February 2005 Archives

/action posts to his weblog.

|

Haven't posted in a while. Because I'm lazy.

Many things going on - firstly, big huzzah for Google, as I've moved up to the first result in a search for my name. I've been here before, so I guess I shouldn't break out the champagne too soon.

Other big news, Delta Tao (or more accurately, DT president Joe) has re-opened canceled accounts in Clan Lord. It's good to be back in Puddleby, and they've made a lot of progress in the years since I quite - though it's somewhat depressing that so many of the old problems persist.

One problem with this 'throwing the doors open' approach to re-invigorating the player base, of course, is that Skirwan is three years behind everyone else, which makes for depressing hunting. I'm undecided as to whether I'll stick around after the free time ends - but I'd probably re-up in a second if a thousand ranks fell out of the sky.

Other news: Ward Churchill isn't an Indian any more, but he is still an idiot. Democrats think Karl Rove is the boogeyman, which would be funnier if I hadn't just heard this tinfoilhattery coming out of my own Grandfather's mouth a week ago. The YWCA is like the YMCA's crazy cousin that the YMCA has to keep locked up in the basement. My gold-colored iPod Mini is now discontinued, and should thus be worth millions of dollars very soon. There's now a standardized disclosure form for bloggers. Aquaman has already completed his. And apparently, everyone at Nintendo is totally blind.

Huh?

|

I would really like to know whether or not this is a joke.

Really.

About To Hit A Chestnut Tree

|

Interesting stuff.

Or... wait, not 'interesting'. What's that other word? Silly! Silly stuff.

I will be very surprised if anyone gets this post title.

Does Kofi Drive A Bronco?

|

Kofi Annan's going to get to the bottom of the oil-for-food embezzlement scandal.

Right. Just like O.J.'s going to find the real killer.

Sean Has Been Plagiarized

|

At one point, quite a long time ago in Internet time, (2002) I posted to Slashdot. The topic is unimportant, but it was in response to a long, rambling, incoherent post and I think it did a fairly decent job of ripping the dweeb a new one. Check it out.

If Morpheus can use the Gnutella network together with all their aparatus of media file meta-information, and multiple segmented downloading, and if they use the hyper-cube network approach, rather than the tree one, it will simply rocks, and no one will be able to stop it when it begins.
And if pigs can fly, and I can ride one, and they fly me to hell, and it just froze over, and we all have ice cream...

Anyway, not too long afterwards I discovered someone named Martin had adopted my quote as part of his signature, and even included a link to the original comment. I was honored, of course, that a random stranger had found me worth quoting. You can still find a couple (1,2) of Martin's messages cached on the web.

But now someone has taken my creative product and used it without proper attribution. Witness some random quote page, and some random random page (the quote in the masthead rotates, but trust me, it's there).

On the one hand, I guess it's a compliment. On the other hand, my ambitions towards supervillainy would seem to demand a swift and prejudicial reprisal. What say you, six regular but largely-nonparcipitory and partially-anonymous readers?

Sean Offends the Faithful: Part IV

|

And once again, I read something stupid in Newsweek and feel the need to respond. Today on Neutiquam Erro: Creationism vs. Darwinism.

What a fundamentally stupid battle this is. The problem here, as it so often is elsewhere, can be summed up in one simply word: Dogma. And I'm not just looking at the Church here, because both sides are guilty.

The core ideas of these supposedly antithetical camps - that God created Man and that all living creatures evolved over time - are not at all difficult to reconcile. If one accepts the hypothesis that God created the universe, then it stands to reason that He also constructed the rules by which the universe plays - those quirky equations we call natural laws - and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe, then it's not difficult to argue that all things that ever have or ever will come to pass were inherent in the rules of the games and the starting positions of the pieces. This view seems to give even greater glory to God than traditional Creationist rhetoric; surely the accomplishment of crafting Adam pales before the triumph of arranging these intricate dominoes such that billions of trillions of years after the first one was nudged we're all sitting around debating the point? What's more, it reconciles nicely with Darwinism; if evolution is indeed provable from first principles, then it too is inherent in the the rules of the game, and part and parcel of the process.

The problem with the Creationist perspective - at its core a belief that God created Man - is that over the years it has become burdened with heavy layers of dogma, to the point where the essence of the argument is approximately as visible as God Himself. Folks are taught in church and Sunday school that God wrote the bible, a difficult statement to swallow and a clear slight to Messrs. J, P, E, and D, as well as the Council of Nicea - and attempts to treat Biblical accounts as parables or allegories are generally termed heresy. The Bible tells us that the universe took six days and then God took a day off, but it provides no indication of when He communicated that information to mankind. This alone should provide adequate basis for inspecting the ideas independently of the ideology, because clearly the ideology can't even manage to be entirely self-consistent.

The problem with Darwinist camp - supporters of a scientific theory explaining biological differentiation and progression - is that to many it has become an article of faith rather than a scientific theory - so much so that its proponents have bolted on additional memes to bolster their crusade. Darwin said nothing about the initial origin of life on Earth; that present proponents propose prepending the appearance of protoplasm from primordial prut is a perilous precedent. This isn't the extension of the theory so much as it is the bolting together of two disparate theories into an ideological framework. There's no scientific reason to connect these two theories; each is independently testable and each could be true independent of the other's veracity. And for the record, Darwinism has no position on the origin of the universe - nor should it.

It seems like the only reason for this (ongoing) battle is that each side is intent on not only proving themselves to be right, but to be 'Right', and as a result they've each expanded their ideological positioning into a pair of complete, competing frameworks. And frankly, that's just dumb.

For the earlier entries in Sean's ongoing attempt to piss off people with any sort of religious faith, please check out Sean Explains Christianity, Sean Explains Buddhism, and Submission.

If you'd like me to offend you personally, please leave a comment!

I Was Happier Not Knowing This

|
DisorderRating
Paranoid:Very High
Schizoid:Moderate
Schizotypal:High
Antisocial:Moderate
Borderline:Very High
Histrionic:Moderate
Narcissistic:High
Avoidant:Very High
Dependent:High
Obsessive-Compulsive:High

-- Personality Disorder Test - Take It! --

The next time I see one of these stupid tests on somebody else's page, I really need to remember not to take it. Really.

Pages