A Man Said To The Universe

A Man Said To The Universe http://www.ydgidy.com/index.php And the fact has still not created in it a sense of obligation en Copyright 2009 2009-06-05T10:20:13-05:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Bing is a noun until WE say http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=72 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=72#comm Microsoft has created (or rebranded and upgraded) the search engine "Bing". Good luck to 'em.

Anyone who knows me, knows I am not an MS fan, but if they make a better search engine, good for them, they need a win considering all the turds they have been pushing out. I haven't used it enough yet to make a judgement but I will give it a shot.

My point today, however, is not the search engine wars but hubris and marketing. I came across an ad on the web for Bing with the following tagline: "From now on bing & decide". They are using "bing" as verb. You know what MS? You don't get to say that. You made Bing. A thing. A noun. WE, the collective, are the ones who can make it a verb. I don't want to descend into the argument of how right or wrong that is to do, my point is that they don't get to force it on us a verb, it is very presumptuous. 72@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/
Anyone who knows me, knows I am not an MS fan, but if they make a better search engine, good for them, they need a win considering all the turds they have been pushing out. I haven't used it enough yet to make a judgement but I will give it a shot.

My point today, however, is not the search engine wars but hubris and marketing. I came across an ad on the web for Bing with the following tagline: "From now on bing & decide". They are using "bing" as verb. You know what MS? You don't get to say that. You made Bing. A thing. A noun. WE, the collective, are the ones who can make it a verb. I don't want to descend into the argument of how right or wrong that is to do, my point is that they don't get to force it on us a verb, it is very presumptuous. ]]> tech 2009-06-05T10:19:00-05:00 Gun is to weapon as bat is to... http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=71 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=71#comm Tom Hartmann was talking with a gun rights guy today on his show. I don't want to address gun rights/control right now but rather crappy arguments.

The guest (sorry can't remember his name [and too lazy to look it up as it really isn't important to what I want to address]) took issue with Tom referring to a gun as a "weapon". He tried used the analogy of "If I come at you with a baseball bat, then it is a weapon". Well that is true enough. At that point the bat is a weapon, but its purpose is not be be a weapon, it is a thing with which you hit balls. Converting it to a weapon perverts its purpose. He tried to use target practice as to why a gun is not automatically a weapon but he did not see that he was simply on the reverse side of the analogy.

A gun is a device to put holes in living organisms, with the end desired result of death or wounding. That is what a gun is. Using a gun to shoot paper targets is a similar perversion of its purpose. So is using a handgun's grip to pound nails. You can slice cheese with a sword, that doesn't make it not a weapon intended to wound or kill living organisms. And of course there are guns created specifically for shooting competition and not killing, but that does not change what the fundamental nature and intent of a gun is.

I bugs me when somebody makes a clearly fallacious argument and aren't called on it. 71@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/
The guest (sorry can't remember his name [and too lazy to look it up as it really isn't important to what I want to address]) took issue with Tom referring to a gun as a "weapon". He tried used the analogy of "If I come at you with a baseball bat, then it is a weapon". Well that is true enough. At that point the bat is a weapon, but its purpose is not be be a weapon, it is a thing with which you hit balls. Converting it to a weapon perverts its purpose. He tried to use target practice as to why a gun is not automatically a weapon but he did not see that he was simply on the reverse side of the analogy.

A gun is a device to put holes in living organisms, with the end desired result of death or wounding. That is what a gun is. Using a gun to shoot paper targets is a similar perversion of its purpose. So is using a handgun's grip to pound nails. You can slice cheese with a sword, that doesn't make it not a weapon intended to wound or kill living organisms. And of course there are guns created specifically for shooting competition and not killing, but that does not change what the fundamental nature and intent of a gun is.

I bugs me when somebody makes a clearly fallacious argument and aren't called on it. ]]> bad 2009-02-24T14:48:00-05:00 Eat Cheetos, be a vindictive ass. http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=70 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=70#comm I honestly don't understand the latest Cheetos ad campaign.

The ads involve people eating Cheetos being faced with other people being difficult or unpleasant. At the goading of a sinister Chester Cheetah the Cheetos eaters respond with things along the lines of petty vandalism in retaliation, like wiping cheesy fingers on a white jacket or tossing Cheetos into a dryer load of whites.

Now of course on the element of remembering the ad, the spots work. But now I also associate Cheetos with acting like a petty dick. And rather than seeing the product mascot as a friendly figure, it is now a repellent persona. How is that good for the product or public perception? Of course I am probably a bit (ha!) out of the demographic they are targeting, but still...

A review in Advertising Age echoes my viewpoint though an opposition in presented in Slate. The Slate commentary implies that not finding the ads endearing imply prudishness, which is is something I generally am not accused of. The Ad Age review goes a little far in expecting RAoC lawsuits but I agree with the general tone. 70@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/
The ads involve people eating Cheetos being faced with other people being difficult or unpleasant. At the goading of a sinister Chester Cheetah the Cheetos eaters respond with things along the lines of petty vandalism in retaliation, like wiping cheesy fingers on a white jacket or tossing Cheetos into a dryer load of whites.

Now of course on the element of remembering the ad, the spots work. But now I also associate Cheetos with acting like a petty dick. And rather than seeing the product mascot as a friendly figure, it is now a repellent persona. How is that good for the product or public perception? Of course I am probably a bit (ha!) out of the demographic they are targeting, but still...

A review in Advertising Age echoes my viewpoint though an opposition in presented in Slate. The Slate commentary implies that not finding the ads endearing imply prudishness, which is is something I generally am not accused of. The Ad Age review goes a little far in expecting RAoC lawsuits but I agree with the general tone. ]]> badads 2009-02-16T15:58:00-05:00 Too late lady, you already failed. http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=69 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=69#comm This whole Nadya "the Octuplets Mom" Suleman thing just keeps getting worse and worse. Lets look at some of the fundamental problems:

This is a single, unemployed mother with six children already (also via IVF). Now it will be 14, all under the age of 8. Who in the fuck paid for this?

There is a doctor that thought it would be ethical to perform IVF on this woman? I certainly hope there is an ethics review in process and somebodies license is going to be lost.

Her parents bailed her out in 2007 and bought her a small home though they since declared bankruptcy and had to move in with her.

This is a quote from her own mother: "[Nadia Suleman] is not evil, but she is obsessed with children. She loves children, she is very good with children, but she obviously overdid herself." Perhaps (as YOU WERE LIVING WITH HER) you might have tried a little harder to talk her out of having another child.

This is a single, unemployed mother with six children already (also via IVF). Now it will be 14, all under the age of 8. Who in the fuck paid for this?

There is a doctor that thought it would be ethical to perform IVF on this woman? I certainly hope there is an ethics review in process and somebodies license is going to be lost.

Her parents bailed her out in 2007 and bought her a small home though they since declared bankruptcy and had to move in with her.

This is a quote from her own mother: "[Nadia Suleman] is not evil, but she is obsessed with children. She loves children, she is very good with children, but she obviously overdid herself." Perhaps (as YOU WERE LIVING WITH HER) you might have tried a little harder to talk her out of having another child.

Now she reportedly wants to be a "parenting expert" on TV. Ms. Suleman, you are deluded. Sheer volume does not impart wisdom. And even if you are a good parent, your ethics and morals are horribly skewed. You are an unemployed. How are your children going to eat and be clothed and all the other crap that goes with it? Not being able to provide is most decidedly NOT good parenting.

This entire situation is awash in ethical shortcoming from the mother, her parents, and the medical professionals that did the IVF. But more than likely, this almost criminally irresponsible behavior will not be decried, but she will be the next big thing for far too long than 15 minutes. ]]> bad 2009-02-03T12:20:00-05:00 The Myth of the 25 lbs. Dump (or why colon cleansing is crap) http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=67 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=67#comm Lately the radio airwaves have been clogged with ads for products like ColonCleanse making the claim that "5-25 pounds of waste stuck to the sides for your colon like spackle or paste" can be removed by their wonderous products which can cure this condition and detoxify.

Firstly I am going to skip immediately by the whole 'detoxify' thing as that has simply become a red flag that says "watch out, here comes the crap (joke in poor taste intended)".

Lets think about this for a moment. Colonoscopy has become commonplace. To perform an effective colonoscopy, the colon must be empty. To accomplish this, drugs (which can involve drinking up to a gallon of liquid) are given beforehand. Now ask anybody you can find whether they think they dumped 25 pounds as a result. How many people do you know that were told that they need to remove the stuff stuck to their colon walls? I know this sounds a but like an argument from incredulity but I think it makes my cases clearer. We can see colons. If stuff stuck to the walls of colon was an issue it would be mainstream medicine. It would have a name and an effective treatment.

But it doesn't. Because its crap (pun in poor taste intended).

The truth is that things don't particularly stick to the colon walls because they produce mucous. The impressive poops claimed by the cleansing products are generally CAUSED by the products themselves. I am going to spare you links, but if you really want see, google "colon cleansing" and you should quickly find pictures of what people have excreted, supposedly 'detoxifying' their colons, but always after taking some product that actually creates the 'tube' that forms on the colon walls.

You want a healthier colon? Eat more fiber, fruits, and vegetables. Thats all you need. 67@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/
Firstly I am going to skip immediately by the whole 'detoxify' thing as that has simply become a red flag that says "watch out, here comes the crap (joke in poor taste intended)".

Lets think about this for a moment. Colonoscopy has become commonplace. To perform an effective colonoscopy, the colon must be empty. To accomplish this, drugs (which can involve drinking up to a gallon of liquid) are given beforehand. Now ask anybody you can find whether they think they dumped 25 pounds as a result. How many people do you know that were told that they need to remove the stuff stuck to their colon walls? I know this sounds a but like an argument from incredulity but I think it makes my cases clearer. We can see colons. If stuff stuck to the walls of colon was an issue it would be mainstream medicine. It would have a name and an effective treatment.

But it doesn't. Because its crap (pun in poor taste intended).

The truth is that things don't particularly stick to the colon walls because they produce mucous. The impressive poops claimed by the cleansing products are generally CAUSED by the products themselves. I am going to spare you links, but if you really want see, google "colon cleansing" and you should quickly find pictures of what people have excreted, supposedly 'detoxifying' their colons, but always after taking some product that actually creates the 'tube' that forms on the colon walls.

You want a healthier colon? Eat more fiber, fruits, and vegetables. Thats all you need. ]]> skepticism 2009-01-02T12:49:00-05:00 FFRF in Washington dustup http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=66 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=66#comm I was starting to formulate a write up regard whole Washington FFRF sign/nativity scene thing when I came acrossMartin Wagner's take on the Atheist Experience blog which pretty much sums up a lot of what i was going to say. So in the spirit of sloth, I have linked to it and will make a smaller comment than I was expecting.

My main problem with the FFRF sign is that it is an attack. There is no other way to interpret it. And in my opinion, it really doesn't have a place in a holiday display as it really isn't of the same ilk. I fully agree with Martin's take on how it will/is interpreted by the faithful and Martin's suggested replacement is spot on. It is positive, joyful, and subtly makes the point that you don't need the sky pixies to be or do good.

Now I like the FFRF and understand their intent. But the really do need to be less confrontational in a holiday display. 66@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/ Martin Wagner's take on the Atheist Experience blog which pretty much sums up a lot of what i was going to say. So in the spirit of sloth, I have linked to it and will make a smaller comment than I was expecting.

My main problem with the FFRF sign is that it is an attack. There is no other way to interpret it. And in my opinion, it really doesn't have a place in a holiday display as it really isn't of the same ilk. I fully agree with Martin's take on how it will/is interpreted by the faithful and Martin's suggested replacement is spot on. It is positive, joyful, and subtly makes the point that you don't need the sky pixies to be or do good.

Now I like the FFRF and understand their intent. But the really do need to be less confrontational in a holiday display. ]]> atheism 2008-12-08T12:41:00-05:00 I give thanks for the ability to see past religion http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=65 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=65#comm The best part of this frighteningly misguided piece is not the sad viewpoint it espouses, but rather the merciless stream of comments attached to it calling this clown out.

Well done commenters, well done! 65@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/ this frighteningly misguided piece is not the sad viewpoint it espouses, but rather the merciless stream of comments attached to it calling this clown out.

Well done commenters, well done! ]]> atheism 2008-11-25T21:57:00-05:00 The siren of superstition http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=64 http://www.ydgidy.com/pivot/entry.php?id=64#comm I had a weird experience this weekend. I was taking some branches off a tree. I had used a hand saw to shorten them up and climbed down the A-frame ladder to get the chainsaw to actually take the limb off. You should know that I am kind of anal when it comes to power tool safety as I really don't like things that can completely screw you up for one little mistake. Anyway, the way I had dropped the branches it made it difficult to go around the ladder to get to the chainsaw, going under the ladder was the easiest most direct way.

But I didn't do it. I remember thinking to myself as I started heading under the ladder "Oops, better not do that" and I went around to get the chainsaw. I didn't really realize what I had done until I was climbing back up the ladder.

What a humbling moment.

Despite my skepticism, my devotion to reason and naturalism, I succumbed to superstition. I will use it as reminder as to the insidious nature of superstition and present it to you as a cautionary tale. 64@http://ydgidy.com/pivot/
But I didn't do it. I remember thinking to myself as I started heading under the ladder "Oops, better not do that" and I went around to get the chainsaw. I didn't really realize what I had done until I was climbing back up the ladder.

What a humbling moment.

Despite my skepticism, my devotion to reason and naturalism, I succumbed to superstition. I will use it as reminder as to the insidious nature of superstition and present it to you as a cautionary tale. ]]> skepticism 2008-11-24T08:00:00-05:00