Here’s something fun to leave on your screen for a while. It’s an evolutionary car.
Ouches in 3..2..
The problem here is: what’s the the best wheel (and load) size and position to get a little car across a rugged landscape? Genetic algorithms are good at these kinds of problems. Just release a population of slightly differing individuals into the wild, and let the best performers produce offspring that are sort of like they are. Nifty.
Some memes just won’t die.
I’ve just been emailed my 1,000th iteration of the Microsoft email hoax. You know the one.
Microsoft and AOL are now the largest Internet companies
and in an effort to make sure that Internet Explorer remains the
most widely used program, Microsoft and AOL are running an e-mail beta test.
>
When you forward this e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (If you
are a Microsoft Windows user) For a two weeks time period.
>
For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00
for every person that you sent it to that forwards it on,
>
Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives
it, You will be paid $241.00.
I used to be nice about this kind of thing, emailing just the sender privately, not wanting to embarrass them, explaining how to Google for scams, hoping — just hoping — that people would learn how to exercise a bit of caution and critical thinking so as not to waste everyone’s time. And do they learn? They do not. I think this might be the third time with this very same email from the very same person.
So now I’m a jerk about it. I replied to all, and sent this link, which you might want to try on your addled n00b loved ones.
Anyway, this meme has been around a while, and so more people are aware of it. That means that it has to evolve some pretty tricky defenses if people are going to propagate it. Here they are, all from the same email.
1. The veneer of authority.
I’m an attorney, And I know the law. This thing is for real.
2. A bit of phony skepticism.
Thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and
for warding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and within days, I
received a check for $24, 800.00 .
3. Testimonials! They get us every time.
My brother’s girlfriend got in on this a few months ago.
When I went to visit him for the Baylor/UTgame, she showed me her check.
It was for the sum of $4, 324.44 and was stamped “Paid In Full’.
But for me, the most interesting thing was the addenda from the most recent senders of the message. They show the thought processes of what finally tipped the balance to convince them to hit ‘send’. Here they are.
Hey, we all need a little extra money, might as well try it out and see if we all gain a bit$$$$… he he.. It would be a nice Christmas present…. hugs…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Hummmm, not to sure about this one but I thought I’d just see what happens within the next two weeks….
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What do we have to lose by trying – Right?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What have you got to lose other than time by sending the email on.
The way I see it, these memes thrive under three circumstances:
1. The potential benefit of perpetuating the meme is high
2. The potential risk from the consequences of perpetuating the meme is low
3. The cost or effort of actually sending on the meme is low
All three of these conditions are present in the Microsoft email hoax. Notice that the amounts of money offered are moderate, but the low payoff is offset by the ease of forwarding the message. If you had to send $1,000 cash to participate, the meme would have a harder time propagating. It would have to offer higher returns to compensate (as is the case with MLM scams). Similarly, if there was some risk attached (perhaps arrest for sending chain emails), people might think twice.
As it is, people shrug and send it on. Critical thinking faculties are put safely back to sleep and the meme continues once again across the world.
Seems that Washington DC Metro is copping some heat over the atheist bus ads.
More than 200 people have complained to Metro about an ad campaign that questions believing in God. One person praised the campaign.
That should be a little higher, don’t you think?
The ads by the American Humanist Association first appeared on buses two weeks ago and inside buses Monday. They say, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”
Metro spokeswoman Candace Smith said the ads have sparked more complaints than usual.
“As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising,” Smith said. “Although we understand that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because an individual, or group, finds it inappropriate or offensive.”
So even though their policy requires them to accept ads, I think Metro deserves some props for their commitment to the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.
Here’s your assignment. Call the DC Metro on (202) 637 1328 during business hours (9am – 5pm EST), and commend them for running the ‘Why Believe in a God’ ads on buses. Or, if you don’t want to phone, you can leave a customer comment on their website, found here. Now get busy.
UPDATE: While you’re at it, would you mind calling the office of Washington Governor Christine Gregoire? The number is 360-902-4111.
She’s been getting some flack about an atheist message in the capitol building. It says:
At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
Opposition has been trumped up by Fox TV’s Bill O’Reilly, who has encouraged viewers to call and complain.
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly had an eight-minute segment on his show Tuesday night decrying the inclusion of the atheistic billboard along with a holiday tree and a Christian nativity scene.
Conservative TV personality O’Reilly called the display “political correctness gone mad” and urged viewers to call Gov. Christine Gregoire’s office to complain.
Gregoire spokesman Pearse Edwards says the office has been getting about 200 calls an hour, as well as e-mails.
I’m actually glad that O’Reilly’s come out against the sign. First, it means that the oogedy-boogedy religious wing of the GOP is not lying down and dying. They’ll be alienating voters and causing a headache for the Republican Party for years to come. Second, O’Reilly and his ilk are showing what they stand for. They’re not for freedom of speech. They’re for one view only — theirs. But if you allow one point of view in a public place, it’s only fair to include them all. Or none.
Hey, that’s a solution. Take everything down. The Christmas tree, the atheist sign, the menorah, all of it. Now that’s a war on Christmas! Why do you suppose Bill hates Christmas so much?
Here’s a meme to watch, and it’s been popping up pretty frequently lately: “Terrorism has no religion.” People mean different things by it, so let’s scan some news stories.
Meaning one: People in religions should not be persecuted for the actions of their most violent minorities.
This article is from 2002, and the quote is from Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, talking about 9/11.
For me and many of my colleagues in the MCB, there is no such thing as family life any more; we are under so much pressure. It cannot be right that an entire civilisation is tarnished because of the actions of a few. Terrorism has no religion. We must not fall into the trap of responding with anger and hate. Our emphasis should be on justice, not vengeance.
Okay, scapegoating sucks. And in many of the news stories that contain this phrase, they’re trying to tamp down religiously-motivated violence between Hindus and Muslims. A real nightmare scenario. I get that.
But here’s the other reading, and it’s this one I object to:
Meaning two: Extremists are not members of any religion.
Senior Congress leader B. Janardhan Poojary has said the terrorism has no religion and this has been revealed in the arrests of alleged Hindu extremists in connection with the Malegaon blast case.
Mr. Poojary condemned the Malegaon blasts by the Hindu community and said the “People who commit acts of aggression in the name of Hinduism are not Hindus. People who take to violence in the name of Islam are not Muslim.”
Does he mean they’re not good Hindus or Muslims? No, he’s saying they’re simply not Hindus or Muslims at all, which is untrue.
About one instant before 5 guys stopped being Muslims, protecting Islam from criticism.
Here’s another recent article on the same theme.
Bollywood star Aamir Khan wrote on his blog on Friday that politicians may try to use the Mumbai terror attack to their own advantage and stressed that terrorists have no religion.
“I dread to think of how various political parties are now going to try and use this tragedy to further their political careers. At least now they should learn to not divide people and instead become responsible leaders,” wrote Aamir on his blog.
“When will these politicians realise and admit that terrorists have no religion. Terrorists are not Hindu or Muslim or Christian. They are not people of religion or god. They are people who have gone totally sick in their head and have to be dealt with in that manner,” he added.
Does he mean that terrorism is not confined to one religion? No, he’s saying that a religious person in the midst of committing a terrorist act ceases to be a member of that religion.
This seems like an attempt to shield religions from criticism by performing ad hoc disavowals of anyone who commits a terrorist act. But this is irresponsible. You can’t raise someone in a faith, tell them the doctrines are literally true and must be obeyed, tell them that they must always be true to their faith, teach that they must sacrifice for the cause, and then cut them loose when they sacrifice their lives in a mistaken effort to promote their religious ends. Religions are responsible for the consequences of their doctrines.
I wish people in religions could honestly confront the possibility that they enable terrorism by promoting unquestioning faith as a virtue and holding out the hope of an eternal future of happiness if followers obey the commands of a god. But I suppose that’s too much to ask.
A tragic story about the 8-year-old boy that killed two men.
The double murder on Nov 5 shocked the US, with investigators initially struggling to find any motive.
However, according to police records reported by the Arizona Republic, the boy “is believed to have made ledgers and/or communicated in the form of writings about his intentions” if his father and stepmother continued to smack him.
According to the police records, the boy told a Child Protective Services official that “when he reached one thousand spankings . . . that would be his limit. [The boy] kept a tally of his spankings on a piece of paper.”
The article doesn’t detail the severity of the beatings, but one thousand? By age eight? How many could you rack up by 18? This was a parent with a limited disciplinary repertoire. (On the other hand, this is perfectly sound biblical technique.)
According to child psychologist Rudolf Dreikurs (discussed here), children have different motives for misbehaviour. They may seek attention, they may try for power, or they may act out of discouragement. But the most dangerous motive is revenge. They may lash out at parents, or try to harm themselves. Some suicides contain elements of revenge.
It’s important for children to experience the consequences of their actions, both good and bad. That’s how they learn to become responsible adults. But beating, spanking, and hitting are not good consequences. They do not follow as a result of what the child has done, and they set the parent up as One Who Must Be Obeyed. Then, you get (at best) sneaky kids with no internal sense of responsibility, and (at worst) ticking time-bombs of simmering revenge. It doesn’t take a thousand beatings for this to happen.
The alternative to this grim scenario is to allow the child to have logical consequences for their actions. If they get ready for bed on time, they get a story. If they break a window, it comes out of their pocket money. If they fight over toys, the toy has to go in time-out.
I’ve used this principle on my two boys, and so far they seem to be learning to anticipate the consequences of their actions. I don’t need to hit them or even yell at them. (Which is not to say that I don’t lose it sometimes, but it’s rare.) And they listen to me because we have a good relationship based on mutual respect and not punishment.
An amazing read in the L.A. Times this morning about the genealogy of modern conservatism. It’s not about Goldwater; it’s about McCarthy.
In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn’t run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. It centralizes what one might call the McCarthy gene, something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn’t likely to be expunged any time soon.
…
McCarthyism is usually considered a virulent form of Red-baiting and character assassination. But it is much more than that. As historian Richard Hofstadter described it in his famous essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” McCarthyism is a way to build support by playing on the anxieties of Americans, actively convincing them of danger and conspiracy even where these don’t exist.
So for McCarthy, it was ‘Commies!’ For Nixon, it was ‘Hippies!’ Or perhaps ‘Hippie commies!’ And at various times the scapegoat group has been blacks (Willie Horton and others), gays (destroying the family), women (uppity), and of course liberals liberals liberals. Demonisation has turned out to be a very successful electoral strategy, which is why the GOP is having such a tough time reeling in its McCarthyish habits.
Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That’s why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama’s relationship with onetime radical William Ayers.
Read the rest.
Australia is supposed to be a secular society, but the Atheist Foundation of Australia says the nation’s biggest outdoor advertising company has refused to run its advertisements.
One of the humorous messages the foundation hoped to put on the back of buses was, “Sleep in on Sunday mornings”.
But the foundation says Australia’s biggest outdoor advertising company, APN Outdoor, had a problem with it.
That does it. I’m boycotting all advertising from APN Outdoor. Next time there’s a billboard, I refuse to look.
Can APN Outdoor turn down the ads, since they are a private company after all? Well, this is some muddy water. A restaurant is a private company, but if they tried refusing atheist customers, they could expect some bad mojo. Even then, there are other restaurants I could go to. But here, APN has a monopoly on the right to sell ad space on buses — public buses at that.
If they were smart, they’d allow it. Every other religion would rush to copy the success of the atheist ads, and APN would be rolling in it. There might be a slight uptick in vandalism on some weeks, but that’s no reason to be a party pooper.
Last time Kraftwerk came to Perth, it was 2003 at the Big Day Out. I didn’t go because… it was on a Sunday and I was still religious. Stupid, stupid, stupid! Fortunately Zeus saw me kicking myself and blessed me with bootleg MP3s of the show.
Well, last Sunday, Kraftwerk was back in Perth for Global Gathering. And where was I? Front and center, bitchez.
Before the show, I was talking to some other festival-goers. Everyone was 18 or so, and it struck me that all these younger people were here watching a concert headlined by a bunch of 60-year-olds. Of course, Kraftwerk are the elder statesmen of electronic music, and they’ve been hugely influential. But for an old fart like me, easily double the age of 90% of the people in the audience (and someone who’s been listening to Kraftwerk for 25 years), it was gratifying to see that the influence of my early heroes has grown and not diminished.
For another 80s moment, consider also that Mark Ronson’s crew finished their set with their version of the Smiths’ “Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before”, and was very well received.
But back to the ‘Werk. It’s strange to watch Kraftwerk live. As sequenced as the show must be, one wonders what it is they’re doing up there. They stay in one place the entire time busily focused on their Sony Vaio’s (ugh). Occasionally a foot will tap or a mouse will click. Ralf (on the far left) sings. Other than that, the band gives very little indication that anything’s going on. Yet Ralf says that everything’s being done live and in real time. And in fact the band did have to suspend their Melbourne performance as Fritz was having heart trouble before the show, which suggests that they couldn’t have sent a robot to do his part.
It’s part of their act. They approach the making of music in a very workmanlike way. The ask very little of the audience, no requests to put your motherfuckin’ hands in the air, no jumping around, or any of that nonsense. And the audience gets to enjoy the music in their own way. Which they did. The crowd was really soaking up the hypnotic beats, enjoying the music as much as being in the presence of these techno pioneers.
Ms Perfect said it best: It’s like being able to say that you saw Mozart. I don’t think this is an overblown comparison. These men changed music forever, and it was a pleasure to see them at last, doing their thing in their own perfect way.
COVINGTON, La. (AP) — R.J. Richard says he doesn’t normally put his cell phone in his chest pocket. But he says it saved his life the one time he did.
The 68-year-old man from Covington, La., was mowing the lawn on his 5-acre property when a stray bullet from nearby woods struck that cell phone. He figured a rock kicked up by his tractor hit him. That is, until he took out the phone and a .45-caliber bullet fell from its case.
Richard told The Times-Picayune of New Orleans he doesn’t think it was a coincidence, either.
“I look at this as God telling me to put my cell phone in that pocket, and I’m grateful and humbled,” he said.
He may not think it’s a coincidence, but with so many people getting shot, it’d be unusual if someone didn’t escape once in a while.
But why give the credit to a god? That’s who allowed someone to shoot him in the first place. You could use this story as evidence of a perfectly evil god. “God tried to make someone kill me, but I managed to thwart his malevolent intentions with my phone.”
Meanwhile, God’s been killing people left and right. We can’t hear their stories about how God didn’t save them because they’re no longer around to tell us. We only hear from the survivors.
© 2026 Good Reason
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
Recent Comments