Well . . . Randall Munroe over at xkcd has a new posting up that clearly illustrates the unprecedented nature of the global warming that we are experiencing these days. I tried to post his infographic directly into this blog entry but couldn't get it to look decent. The posting shows the warming and cooling trends starting 20,000 years ago and continuing up to the present time. It then provides the current scientific estimates for the next 85 years.

Roughly the first 1,200 years of the infographic's timeline appears below. Click here to get the entire timeline.

Spoiler alert!

Over the span of the last 20,000 years, the Earth's average global temperature has gradually risen just slightly over 4°C. Assuming that we stay on our present course, the Earth's average global temperature is expected to rise another 2°C during about the next 80 years. This falls firmly under the category "bad news".

White People Did Not Exist Until 1681

This article by Jacqueline Battalora, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Saint Xavier University, Chicago is really quite excellent and certainly satisifies my definition of "required reading".

White People Did Not Exist Until 1681
http://www.jacquelinebattalora.com/white-people-did-not-exist-until-1681/

A powerful argument for why we need to send humans to explore space. We need at least a few humans to be out there (way way out there) exploring and providing us with the opportunity to experience vicariously what they experience live. This is not to say that I am opposed to robotic exploration missions like Cassini. Just that we need to figure out how to send at least a few humans to experience places like Saturn "up close and personal" for the rest of us.

The transcendental revelations of astronauts

A quick tour of the Andromeda Galaxy in 4K

Very cool!

On the age of the universe . . .

If one posits a sufficiently omnipotent deity then that deity could have created the universe in a week and that week could have unfolded 6,000 years ago. It would have been quite the accomplishment as it would have included

• photons already heading our way with the correct red-shift from stars and galaxies over 6,000 light years away
• photons also already heading all sorts of other ways so that the light from stars which are within 6,000 light years illuminates nearby dust clouds and such in just the right way
• the cosmic rays and all sorts of other electromagnetic radiation coming our way that scientists have detected or will someday detect
• the rocks, planets, moons, asteroids, comets and whatever in our Solar system all carefully arranged and constructed to look just the right age both at a distance and upon close inspection for when we send unmanned spacecraft like Voyager I & II and New Horizons and when we someday send manned missions to explore them
• the stars that are within 6,000 light years in sufficient detail (size, makeup, velocity, gravitational effect on nearby objects, etc) to look the right age to our telescopes
• the various planets which we have already detected and which we have yet to detect orbiting other stars, each positioned and constructed to fit a coherent scientific explanation of how they came to be
• layers of fake evidence of the unfolding of the Earth's ecosystem all the way from when our Solar system was a dust cloud through to today with everything properly arranged and composed right down to the molecular level to show a process that appears to have taken billions of years
• include the evidence which scientists have collected to demonstrate the existence of "dark matter". Whatever it appears to be, it appears to be far further away than 6,000 light years so again we are dealing with evidence that has been faked by said deity in just such a way to allow scientists to conclude that "dark matter" exists. While still not well understood, scientists are clearly making progress and will learn more and more about this "dark matter" that the evidence that we are collecting about it needs to be just as robust as the evidence that said deity has created to fool us into believing that galaxies and such exist
• the evidence to support an astonishing range of other "discoveries" regarding how the universe operates on an apparent scale of many many millions of light years (billions of them actually) even though all of that evidence was faked 6,000 years ago in just such a way that it fools astronomers completely and consistently. Think of the Hubble photos of galaxies interacting gravitationally, colliding or just being there and doing the galaxy thing each in their own corner of the universe. Now contemplate the level of detail that said deity had to attend to in order to make even a single galactic collision or other event "look real" at the distance we see it from; once you have that pictured in your mind, multiply it by the millions and billions of galaxies out there where some of them are colliding while others are forming and others are just doing the galaxy thing, etc.
• throw in all of the other things that said deity had to attend to in order to get the Earth looking ancient in just the right way to fool evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, nuclear physicists, chemists, geologists (whether dealing with layers of stuff that make up the Earth or the continental drift phenomenon that brought the continents to their current configuration), etc, etc, etc.

Is it possible? Actually, that's a silly question since if one posits a sufficiently omnipotent deity then anything is possible . . .

. . . and yet . . . somehow . . . such an explanation for the universe that we see around us is really quite unsatisfying to me.

I really have to ask why any deity would bother to go to all that trouble just to fool a bunch of mere humans. No - it makes far more sense to me to look at the still unfolding scientific process during the last few hundred years and to contemplate what it has discovered about the universe that we actually live in. To take one tiny little aspect of what science has found - that our galaxy really is over 100,000 light years across (i.e. that it takes light over 100,000 years to get from one side of the galaxy to the other) just makes sense. For that matter, Darwin's theory of evolution just makes sense. The amount of knowledge that scientists have uncovered since the dawning of the age of science not all that many centuries ago and the fact that this knowledge, for the most part, hangs together so well is all the evidence that I need to be not only comfortable but truly thrilled to be living in a universe that really is billions of years old, is billions of light years across, contains billions of galaxies, many of which contain billions if not trillions of stars, etc, etc, etc.

Lest anyone focus in on the places where bits and pieces of the scientific knowledge base do not happen to fit together all that well, I suggest that you contemplate the incredible scientific process that has been unfolding for the past few centuries and the extent to which said process has produced a body of knowledge that does, for the most part, fit together. I contemplate that and am forced to conclude that betting against science's ability to eventually "clear up the confusion" is a mug's game.

The notion that our universe was created by a sufficiently omnipotent deity at some point in the past, whether it be 6,000 years or whatever, just doesn't hold much that attracts me in comparison.

"The Singular Mind of Terry Tao" and choosing a career . . .

The New York Times published the following really quite fascinating article today:

The Singular Mind of Terry Tao
by Gareth Cook
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/the-singular-mind-of-terry-tao.html

I particularly like the article's description of the game of devil's chess - an imaginary game which not only really seems to get at how a mathematician works but also captures some of what it takes to be a successful mathematician.

From a personal perspective, I really liked what I thought mathematics was in high school and it turned out that I was quite good at it. By the start of my last year of high school, I had decided that I would pursue a career in pure mathematics. Fortunately, at about that time my sister Colette arranged for me to meet a University of Alberta mathematics professor for an hour or so. This turned out to be one of the best spent hours of my career as I not only got a tiny sense of what pure mathematics actually was but I figured out that it was not the aspect of mathematics that I was actually interested in*. The professor figured this out as well and suggested that I consider going into applied mathematics or possibly even computing science. I had read one or two books on computer programming but this discussion with the math prof is what really crystallized my interest in computing. In hindsight, it turned out to be one of the best spent hours of my career.

* Once I actually started university, I quickly learned a bit more of what mathematics is and soon developed a constructive proof that I wasn't actually all that good at most of it. Going into pure mathematics would have been a real fiasco!

10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail

The truth of the situation is really quite simple. The scientists, not to mention the corporations and the institutions that they work for, are even more motivated to find and make available a "cure for cancer" as you are to see such a cure available.

10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail

The list, in abbreviated form, is reproduced here just in case the link goes dead. You really want to click through the link to get the details presented there.

1. Not all organizations involved in medical research are for-profit
2. Medical researchers and their families are just as susceptible to cancer and other diseases as anyone else
3. Even the CEOs of companies won’t be able to utilize their billions if they’re dead from something their companies could have cured
4. Many if not most researchers are more likely to value fame, prestige and personal achievement over sheer quantity of money
5. While all governments would have to be in on it, not all would make money
6. Pushback from insurance companies (they make money by reducing the amount that they pay to "big pharma")
7. Actually, companies WOULD make a lot of money from cures
8. Companies are already choosing cure or prevention over profit
9. There’s more than one for-profit company out there, which means competition
10. Hiding the cure would cost more

Nuf said!

Knowledge is better than ignorance . . .

There is precisely one sense in which it is possible for me to "like" a news article that explains how the massacre at Srebrenica was, through at best wilful blindness and at worst malice aforethought, allowed to occur by the UN in general and the UK and the US in particular. Namely that it is better to know than to remain in doubt.

It was clear at the time that the UN "safe areas" had become nothing of the sort. It was also soon clear that "something bad" had happened when Srebrenica had been overrun by the Serbs. The magnitude of what happened has become clear over the years as the count of recovered bodies of the victims have mounted. Now, the long suspected if not understood but relatively unspoken "why" has been laid out for all to read.

It is good to see comprehensive descriptions and analyses of what and why Srebrenica was allowed to occur. It is even better that confirmation of what was often "wondered at" by many has been published while many of those involved in the decision making process are still alive.

How Britain and the US decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate (article by Florence Hartmann and Ed Vulliamy in The Guardian July 4, 2015)

Le sang de la realpolitik - L'affaire Srebrenica (about to be published eBook by Florence Hartmann; referenced in the above referenced article)

FLORENCE HARTMANN GUILTY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH (as if the world needed it, yet another demonstration of what happens to whistleblowers)

Srebrenica_massacre (Wikipedia's article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Srebrenica massacre (Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Serbia asks Russia to veto UN resolution that calls Srebrenica massacre ‘genocide’ (article by "Staff" on the GlobalNews.ca site July 4, 2015)

Army of God?

I happen to believe that the vast majority of people, irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs, are peaceful law-abiding members of their society. The risk that they will plan or participate in a terrorist attack is essentially zero.

The reason that I believe this is really quite simple - if the vast majority of people were not peaceful law-abiding members of their society then the world would exist in a state of near total chaos. I'm not talking about a couple of newsworthy attacks a week. I'm talking about nearly continuous widespread major terrorist events occurring all over the world on an essentially continuous basis. There would be literally hundreds of major attacks per day where a major attack would be defined as an attack killing at least 1,000 people. The human civilization all over the world would simply collapse into a state far far worse than the Dark Ages.

Since human civilization has obviously not collapsed and is in fact thriving by most measures, the vast majority of people, irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs, must be peaceful law-abiding members of their society.

What we do have is formal and informal groups of people all over the world who, for various reasons, have decided to "go rogue". More accurately, they have decided to attack those whom they perceive as being their oppressors (note that it does not matter whether or not those that they attack actually are their oppressors - all that is required to create the situation we see in the world today is that a relatively modest number of groups of people are attacking who they perceive to be their oppressors).

We do indeed live in interesting times . . .

Army of God? Here are 6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups you never hear about (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/army-of-god-here-are-6-modern-day-christian-terrorist-groups-you-never-hear-about/)

What's on the other side of the ocean?

This is a seriously cool map. It shows what you would 'see' if you could see the first major land mass directly east or directly west from the shores of North America.  I particularly like the 'view' from Argentina and southern Chile.

Click through on the link below for a larger version.

Map by Eric Odenheimer (I've not been able to chase down the actual original posting and I'm not at all sure which Eric Odenheimer is actually responsible for the map).

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57677/whats-other-side-ocean?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=atlasobscura

The US religious right's use and abuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's legacy

You have probably never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer so a quick biography is in order (Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if you want a more detailed biography).

Bonhoeffer was a Christian pastor in Germany before and during the Second World War. He found the Nazis and their acts to be so offensive that he participated in the German Resistance. He was imprisoned by the Nazis in April of 1943 where he remained until he was tried and executed/murdered on 9 April 1945 for his association with participants of the 20 July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler (the same one that the relatively recent movie Valkyrie staring Tom Cruise popularized).

Bonhoeffer studied and taught at the Union Theological Seminary in New York in the early 1930s. He found the progressive institution's stance less than satisfying, once stating "There is no theology here". His views on the US fundamentalist Christian theology of the era were not exactly flattering either as he accused the Southern Baptists of preaching “the crassest orthodoxy…an unrelenting harshness in holding on to one’s possessions, possessions either of this or of the other world.”

The US religious right has recently been invoking the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Their claim is essentially that Bonhoeffer's decision to risk death by participating in the German resistance is an exemplar which justifies the use of deadly force to resist the "imposition" of gay marriage on the US Christian community.

Bonhoeffer died resisting the Nazi regime which was not only responsible for launching the deadliest war in human history but also embarked on a program of industrialized murder to "deal with" their opponents and anyone else that they happened to not like (see Nazi concentration camp badges for more info).

That the US religious right could somehow create a parallel between their strong opposition to gay marriage and Bonhoeffer' decision to participate in the German Resistance during the Second World War truly boggles the mind. Then again, there is little that the US religious right does these days which doesn't boggle the mind . . .

Some sources and references are probably in order:

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
• Nazi concentration camp badges  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
• Why This Pastor Who Tried To Assassinate Hitler Has Become A Hero To The Anti-LGBT Movement http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/14/3646532/conservatives-comparing-anti-lgbt-crusade-pastors-attempt-assassinate-hitler/

Why the Crown has invoked Justin Bieber in the Mike Duffy trial

The Justin Bieber reference was used by the Crown to make an important point. The Canadian Constitution requires that Senators meet certain qualifications including that they be at least 30 years old and residents of the province that they are appointed to represent. The witness was recently retired Senate law clerk Mark Audcent (a recognized expert in Canadian constitutional law as it applies to the Senate). Crown attorney Mark Holmes asked Mr. Audcent the following question:

“If the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appointed Justin Bieber to the Senate tomorrow, would he become 30?”

Mr. Audcent replied "Of course not". The implication being that someone does not "magically" become a resident of a province just because the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints that person to the Senate as a representative of said province. Mr. Holmes is obviously building a case for the proposition that Mike Duffy was not qualified to represent PEI as a Senator because his appointment to the Senate as a representative of PEI violated the Canadian Constitution.

The Prime Minister who appointed Mike Duffy would, of course, be none other than the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Based on the above testimony and other testimony by Mr. Audcent over the past couple of days, Mr. Holmes would seem to be well on his way towards establishing this point.

According to Wikipedia, Stephen Harper made the following solemn oath when he was sworn in as Prime Minister:

"I, (name), do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (or declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God."

I have a feeling that this will not be the last time during this trial that Prime Minister Harper is revealed to have at least arguably if not actually violated his oath of office (pay particular attention to the word "trust" in the above oath).

Sidebar: It is true that people have been appointed to the Senate to represent various far flung provinces even though the Senate appointees have lived for many many years outside of their home provinces. The difference between what happened with Mike Duffy and what happened with Pamela Wallin vs these appointments from the past is that those being considered for appointment to the Senate in the past for provinces that they were no longer residents of were apparently told to move back to their home provinces and live there long enough to establish residency. Once residency had been established, the Prime Minister of the day would advise the Governor-General to appoint them to the Senate. In other words, these other Prime Ministers understood that they were bound by the Constitution - an understanding that Prime Minister Harper apparently does not share with his predecessors.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crown-invokes-justin-bieber-in-mike-duffy-trial/article23882827/

The new Indiana religious freedoms law really is both 'different' and troubling

The attached article provides an excellent explanation of what makes the new Indiana religious freedom law really quite different than the US federal religious freedom law and the other US state-level religious freedom laws.

In summary (read the article for important details), the new Indiana religious freedom law is different in two important ways:

1. the law allows "religious freedom" to be used as a claim or a defence in an action involving only non-governmental parties (i.e. one private party can sue another private party where the party suing claims that its "religious freedoms" have been infringed or a private party being sued by anyone else can argue that its "religious freedoms" are being infringed). All of the other religious freedom laws only apply if at least one of the parties in the lawsuit is a government entity.


2. the Indiana law protects religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 

The first difference is what allows a store to refuse service to a private individual or entity who "offends" the store owner's "religious freedoms" (the obvious current era example would be a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage on the grounds that the store owner's religion prevents them from serving homosexuals). The second difference allows claims or defences based on even somewhat "fringe" religious beliefs to be used in court.

These two aspects of the law should come together to provide all sorts of "entertainment opportunities" for court watchers in the coming months (assuming that the law survives that long in the face of the growing "boycott Indiana" movement).

For example, consider a situation where a store owner is faced with a devout Muslim lady wearing a niqab. Should the store owner refuse to serve the Muslim lady, they could find themselves the target of a lawsuit based on the new Indiana religious freedom law. The Muslim lady would be able to use the law to argue that her religious freedoms have been infringed since her decision to wear a niqab is at least encouraged if not, from her perspective, mandated by her religion. In contrast, the store owner will find it difficult to use the same law to defend their right to refuse service to niqab-wearing Muslim ladies as I doubt that there are many if any religions which prohibit or even discourage on religious grounds the wearing of unusual clothing including clothing which happens to cover one's face. I should add that the store owner may be able to successfully argue that they have an overriding need to be able to identify malfeasants on security camera video should a niqab wearing Muslim lady decide to rob the store.

One last aspect of this situation is also likely to provide even more "entertainment". It is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has long considered the US Constitution's Establishment Clause to prohibit US courts from delving into the question of what a particular person's religious beliefs actually require. For example, there have been various successful attempts to exercise a pastafarian's right to wear a colander on their head during swearing in ceremonies and on their drivers licenses (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747880/Pastafarian-allowed-wear-spaghetti-strainer-head-driving-licence-photo-classed-religious-headgear.html).

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-indianas-new-religious-freedom-law/

Real Christians really are getting persecuted in America these days . . .

(this posting rambles a bit - apologies in advance)

Let's start by getting our terms clearly defined:

• a real Christian is someone who takes all of the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love, seriously; depending on their personality and personal style, a real Christian may practice and/or possibly even teach their faith in a way which makes them really quite exemplar Christians
• a devout Christian is a real Christian who has a deep understanding of their faith
• a pretend Christian is someone who may call themselves Christian but, at best, pays little more than lip service to the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love
• an extremist Christian is a pretend Christian who teaches and/or practices outright evil and hatred (in case it isn't obvious, there is a HUGE gulf between the typical pretend Christian and the typical extremist Christian)

The following article illustrates how real Christians are getting persecuted in America today. Please take the time to read the article before continuing with this blog posting.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/yes-there-is-christian-persecution-in-america-and-heres-what-it-looks-like/

Back so soon? Are you sure that you read the entire article? If not, please click on the link again and read the whole thing. It's pretty short and what follows may not make much sense if you haven't read the article.

The above referenced article is a classic example of what really bugs me about many so-called Christians in America and elsewhere these days. Practically everything that these pretend Christians complain about and practically everything they seem to stand for is absolutely incompatible with the actual teachings of Jesus including, in particular his message of love.

This is not to say or suggest that everyone who calls themselves Christian is a member of this lunatic fringe. I happen to have met and know quite well a fair number of real Christians (at least some of whom are clearly devout Christians) who really do try to take the teachings of Jesus to heart. There are also more than a few real Christians who have become quite prominent (Desmond Tutu and Pope Francis come to mind) if anyone happens to be looking for real world examples. Without exception, they all demonstrate through their words and deeds that the teachings of Jesus includes the notion that a Christian must love their fellow humans including, in particular, their fellow sinners.

And yet . . . when these same real Christians actually try to practice the teachings of Jesus, they often find themselves under attack (dare I say "being persecuted"). These attacks come from a variety of corners including rabid atheists and, of course, fundamentalists of a different religious persuasion. While attacks from these corners often cause the persecuted real Christians anguish and pain, it is the attacks upon them by the pretend Christians which must surely surprise if not actually hurt them the most.

I am not going to claim that all pretend Christians make the sort of attacks on real Christians that are described in the above referenced article. That said, I am going to make the following observations and claims:

1. that extremist Christians are organized and that they exist in sufficiently large numbers in the U.S.* to be a real problem
2. that one could easily argue that extremist Christians are a 'cancer of sorts' on at least the US body of the Christian faith
3. that these extremist Christians are seldom actually challenged by real Christians (no doubt partially because challenging the faith of others is not something that many real Christians seem compelled or even particularly interested in doing)
4. that many if not most of the prominent self-proclaimed Christian voices in the U.S. today are extremist Christians

'nuf said.

* While extremist Christians certainly do exist elsewhere, the magnitude of the extremist Christian phenomenon in the U.S. really does make the situation there "different" somehow.

So nothing new then ...

Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has just published a study in which they reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy. Their conclusion and the now official position of the NHMRC is

“Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”

One does wonder why _any_ medical society or regulatory agency takes any position other than "you have got to be kidding" on the topic of homeopathy. And yet, there actually are medical regulatory agencies here and there around the world which, in some sense or other, purport to "regulate" homeopathy. Wouldn't this be akin to the Royal Society announcing that it will henceforth be regulating the practice of magic?

A classic if somewhat embarrassing to a Canadian like myself example of a jurisdiction which purports to "regulate" homeopathy is the Province of Ontario. Ontario not only has an officially sanctioned "College of Homeopaths of Ontario" which is listed as a "Schedule 1 Self Governing Heath Profession" in Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, it also has a "profession"-specific Homeopathy Act, 2007 which is scheduled to be proclaimed on April 1, 2015 (although it does suggest a certain sense of humour on the part of the Government of Ontario, this date is real - homeopathy really does become an officially self-regulated profession in the Province of Ontario on April 1, 2015). Check out the first couple paragraphs of Section 3 of the above referenced Homeopathy Act of 2007 to see just what is being regulated. The mind truly boggles . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-not-effective-for-treating-any-condition-australian-report-finds

Evidence for Evolution

Just a cool video that presents some of the evidence for evolution. Feel free to click on the link to be entertained, enlightened, or maybe even offended. As they say - your mileage may vary.

http://statedclearly.com/videos/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution/

The stated mission of the Stated Clearly folks is:

To promote the art of critical thinking by exposing people from all walks of life, to the simple beauty of science. We do this by taking complicated scientific topics like "What is DNA and how does it work" and creating short, information rich animations that explain the topic in clear language.

Tilting at Windmills (Chinese Communist Party style)

The Dalai Lama, the undisputed spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has said that he might not reincarnate after he dies. According to him, this is a decision that is his to make and it is an option that he is apparently contemplating.

The Chinese Communist Party, an officially atheist organization which seems to agree that the Dalai Lama is indeed the current leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has decreed that the Dalai Lama must reincarnate after he dies. They further state that whether or not the Dalai Lama reincarnates is a decision that the Chinese Communist Party gets to make. They have also apparently come up with some way to insert themselves into the process of identifying who is the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama once the Dalai Lama reincarnates (don't be too surprised if the person that they identify just happens to agree with the Chinese Communist Party on essentially everything that comes up for discussion between them).

The Dalai Lama's position on this issue certainly seems clear and is undoubtedly consistent with the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. To say that this does not surprise me is an understatement.

In contrast, the position of the Chinese Communist Party can only be described as a train wreck of truly epic proportions. Try as I might, I simply cannot feel even a teensy tiny bit surprised.

Sigh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/asia/chinas-tensions-with-dalai-lama-spill-into-the-afterlife.html

“No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away”

It may not sound like or be an earth-shattering statement but it really does seem to capture something at the heart of our culture if not civilization. How often have you encountered to notion that someone will love someone else always? How often have you heard someone say "they will be remembered always" or "they will be forever in our hearts" after someone has passed away? That we honour someone by committing to remembering them forever feels like only getting part of the way there (wherever "there" is) whereas saying that someone will be forever in our hearts, thoughts, prayers or whatever would seem to capture something that is really quite important to a lot of us.

All of this and more is captured in the notion that “No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away”. To think that Terry Pratchett, already a cultural icon for many of us, seems to have said this first adds yet another layer of coolness to him and his legacy.

http://www.littleatoms.com/words/terry-pratchett-no-one-actually-dead-until-ripples-they-cause-world-die-away

An interesting climate change animation by Bloomberg

The scientific evidence of climate change / global warming is irrefutable. Turning what really is settled science, raising political and ideological objections to it and then claiming that that makes the issue unsettled science is, to put it mildly, too stupid for words. There are so many studies and measurement and statistics that back this up and so few that call it into question even a little tiny bit that I'm not sure what to say to those who simply refuse to accept that we have a serious problem with what is happening to our climate.

Not only is the evidence that our climate is getting warmer irrefutable, it is also irrefutable that the primary driver of this warming is a consequence of what we humans have done and are doing. I have read a wide variety of alternative explanations for why our climate is getting warmer and, quite frankly, I have yet to encounter a non-anthropogenic explanation for global warming that even passes the laugh test.

Here's an interesting animation which illustrates just how fast our climate is changing. I will add more links as I encounter / remember them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

Thirteen of the fourteen hottest years are in the 21st century.

What made Bletchley Park possible?

The people, including Alan Turing, who worked at Bletchley Park during the Second World War were not only fighting to win the war, they were, in many respects, inventing the foundations for the computer age that we live in today.

Here's a very cool video that gives an interesting perspective on what made it possible for Bletchley Park to play such an important role in the Second World War. The killer quote comes right at the end:

"Many people want to work on the edge of innovation. If they alive in those days, they would have been at Bletchley."

http://youtu.be/3Ky3-Tbkyhg