Drinking From Home has miraculously managed to find some old screenshots of the BBC web site, circa 1943.
Another Way The Bush Administration Screwed Up
Here’s a post, just for those morons who continue to believe that I’m a Bush shill, or parrot Republican talking points:
…as a proud Briton, I am not prepared to be a client of the United States. The coalition of the willing was, in effect, a coalition of two. Of course Britain is the junior partner, but she is a partner, and not a low-level employee. What is special about the relationship for us? America gets a European partner, world class intel, nuclear subs, men, whole regions pacified and many millions of your taxpayer dollars saved.
What does Britain get? MFN trading status?
America is going to have to give something to this relationship, and I do not mean a standing ovation for the PM in Congress. We stand with you far more than any European ally, but receive no special treatment in dollars or in trade. Usually, we do not even receive respect.
Yes, Bush is incompetent, in many ways. But as Lincoln said of Grant, “he fights.” At least occasionally.
Governments in general are incompetent. But a Kerry administration would have been even worse. We always have to choose between the less evil of two lessers.
Finicky
We were thinking about getting up early and driving up to the Cape in an attempt to see the launch today. Good thing we didn’t.
As I’ve said in the past, it’s amazing that this thing ever launches, with so many things that have to go right.
Splog Overload
Here’s an interesting article at Wired about spam blogs, a problem that could take down the blogosphere if the search engines can’t get it under control. I’ve had to ban blogspot.com from comments and pings a few months ago because there were so many comments and pings coming from blogspot splogs. One other warning for people like Jeff Foust:
Another giveaway: Both Some Title and the grave-robbing page it links to had Web addresses in the .info domain. Spammers flock to .info, which was created as an alternative to the crowded .com, because its domain names are cheaper
Good For Mitt Romney
He gives Khatami exactly the amount of respect he deserves:
Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami
Resurrection
Cathy Seipp says that Futurama is coming back. Hooray!
It’s A Looooonnnnggg Time
I’m puzzled by this post by Clayton Cramer, who thinks:
I am prepared to believe (at least for sake of argument) that all of these complex mechanisms could have developed as a result of blind, random chance. But what are the chances that all of these complex mechanisms managed to develop in less than 700 million years? More importantly, what are the chances that cells that blindly, randomly developed one of these structures or enzymes were the ancestors of cells that blindly, randomly developed all the rest of these useful mutations?
On my planet, 700 million years is a really long time. Is there some kind of mathematical analysis that he’s done to indicate that it’s for some reason insufficient?
I think that part of the problem is his continued use of variations of the phrase “blind, random chance.” This is a common misperception among evolution skeptics (who have apparently never read “The Blind Watchmaker” or other books that describe how evolution actually works). They seem to think that it stumbles around blindly, as though it were like the million monkeys randomly typing Shakespeare attempts. In fact it is directed–it simply isn’t directed by intelligence. It’s directed by what works. If a mutation occurs that has an advantage in the environment, it is preserved, and the next generation builds on it.
Imagine the monkeys, except when one of them accidentally gets a letter of the sonnet right, they don’t have to type that part any more–it’s preserved in their next attempt, and they just bang on the keys to fill in the spaces around it. Each time they get one right, it becomes more sonnet like. If the sonnet has, say a couple thousand characters, then the monkey might get each one right within a few dozen keystrokes (assuming that he’s really typing randomly, and not skipping some keys entirely–which is an interesting analog to the concept of future development paths limited by existing morphology, described in Gould’s book The Panda’s Thumb). Even with thousands of characters, a rapidly typing simian would pound out the poem in a couple days, while having no knowledge of what he’s doing.
It’s A Looooonnnnggg Time
I’m puzzled by this post by Clayton Cramer, who thinks:
I am prepared to believe (at least for sake of argument) that all of these complex mechanisms could have developed as a result of blind, random chance. But what are the chances that all of these complex mechanisms managed to develop in less than 700 million years? More importantly, what are the chances that cells that blindly, randomly developed one of these structures or enzymes were the ancestors of cells that blindly, randomly developed all the rest of these useful mutations?
On my planet, 700 million years is a really long time. Is there some kind of mathematical analysis that he’s done to indicate that it’s for some reason insufficient?
I think that part of the problem is his continued use of variations of the phrase “blind, random chance.” This is a common misperception among evolution skeptics (who have apparently never read “The Blind Watchmaker” or other books that describe how evolution actually works). They seem to think that it stumbles around blindly, as though it were like the million monkeys randomly typing Shakespeare attempts. In fact it is directed–it simply isn’t directed by intelligence. It’s directed by what works. If a mutation occurs that has an advantage in the environment, it is preserved, and the next generation builds on it.
Imagine the monkeys, except when one of them accidentally gets a letter of the sonnet right, they don’t have to type that part any more–it’s preserved in their next attempt, and they just bang on the keys to fill in the spaces around it. Each time they get one right, it becomes more sonnet like. If the sonnet has, say a couple thousand characters, then the monkey might get each one right within a few dozen keystrokes (assuming that he’s really typing randomly, and not skipping some keys entirely–which is an interesting analog to the concept of future development paths limited by existing morphology, described in Gould’s book The Panda’s Thumb). Even with thousands of characters, a rapidly typing simian would pound out the poem in a couple days, while having no knowledge of what he’s doing.
It’s A Looooonnnnggg Time
I’m puzzled by this post by Clayton Cramer, who thinks:
I am prepared to believe (at least for sake of argument) that all of these complex mechanisms could have developed as a result of blind, random chance. But what are the chances that all of these complex mechanisms managed to develop in less than 700 million years? More importantly, what are the chances that cells that blindly, randomly developed one of these structures or enzymes were the ancestors of cells that blindly, randomly developed all the rest of these useful mutations?
On my planet, 700 million years is a really long time. Is there some kind of mathematical analysis that he’s done to indicate that it’s for some reason insufficient?
I think that part of the problem is his continued use of variations of the phrase “blind, random chance.” This is a common misperception among evolution skeptics (who have apparently never read “The Blind Watchmaker” or other books that describe how evolution actually works). They seem to think that it stumbles around blindly, as though it were like the million monkeys randomly typing Shakespeare attempts. In fact it is directed–it simply isn’t directed by intelligence. It’s directed by what works. If a mutation occurs that has an advantage in the environment, it is preserved, and the next generation builds on it.
Imagine the monkeys, except when one of them accidentally gets a letter of the sonnet right, they don’t have to type that part any more–it’s preserved in their next attempt, and they just bang on the keys to fill in the spaces around it. Each time they get one right, it becomes more sonnet like. If the sonnet has, say a couple thousand characters, then the monkey might get each one right within a few dozen keystrokes (assuming that he’s really typing randomly, and not skipping some keys entirely–which is an interesting analog to the concept of future development paths limited by existing morphology, described in Gould’s book The Panda’s Thumb). Even with thousands of characters, a rapidly typing simian would pound out the poem in a couple days, while having no knowledge of what he’s doing.
Condolences
To Josh Marshall, who just lost his father. I know the feeling, though the pain is long dull now–I lost mine half a lifetime ago.
[Update in the afternoon]
While Josh has written a beautiful eulogy, am I the only one to wonder why he has a different last name than his father?
[Update]
Commenters, who read his piece more carefully than I, point out the numerous references as to why they don’t share the same last name, which makes his eulogy even more heart felt and sad. He was his father in deeds, if not biology, and the reverence, love and grief should be respected all the more.