint, but I can't see the point in spending too much time with the preamble when addressing a bunch of kitchen utensils. I'm sure that would meet the criteria for insanity. Actually, I'm certain, seeing as it's usually me who establishes these criteria. Ergo, if I think I meet the standards for insanity, then I automatically do.
I bet homeopaths never have this trouble, seeing as nobody trusts them to open a jar of homeopathic olives (which is a jar of brine that did admittedly have an olive in it once during the early 14th century)
Anyway, I'll get to the point.
How would like to be classed as a subatomic particle?
Now don't answer immediately (not something I'm worried about, but still...). I know there are several problems with that offer. Mainly, you're not subatomic, not by even the most generous margins. It's clear to see that you are clear to see, so at best would be described as a 'superatomic' particle. Macroscopic, in other words.
Don't worry about that, my classification systems aren't nearly as rigid and focused as everyone believes. Just look at the biological classifications; I'm still baffled as to what exactly jellyfish are, so you'll be in good company.
But you have other properties I'm interested in, which could easily clinch your official status as an exotic particle. For one, you have your own version of the uncertainty principle. What I mean is, everyone who has teaspoons knows where they are kept, but can never definitively say how many they have. Location but not number, and anyoe who knows exactly how many spoons they have can invariably not find them all, like atoms and the like. Well done with that.
Also, you keep getting to the washing up, even if you've not been used. Some form of teleportation? Nice one if so. Of course, it doesn't work with every location, just in the kitchen sink. This suggests some form of ansible link. Do you become quantum-entangled with the sink? Makes a certain amount of sense. Apart form being interesting in it's own right, this suggests incredible commercial and practical use. Would you consent to have one of your number taken to, say, Mars? I'll arrange to have a NASA technician doing the washing up in Houston when it gets there, I'll bet it reappears in the sink instantaneously. Wormholes, faster-than-light communication, properly stirred tea, you have a lot to offer if you come work for me.
Of course, if you are capable of communication across great distances like this, then it's feasible that all teaspoons are in fact interlinked. Rapid communication between elements of such a widespread, complex arrangement of units that have numerous states would result in phenomenal processing power. There's me saying you're just a bunch of inert tools, when you may in fact be an incredibly advanced artificial network, most likely possessing an intelligence greater than that of mankind. I'd advise against attempts to enslave them though, they don't like that. And that Jon Connor is a stubborn git, and so is his mum.
Again, this assumption that you have many different components may also be flawed. With the exception of some different handles mounted around the metal 'core', all teaspoons look identical, and I've never actually heard anyone say that they've made a teaspoon. Does anyone? I have to admit that it is possible that all teaspoons are one and the same spoon, which emerged from the fury of the big bang, travelled to the end of the universe then, with it's quantum abilities, reverted to the beginning again to take a new path, and on an on until the entire universe is filed with teaspoons.
Remember that film where they said 'there is no spoon'? That may be the most incorrect statement ever.
This is all speculation of course, I won't know until we run some tests. Would you be cool with it if I put a few teaspoons in the Large Hadron Collider? Then we'll see what's what. It's mutually beneficial, you get to be the first utensil to travel at relativistic speeds, I get to save a fortune on all those detectors I need to analyse individual particles. Seriously, if you help out I could do the whole thing with a mobile phone camera.
The offers there, let me know what you think.
Love and kisses
Science (BA hons)
P.S. Whether I'm write or wrong about this, I'll still be using you to stir tea. You gotta do what you gotta do
email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Decided, for no real reason, to do a science 'commentary' on Predator 2 via twitter. Here's the results.
It's a laugh, at the end of the day
Watching Predator 2. Savage but high-tech alien slaughters laughable racial stereotypes. What fun!
If it's this easy for illegal immigrants to obtain military grade hardware, I can see why some people are so worried about them.
Actually, hideously over-powered 'aliens' appears to be a running theme with this film.
Do Jamaicans even practice Voodoo? First I've heard of it.
Did Bill Paxton have some sort of 'must play a prick' clause in his contract in the 80's/90's?
Ha ha ha, old computers trying to look like futuristic computers is always funny. Noble effort though.
Thinking about it, there's no proof that the Predator is Male. Many secies on Earth, the female is the hunter. And it has long hair...
When does Danny Glover say he's 'too old for this shit'? What's the cut off age for fighting advanced giant interstellar hunters?
Yay! Stereotypical scientist just determined the atomic structure of a metal in 3 seconds. Using a microscope.
Strange. Voodoo Jamaican drug boss with a somewhat African accent. Or am I missing some subtle nuance?
Good point, dreadlocks would make a severed head easier to carry. Not sure that's what they're for though.
What? A skull from a creature from the 'Alien' franchise? A species with an exoskeleton that has a bone skull? Why?
The colour and therefore molecular structure of bone is conserved across the galaxy, it seems.
A suit that bends light around it. Don't we have sunblock that can do that now?
Predator uses hi-tech weapons and combat skills to take out drug rings & criminals. Were he a white human billionaire, he'd be a superhero.
Exactly how do you determine what spectrum an unknown extraterrestrial perceives light in with such confidence?
Predator eats frozen beef. Doubly impressive for a being with no visible jawbone.
I think those are the same helmet/camera kits they used in 'Aliens'. Paxton must have brought them with him.
The alien uses infrared, so they remove all sources of heat from they're bodies and see with high powered UV lamps. Um...
Neon green blood should be a disadvantage for a species evolved for stealth combat, but if the rest of the planet sees in infrared too...
Glover's just chopped Predator's arm off and let him fall from a great height. Forgot to claim to be his father, though.
Would melted ceramics really be viable as a cauterising agent?
I'd love a super-sharp mechanical frisbee. Not sure my dog would feel the same, though.
e-mail: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Friday, 5 February 2010
(Now that I think of it, would a sceptic army be a good thing? They'd be very well organised and thoroughly trained, but it would take years to convince them that they should to go to war)
You familiar with Tim Minchin? If you are, good, that's to be expected. If you aren't, go to the link and don't come back until you are. If you are familiar but don't like his work, you have the wrong blog, I think you want this one.
Having seen the man himself live twice, and even met him in a bar during the Edinburgh festival (for 'met', read 'passed him as he was on his way to buy a drink like some sort of normal person but had too much pride to make an unsolicited introduction like a simpering fanboy even though it did cross my mind to do so'), I can vouch for his genius.
Who else could write a 9 minute beat poem based around an argument with a self-righteous homeopathy-swallowing arrogant airhead and make it entertaining?
Well, now it's going to be even more entertaining as they're making it into a video, or 'movie' if you prefer, I'm not sure what the difference is.
Check it out
You can keep up with the progress of it here. It's written, and the movie is being coordinated by Tracy King, Queen Bee* of the scepchicks, so big props to her.
(* = Metaphorically speaking, I'm sure Tracy isn't 10 times the size of your normal person with a massive swollen abdomen from which she produces countless larval sceptics every waking moment. However, given the nature of this blog and her pursuits, I should admit I haven't met her so can't completely rule it out)
email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Thursday, 4 February 2010
For those of you who can't stand my 'relaxed' attitude to grammar and correct wording, and my seeming obsession with ''''''''apostrophes''''''''', here's some of my irrelevant thoughts/musings in video form.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
As mentioned in previous post, this humble blog got bigged up in Bad Astronomy today
Here's the page
Back with more letters soon
* = I mean, I don't know the reason why my blog has proven particularly popular with German people, the reason they ARE German is most likely due to being born and/or living in Germany
Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
As a result, several points have been raised, which I will try to address now.
Admittedly, I do use apostrophes quite excessively. Just a bit of a blind spot, I suppose. Not sure if this is a genuine attempt by people to get me to raise my standards (if so, cheers!) or if I've got a case of the mythological grammar Nazis. Just a note to point out that Science and grammar don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, they differ on many things. The meaning of the word 'colon', for example...
2: MR SCIENCE?
This has been raised previously, and I'll reiterate it here. Yes, I do write from the point of view that Science is male, despite the Latin feminine nouns. And before any militant feminists scream about arrogance, I do this purely because I am male, and no other reason. I also assign genders to other concepts according purely to what makes the letter read better, and may easily change my mind in later pieces. I wouldn't want to do it any other way, as whereas I am confident enough to write as if I were the living embodiment of the totality of science (encompassing all of mankinds information, study and research into the universe past, present and future), I would never be presumptuous enough to write as a woman. I know my limits.
3: ASTROLOGICAL MISTAKES
I'm aware that the Dear Astrology letter contains several 'mistakes' regarding astrology, in so far as you can make mistakes regarding a completely created system. I know Pluto is still there, but do astrologers? I'm trying to rail against things based on the perception of them in modern culture, as people always do with science. Meticulously researching the thing I'm addressing and making sure to avoid inaccuracies would sort of defeat the point of what I'm doing. That's what scientists always do, I want to show what it could be like if science behaved in a similar manner to it's detractors. Bare in mind, I've had an extensive reply from an astrologer, doesn't look like logic is their strong suit.
I do tend to do a lot of generalising, this isn't necessarily accurate when applied to things that aren't pseudoscience. This is purely for ease of writing/reading. Not all journalists/media platforms are idiotic trash dispensers, not all advertisers are soulless bullshit merchants, not all Apple products are pretentious. I could be more specific in my ill-informed rants, but that would lose the impact somewhat. Don't take it personal, unless you actually are a homeopath or the Pope, in which case I apologise for nothing.
5: SCIENCES QUALIFICATION?
Yes, I put BA hons whenever I sign off as 'science'. This is meant to be a joke, obviously. I just find it very amusing, the irony of the living embodiment of science actually having an arts degree. Maybe it's just me?
Think that's about it for now. Have I missed anything? Just comment or message if so. Will see if I can sustain people's interest into next week.
email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Had to be done, really
Dear 'The Pope'
It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. I doubt you'll read this, you've never read any of my previous works. Even though we both have a tendency to use big Latin words in order to confuse people, I don't think we share similar reading preferences. My books tend to include figures and graphs, not so much stonings and miracles.
Also, I know I never said thanks for agreeing that the Big Bang theory is accurate, but having you agree with me actually undermines my argument more than anything, so would you mind just not getting involved from now on?
Actually, that was the last one wasn't it? Or was it several Popes ago? It's hard to keep track of you guys. Are you a Time Lord? Or is it one of those 'Dead Man's Shoes' situations? Or 'Dead Man's sacred ruby slippers', or whatever the hell those things are.
Anyway, to the point. You've been saying that having your people legally obliged to admit homosexuals violates 'natural law'? Say what now? What do you mean by 'natural law'? The laws of nature, which usually involves being killed and eaten by a superior physical specimen. I know some Gay people like to work out, but what do you think they'll do to you? Bring you down like a Gazelle and gnaw on your carcass? Although a potentially amusing scene, that's not what Gay people do. Any of them (despite your propaganda)
I ask because 'natural law' sounds like something that's under my jurisdiction, not yours. You take care of spirituality and all that, I'll take care of the laws of nature. And everything else of any use and importance.
I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about physics, I really can't see a law enforcing human rights violating the fundamental rules that govern space time. Are you suggesting that this policy disrupts biology? That the instinctive revulsion you feel towards homosexuality is natural, ergo attempting to suppress it is a violation of 'natural law'? Fair enough, so the suppression of natural inclinations is fundamentally wrong? Said the Pope? The POPE! A Catholic would be bad enough, but the POPE! From what I hear about what some of your lot get up to with the choirboys, they clearly agree with you.
I'm impressed in a way, you do set yourself some incredible challenges. I'm trying to save the planet, determine the fundamental structure of all reality and provide unlimited clean energy for all of mankind, but stopping teenage boys from masturbating? I know my limits.
Homosexuality is natural, by the way. This is true, because it exists. If it served no purpose, it wouldn't exist, it's not exactly a hereditary trait is it. If they were, as you say, 'not natural', evolution would have caused them to die out centuries ago. To say homosexuality is wrong is like say evolution doesn't occur!
Oh, wait.... Ah, I see what I did there.
Thing is though, you say evolution doesn't happen, and if evolution is summarised simply as organisms developing over time in order to ensure the survival of their genes, the homosexuality could be seen as counter evidence to this. So homosexuality must be an act of God. So which is it?
Or have I mixed you up with fundamentalists? I can never tell you lot apart. Either way, you're wrong. We all know it, stop trying to dress up your prejudice with nonsense terms you creepy old freak.
You need to relax mate. What you so worked up about? What would happen if you did allow homosexuals into the catholic church? You've been doing it for centuries. I know it sounds bad, the church would end up as some institution where women weren't allowed and all the men hung around together wearing elaborate clothes.
Yeah, sounds awful doesn't it.
Long story short, this anti-gay vitriol is a bit rich coming from a guy who (allegedly), to get his job, has to have his testicles squeezed by another man, in front of everyone.
It's not natural what you do. Ergo, by your logic, you shouldn't do it.
I know there hasn't been much in the way of scientific analysis in this letter, but that's usually a complete waste of time when I talk to you.
Stay out of my yard!
Science (BA hons)
P.S. If having an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do is so wrong, would it be OK if I got back to my stem cell work, and stuff like that? I'll just assume it is, shall I?
email: humourology (at) live.co.uk