Tinypliny's Journal

11/07/2008 21:22 #46596

Complexity Atomized
Category: science

Artist Linda Nye captures the incredible gradient of complexity of circulation in a human being. As you start your trace from your heart and venture deeper and deeper into your vessels and bloodstream, you see the red blood cells, the vessel walls, the members of the immune system - the body's dedicated mafia, down to the biochemistry of Haemoglobin - the oxygen carrying complex with its little oxygen atom.

Here is the same balance of complexity destroyed by unwieldy chunks of flaky lard from those countless beers, triple servings of pasta, humongous bagels for breakfast, random potato fries and all those burgers of abandonment.

Science 26 September 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5897, p. 1768 DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5897.1768

tinypliny - 11/08/08 22:36
"low-level system call for spawning a process" - LOL. Couldn't ask for a more accurate description of reproduction.

zobar - 11/08/08 22:20
1. The sperm is labeled fork(); which is the low-level system call for spawning a process. I guess it's as good an excuse as any.

2. Brian Greene is the world's preeminent string theorist. I had to look that up.

- Z

tinypliny - 11/08/08 09:38
THAT is AWESOME (e:zobar). I especially <3 the "Brian Greene knitting furiously. Clink Clink" right at the bottom of the complex hierarchy below the DUST and the RUST mites and quite curiously, what appears to be a sperm.

Hmmm...
And I don't have the faintest idea who Brian Greene is. Hahaha

zobar - 11/08/08 08:57
Only stylistically related: Randall Munroe of XKCD put together some vertical-log illustrations of the known universe :::link::: and a computer :::link::: that I thought were pretty keen.

- Z

tinypliny - 11/07/08 22:13
Varied fonts were exactly what I wanted for this post. :)

paul - 11/07/08 22:01
Once again, fantastic use of font size and happy 40k comments!

11/06/2008 20:04 #46578

Mr. Super-Colourful
Category: {dodo}

-- He once sent a 2.5 feet long dead rotting fish to a pollster whom he disliked.

-- He is a classically trained ballet dancer.

-- His brother is a Hollywood agent and he has had movies made about him.

-- His other brother is the head of bioethics unit at the NIH and an oncologist.

-- He once stabbed a steak knife through the table to make a point.

Meet Rahm Emanuel. He is the future chief-of-staff of Obama's White House Team!

Whoever said only Palin could make SNL's life easy??!! Exciting times ahead for the Republicans. LOL :D

11/05/2008 23:18 #46567

Antonio Lauro - Maria Carolina
Category: music

The new user sound is an awesome rendition of Maria Carolina - a famous Venezuelan waltz written for the Guitar by the pitch perfect Antonio Lauro.

Its played by the awesome John Williams as part of his perfect,
El Diablo Suelto.

What are you waiting for?? Check it out! Load and play my usersound! :)

libertad - 11/06/08 15:36
Thanks for sharing!

11/05/2008 19:23 #46564

Proposition 8 drama. WAKE UP MORONS.
Category: science

I need to keep this short and sweet. This is a message to people who voted against gay marriage in those loony states.

Sexuality is, to a large extent, GENETICALLY determined. There is scientific proof to this effect. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Thus, by voting against rights for people whose sexual leanings are different from yours, not only do you show that you are unscientific, but you are also heartless, discriminating and "racist". Would you deny people rights and dignity because they happen to have a different eye colour or because they had a metabolism that processed fats differently or hmmm.. let's see, lived to a 110 years because their ageing genes kicked in slower?

I am sure many of you wouldn't. And why? Not because these traits are *any* different from sexuality, but because these traits are not linked to a flawed artificially created nonsense "definition" of "marriage" (and by proxy cultural, social, financial and legal rights).

THIS is precisely why science needs to be the new culture of people. THIS is why we need to dissect the flaws of a religion-politics liaison and burn them forever. THIS is why we need forward thinking and tolerant education in schools. THIS is why we need a better appreciation of human evolution, myths and culture. THIS is why we need open-minds and take our mistaken and demented prejudices apart. THIS is why we need to re-learn what respect to our fellow-humans means. THIS is why we need change - at its most basic and pure level. Not an "ad-lib" top-heavy lip-service "change" but CHANGE from the grassroots on how we think about our roles in our society and how we think about others who live in it.

And you know what? Even without the scientific argument, would you deny rights to a person who wore a white shirt to work when a majority of the employees were wearing blue just because the person wearing a different colour happened to have a sense of style different from you???? It's about respect of choice. The bottomline is, scientifically backed up or not, by voting against rights for everyone, you just cast a cloud of doubt over the fact that you even have some of the most human of traits - a sense of justice, equality and tolerance. Additionally, you also proved that you can let others think for you (another herd-like non-human trait, by the way). If you had taken the time to weigh the matter and form your own opinion, instead of letting your rational brain go off into the recesses of unconsciousness, you might have realized how unfortunate this decision has been. :/

11/05/2008 00:07 #46540

Taking a break from little girl news...
Category: the odes

This channel would like to triple cheer

Science!
..Choice!..
...Peace!...
....Dreams!....
....Justice!....
.....Courage!.....
.......Evolution!........
..........Rationalism!...........
....................Moderation!....................
.................................Forethought!....................................
.......................................and................................................

Obama!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

tinypliny - 11/05/08 23:29
Hehe, it would awesome if I had a centre-allign formatting tag as well. :)

And my, your teenage strong brood of 522 teenage kids create such loudly deafening and opinionated babble. Thank goodness you are quite a generous cool parent. LOL ;-)

paul - 11/05/08 22:30
First, I love your use of the size tag. Barely anyone takes advantage of that feature.

Religion - If I never heard about it again it would be awesome. I find it ironic that estrip is pretty much my only exposure to it. Religious people would probably say it was a sign - that my own creation is speaking back to me in religious terms. I just think its irritating like a teenager that talks back to its parent.

jim - 11/05/08 22:06
With that bit I was talking more about day to day necessities then scientific practice, starting to get tangential to the original question.

tinypliny - 11/05/08 22:02
@(e:Jim): "I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such."

I don't have a problem with creating such a frame as well, but I have a big problem when scientists ignore this frame of reference, conveniently forget about limits and start to generalize the results of a few such limited experiments to everyone and every scenario. *That* is bad science.

Generalizing without recognizing limitations and not being cognizant of pitfalls in such a generalization is equal to being dogmatic, married to your hypotheses and practicing scientific fundamentalism (equivalent to religious fundamentalism or even extremism).

I personally want to release a fatwa against such scientists. Or may be a well-directed jihad might be better? Hmm...

drew - 11/05/08 21:57
hmm. Those thoughts will have to come later. I promised Janelle I would watch law and order with her.

drew - 11/05/08 21:53
some quick thoughts, and then maybe a longer response will follow.

Of course we are friendly--that's well established.

Also, no doubt that Science produces wonder--I've experienced as much.

Now for the things that require more thought . . .

drew - 11/05/08 21:51
Sadly, not every scientist requires "thinking for oneself" (although it should) Some teachers of science simply want the old orthodoxy repeated.

The proclamations of a person of faith should also be held to a standard. No, I do not use the scientific method every week (as that would be science) but there are other measures of truth that are considered.

Good liturature isn't less good or less life changing because it isn't subject to independant observation. It resonates with experience, and with the established body of knowledge, or it doesn't. It makes people better, or it makes people worse.

And a priest/minister/rabbi that does not take a scripture and proclaim it in such a way that it builds a healthy community can and should be criticized, and often is.

tinypliny - 11/05/08 21:49
Nice thoughts, (e:drew). Two additional comments.

"Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly."

I couldn't agree more. There is good science as well as bad and one rotten science experiment at the base can topple the whole pyramid of sound experiments built on top of it.

"For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)"

And here, I have to disagree a bit. What is inspiration? Is inspiration not 50% hope and 50% wonder? Science provides both in more generous doses than any other discipline. What is purpose? What is the purpose of what? Of us being here? Or being what we are? Or us doing anything "worthwhile"? I think practicing good science aids humanity in many many ways, touches lives through healing and small comforts, shapes lives by understanding a bit more of our being everyday, brings purpose to the pursuit of a happy contended life, defines contentment in terms of service to others, helps us examine disparities and come up with solutions, examine evolution and yet impose our strong inherent need for equality by erasing the unequal and sometimes brutal effects of evolution in populations. Thus, depending on how you look at it science can be as resonant and inspiring as you want it to be just as social science can be as rigorous and real as you make it. :D

jim - 11/05/08 21:44
And disagree in a vehemently friendly way (just to be clear).

jim - 11/05/08 21:43
Ah, I disagree of course, Drew.

Lack of reproducibility makes me very suspicious. It's hard for me to take specific religious claims seriously when they require preferred frames of reference in a general sense. That foundational distrust means I can't derive any satisfaction from religion.

I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such.

And so there's my horror at any hint of special or revealed truth in a nutshell.

tinypliny - 11/05/08 21:38
I have to agree with Jim word for word. :)

Also, science requires you to think for yourself and practicing it well requires that you try and critique what is believed every time you think of something new. A scientist, unlike a priest is not received well (and may in fact be denied funding or booed off the stage), if s/he preaches without experimental/observational evidence and logic to back up his/her statements in a sound fashion.

drew - 11/05/08 21:34
Good faith, like good science, involves constant examination and constant re-evaluation.

Like science, religion tends have rituals, habits, disciplines. These can become a healthy way of life, or mindless superstition and dogma.

Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly.

I love science (well, I studied a social science, so the "real" scientists might disagree) to understand the truth of the natural world, there is no better method.

For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)

jim - 11/05/08 21:26
Heidi, my take:

Scientific claims can be verified independently. The scientific method aims to increase accuracy and precision in understanding the world. Things which are science could conceivably be rediscovered were the world to fall into a dark age and we forgot all current knowledge.

Religion is that which will never arise the same way twice. Religion and faith are about things that can't be assessed outside of the context of their own claims and culture. If we all forgot about Jesus today, tomorrow he'd be gone for good. Unless he came back for a second time of course :)

Some science is messy and imprecise - we model weather with only the ability to understand some of the patterns and systems that occur, and global warming is tough to explain with concise equations, but it is possible to picture an outside alien taking notes and coming up with similar theories.

The great thing about science is that it encourages you to throw out that which has been disproved. Religious texts have crufty old stuff that ends up just conveniently ignored, treated as literature, or in the worst case sneaks up and snares the unlucky innocent village herbalist.

tinypliny - 11/05/08 21:22
Oh yeah, I also have rituals like compulsive journal feed checking and scheduling at least one meeting a week with my advisor during which I babble on and on about everything new in whatever I read that week till she throws me out of her office*. LOL

---------

For the record, she has never thrown me out and always (strangely) seems to be interested in what I am babbling about, but she does look at her watch when the 1/2 hour is up and I am still babbling.

tinypliny - 11/05/08 21:17
I treat science not only like a religion but almost as a life partner. Haha. I live and breathe it, practise it, preach it, am married to it, think about it constantly, read about it, speak about it, build shrines to it - as in small mounds of books with notes on them, worship it, have super-strong faith in its potential and last but not least, push it on people and also try to convert them. All criteria satisfied. Except one, maybe. Science* does not make its followers blind and close-minded. :)

------------

not to be confused with Scientology, btw.

heidi - 11/05/08 21:09
Yea, SCIENCE!!

Someone has accused me of treating science like a religion, having faith in it like Christians have faith in Jesus. Thoughts?