What does it do to your appearance to use meth?
What does it do to your appearance to use meth? As you can see from this collection of photos on Dilidoo, it's not a pretty sight.
The co-founder of Twitter talks about the Twitter phenomenon at TED
Twitter, undeniably addictive to at least some of its advocates, has only been around since early 2006. The co-founder of Twitter, Evan Williams, talked for eight minutes at TED about his product. Twitter was originally invented as a means for sending "simple status updates to friends." It allows you to say what you're doing in 140 characters or less, with those people interested in you able to get those updates. According to Williams, Twitter "makes people feel more connected and in touch, sharing moments as things happen." It allows your friends "to know what it's like to be there." Twitter use is exploding. It's now ten times bigger than it was at the beginning of 2008. According to this entry at Wikipedia, Twitter has 55 million monthly visitors. Williams concludes his talk by noting that some Twitter users have used Twitter to enable real-time mass-action by armies of fellow Twitter users. I''ll confess that I'm not a Twitter user (though I did set up an account due to the constant urging of a real-life friend, but I haven't actually used it). I don't think I'll ever be a Twitter addict based on what I know about Twitter. I prefer writing in paragraphs rather than writing chopped up sentences. I don't want real time commentary,even from my closest of friends--I'd rather you save it up a bit and then we spend quality time together exchanging our stories with more context and color. Also, I like to get away from my computer and phone for long stretches--I recharge by getting totally away from people. I'm also suspicious that many people are deluding themselves that their on-line contacts are true "friends," in that we don't have the that kind of cognitive capacity. None of this is to deny that Twitter might sometimes be useful, even possibly life-saving in times of national crisis. I suspect, though, that Twitter is mostly word fidgeting--an addiction seemingly important due to the powerful illusion that motion--doing anything--constitutes progress. I'll admit that many important inventions were derided in the early-going (e.g., the telephone). I might be wrong when I demean Twitter as a serious mode of communication. Writing about Twitter reminds me of a recent book in which each author attempts to capture his or her entire life in six words or less. Without further ado, here's that eight-minute speech by Evan Williams, the co-founder of Twitter.
Hearing damage and iPods
To what extent is your hearing at risk when you listen to an iPod? As you might expect, it depends on how loud you play it and for how long. Here's the data.
My growing impatience with creationists: a side by side comparison of evolutionary biology and creationism
Over the past three years of writing for DI, I have discussed evolution with many creationists who have posted comments at this site. These exchanges have been good for me. They have forced me to think harder about exactly what it is that I understand about evolution and what evidence supports my understanding. These exchanges have also helped me to understand the concerns and mental gymnastics of creationists. I now find myself getting increasingly impatient with the creationists, however. It was initially interesting to banter with creationists because I enjoyed the challenge of trying to understand why they claimed the things they claimed. I’m now getting annoyed with these creationists arguments, and it mostly has to do with the refusal of creationists to acknowledge relevant scientific observations from the real world. My frustration also stems from the anti-scientific mindset of creationists. As a group, creationists refuse to argue even-handedly. They become skeptical only when it suits their immediate needs—they don’t apply skepticism equally both to their own claims and to the claims of those with whom they disagree. As a group, they scurry to find disingenuous arguments to support points that they actually learned in churches, not in science books. Many of them are consciously dishonest, and when you call attention to their obvious untruths, they try to change the subject. There are exceptions to this rule. There are some creationists who aren’t consciously being dishonest, but those creationists tend to be so incredibly ignorant of the principles of the scientific theory of evolution that they lack the ability to meaningfully criticize evolution. Their arguments are aimed at things that no competent scientist has ever claimed. For numerous excellent examples of this problem, see these videos by AronRa here and here. It is well-established that humans are susceptible to committing errors caused by the confirmation bias. We seek out evidence that supports our current beliefs. Scientists are imminently aware of this danger and they work hard to design experiments to counteract this bias. Creationists (who don’t even try to run experiments) excel at feeding their confirmation biases. They proudly exclude evidence that threatens their opinions. Creationists come to mind when I consider David Hume’s quote: “Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” [A Treatise of Human Nature, (2nd Ed.), Book II, Part I, Section III (“Of the influencing motives of the will”) (1739)].
Why is there a fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park?
Why is this fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park, in St. Louis, Missouri? Is it there for the firefighters in case an ant hill catches fire? A flower?
If I used the logic employed by Creationists, I might simply say that God put that fire hydrant there. To the extent that anyone accepts such an explanation, there would be no need for further inquiry (nor any real possibility for further inquiry).
To the extent that someone accepts the "explanation" that "God did it," he or she would miss out on a rich factual history, teaming with direct evidence upon which one can build an incredibly strong circumstantial case. One really can explain the presence of this hydrant, even without direct evidence (presumably, no one who saw this hydrant being installed is still alive).
I'm working on a post regarding creationism (including its modern version, "intelligent design"). Yesterday's walk in the park reminded me that circumstantial evidence can be strong, indeed. In fact, circumstantial evidence can make for airtight cases. Circumstantial evidence can even be much stronger than authority (because authorities--e.g., the park police--are often wrong). Therefore, people who really want to know don't simply throw up their hands and declare that the hydrant is there "Because God put it there" even when a person in a position of authority tells them this story.
An inspection of this hydrant shows that it was manufactured in 1887 (or is that number 1881?). It was thus installed sometime after 1881. Why would it be installed in the middle of a park? Perhaps it wasn't just a park back then. Perhaps it was installed because that land was to be the location of a huge construction project: the 1904 World's Fair held in St. Louis. Perhaps, after the Fair was over, this hydrant was not removed. Perhaps there are some photos of the Fair that would include this little fire hydrant, a vestigial reminder that something much more elaborate once occupied this place. All of these questions can be answered if one takes the time to examine real evidence that is currently available. If one looked further for evidence, one would find tons of corroboration, including a huge "Flight Cage" that now houses a bird exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo, also an original part of the 1904 World's Fair. Of course, one could also find numerous books filled with photos, names, dates and interviews. Notice that I'm referring to corroborative written materials--many sources that overlap--not simply reading one book over and over until one is more and more convinced.
Creationists are happy to employ these open-minded investigative methods almost always, in almost every aspect of their lives. This method of asking questions and then following the evidence wherever it leads is actually an extension of common sense. It's a shame that when it comes to one particular incredibly important aspect of their lives, determining what kind of beings we are, creationists refuse to use this direct extension of common sense.