Monday, August 31, 2015
Heydon explains...
Update: many amusing tweets to be seen about the Commissioner's techno fail. Such as this:
Update 2:
It all puts me in mind of this Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch, too:
McDonalds and the Power of the Wood Platter
I had been making the observation to my family for about 8 months now: this idea of serving food on wood platters actually works by making everything taste better. I don't know how - it seems like some form of culinary Deep Magic - but it works at home as well as at eating establishments. (We bought a large one for those Saturday nights where we make a meal of a large antipasto style platter. I swear they taste better since we stopped using the ceramic platter.)
So I have been interested to test this out at McDonalds, where even half alert viewers of commercial television may have realised that they are serving their "Your Creation" burgers on wooden platters - brought right to your table, no less.
I was cynical about this idea - suddenly the joint known for compiling a burger in about 12 seconds flat is going to carefully produce a particularly tasty and attractive one? Would people go for the extra price (which remains very unclear in all advertising)?
Well, I'm happy to report that yesterday I had my first creation, and it was delicious. (Cost $10.55 for the burger alone - I stole the kids' chips to make it more economical.)
The ingredients, for those who are still reading: brioche bun, one beef patty, swiss cheese, crispy bacon, grilled mushrooms, caramelised onion, tomato, lettuce, chipotle mayo. What's more, it was fairly late at night, and I could see the guy compiling my burger. He really did seem to take care.
During the meal, I mentioned the power of the wood platter several times, as well as the fact that it now simplifies where to eat out for wedding anniversaries.
I do hope this works out for the company....
So I have been interested to test this out at McDonalds, where even half alert viewers of commercial television may have realised that they are serving their "Your Creation" burgers on wooden platters - brought right to your table, no less.
I was cynical about this idea - suddenly the joint known for compiling a burger in about 12 seconds flat is going to carefully produce a particularly tasty and attractive one? Would people go for the extra price (which remains very unclear in all advertising)?
Well, I'm happy to report that yesterday I had my first creation, and it was delicious. (Cost $10.55 for the burger alone - I stole the kids' chips to make it more economical.)
The ingredients, for those who are still reading: brioche bun, one beef patty, swiss cheese, crispy bacon, grilled mushrooms, caramelised onion, tomato, lettuce, chipotle mayo. What's more, it was fairly late at night, and I could see the guy compiling my burger. He really did seem to take care.
During the meal, I mentioned the power of the wood platter several times, as well as the fact that it now simplifies where to eat out for wedding anniversaries.
I do hope this works out for the company....
New kid in town
You know, once you reach your mid fifties, there's a really good way to depress yourself about your advancing years: work out how old you'll be if the new pup you've just brought home lives as long as the previous dog you had since a pup who died a few months ago.
Anyway, here she is:
Anyway, here she is:
Friday, August 28, 2015
Neat. Fits right in with the "proto-fascist government" meme I've been using...
Border Force to check people's visas on Melbourne's streets this weekend - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
How can anyone think this is going to look like a "positive" to the public?
And why did Lefties over-use "fascist" as an insult to the Howard government, but have under-used it (til now, I'm guessing) against the actual proto-fascist actions of the Abbott government?
Update:
Update 2: this is, quite possibly, the most spectacularly inept and amusing PR disaster ever orchestrated by a government body. (The summary misses the instantaneous street protests in Melbourne, but still):
How can anyone think this is going to look like a "positive" to the public?
And why did Lefties over-use "fascist" as an insult to the Howard government, but have under-used it (til now, I'm guessing) against the actual proto-fascist actions of the Abbott government?
Update:
Tony Abbott joins with Border Force, being helpful in Melbourne:
Update 2: this is, quite possibly, the most spectacularly inept and amusing PR disaster ever orchestrated by a government body. (The summary misses the instantaneous street protests in Melbourne, but still):
Bruni's right...
...it is disconcerting that the American evangelicals are liking Trump:
Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?
Seems to work for Donald Trump.
Polls show him to be the preferred candidate among not just all Republican voters but also the party’s vocal evangelical subset.
He’s more beloved than Mike Huckabee, a former evangelical pastor, or Ted Cruz, an evangelical pastor’s son, or Scott Walker, who said during the recent Republican debate: “It’s only by the blood of Jesus Christ that I’ve been redeemed.”
When Trump mentions blood, it’s less biblical, as Megyn Kelly can well attest.
No matter. The holy rollers are smiling upon the high roller. And they’re proving, yet again, how selective and incoherent the religiosity of many in the party’s God squad is.
Not sure if this is just a little bit scary...
How a Computer Predicts Schizophrenia and Psychosis - The Atlantic
Most of the time, people don’t actively track the way one thoughtActually, having recently re-watched the first part of it, this also puts me in mind of the interview technique with the replicants in Blade Runner.
flows into the next. But in psychiatry, much attention is paid to such
intricacies of thinking. For instance, disorganized thought, evidenced
by disjointed patterns in speech, is considered a hallmark
characteristic of schizophrenia. Several studies of at-risk youths have
found that doctors are able to guess with impressive accuracy—the best
predictive models hover around 79 percent—whether a person will develop
psychosis based on tracking that person’s speech patterns in interviews.
A computer, it seems, can do better.
That’s according to a study published Wednesday
by researchers at Columbia University, the New York State Psychiatric
Institute, and the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center in the Nature
Publishing Group journal Schizophrenia. They used an automated
speech-analysis program to correctly differentiate—with 100-percent
accuracy—between at-risk young people who developed psychosis over a
two-and-a-half year period and those who did not. The computer model
also outperformed other advanced screening technologies, like biomarkers
from neuroimaging and EEG recordings of brain activity.
Quantum spookiness confirmed, again?
Spotted in Sabine Hossenfelder's tweets, an article about a new, loophole closing (so it seems) test of quantum spookiness.
Sabine also has a lengthy go at explaining what the physicists are getting at when they talk about the universe being hologram. I haven't read it carefully, yet, but it seems more-or-less comprehensible.
Sabine also has a lengthy go at explaining what the physicists are getting at when they talk about the universe being hologram. I haven't read it carefully, yet, but it seems more-or-less comprehensible.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Nuts, guns and race
This black nutter killing a couple of white people is going to send the American nutty Right completely over the edge in nonsense and offensive claims. (I see that it seems they have no hesitation in posting the video, too.) Let's face it, as countless threads on American Right wing sites attest, a significant part of those on that side of politics have never gotten over having a black President.
In fact, even Andrew Bolt - not the greatest Australian exemplar for reasonable analysis of race relations, to put it mildly - seems to be endorsing some utterly nonsensical gut reaction from John Hinderaker.
As for gun control, it does seem to me that this is the type of killing that most upsets people: the senseless type by a person who, while not insane for criminal liability purposes, clearly has mental issues and nutty obsessions and uses a legally obtained gun. The less legal guns in circulation in a country, the less of this type of killing happens, no? Seems a formula pretty clear to most of the world, except Americans. (OK, unfair - some Americans get it.)
In fact, even Andrew Bolt - not the greatest Australian exemplar for reasonable analysis of race relations, to put it mildly - seems to be endorsing some utterly nonsensical gut reaction from John Hinderaker.
As for gun control, it does seem to me that this is the type of killing that most upsets people: the senseless type by a person who, while not insane for criminal liability purposes, clearly has mental issues and nutty obsessions and uses a legally obtained gun. The less legal guns in circulation in a country, the less of this type of killing happens, no? Seems a formula pretty clear to most of the world, except Americans. (OK, unfair - some Americans get it.)
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Ice mountain?
NASA's latest Ceres photo shows a strange, conical mountain
The sides look like ice. Or glass. And on the right hand side, looks like a cliff. Odd.
The sides look like ice. Or glass. And on the right hand side, looks like a cliff. Odd.
Physics conference report from a physicist
Backreaction: Hawking proposes new idea for how information might escape from black holes
This provides a "live" insight into the reports of Stephen Hawking thinking they've solved the black hole information problem.
This provides a "live" insight into the reports of Stephen Hawking thinking they've solved the black hole information problem.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Dyson has a message
Monday, August 24, 2015
Fundamentalist idiots with explosives
Palmyra's Baalshamin temple 'blown up by IS' - BBC News
Some background as to why they do this can be found in this article. Here's a crucial section:
Some background as to why they do this can be found in this article. Here's a crucial section:
Saudi authorities destroyed this mausoleum, part of the al-Baqi cemetery in Medina, in early 1926, shortly after taking power in the city in the prior year. In fact, they flattened the entire site, which dated back to the seventh century and is thought to have contained the bodies of some of the prophet Mohammed's early compatriots.
The act "shocked the international Muslim community," Dr. James Noyes, author of The Politics of Iconoclasm, told me.
The Saudis didn't just do this on a whim. They were, and still are, aligned with a religious faction called the Wahhabis — a group of Sunni fundamentalists who, like some Christian denominations, reject any form of worship through religious shrines and icons.
"The attacks on shrines and tombs are a rejection of 'shirk' (the worship of God through shrines)," Noyes explained.
Theologically, Wahhabis and other Islamists trace this back to the story of the golden calf that appears in the Koran and the Bible, in which the Israelites build and pray to an idol, sparking God’s fury. A number of Muslims see the story as a blanket prohibition against the worship of images and shrines altogether.
As the Wahhabis and Saudis consolidated control over what's now Saudi Arabia, they destroyed anything that even hinted at idol worship. "The Arabian peninsula used to have Jewish communities, pagan pre-Islamic tribes, shrines favoured by Shiite and Sufi pilgrims on the Hajj to Mecca and Medina, Ottoman and Egyptian influences, and the Hashemite kingdom," Noyes wrote via email. "All of that is gone."
Perhaps more than you needed to know about Gore Vidal
Life out loud | The Economist
This review of a biography of Vidal notes this:
This review of a biography of Vidal notes this:
“NEVER lose an opportunity to have sex or be on television” is a
familiar Gore Vidal quip—and, as Jay Parini notes in a marvellous new
biography, Vidal enthusiastically followed his own advice. The sex was
almost always homosexual; invariably “on top”; and usually in the
afternoon, to allow for disciplined writing in the morning and
extravagant socialising in the evening. For Vidal, television meant a
show of eloquent punditry projected on both sides of the Atlantic, but
most memorably—as any trawl through YouTube will confirm—in the form of
confrontations on American chat shows with William Buckley, editor of
the conservative National Review, and with a pugnacious fellow writer, Norman Mailer. ...
Vidal, knowing everyone who was anyone (from Princess Margaret to
Rudolf Nureyev), was certainly a snob. He was also delighted to be rich,
having as a young man not known “where the next bottle of champagne
might come from,” Mr Parini writes. It mattered immensely to Vidal that
he could live well, whether in huge homes in America and Italy or in
comfortable suites at the best hotels in London, Paris and Bangkok.
Yet Mr Parini’s Gore Vidal is a man hiding his shyness with a mask ofUpdate: some far more extreme details of the Gore-ian sex life may be found in this article. Mind you, I'm mildly dubious about some of the actors he claimed to have slept with. Gives the impression it was hard to find an actor in the 50's who was not bisexual.
suave sophistication and with viper-like scorn for his enemies (he
called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi” in one TV clash, and said Truman Capote’s
death was “a wise career move”). Though Vidal accused Buckley of being a
“closet queen”, this was not the retort of a militant homosexual:
Vidal, a “pansexual”, always saw “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as
adjectives, not nouns.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Drugs and harm
FactCheck: is ice more dangerous and addictive than any other illegal drug?
I made a complaint recently that there is a lot of dubious rhetoric floating around when it comes to drug reform advocates talking about comparative risk for drugs.
This article does provide some useful figures, some of which are surprising:
As for a valid comparison between the "danger" of different drugs, the article goes squishy at the end:
And the article does link to a 2007 study by former UK drug policy adviser David Nutt. But as another article shows, the exercise Nutt went through with drug experts to rank drugs in terms of their danger is fraught with difficulties:
I made a complaint recently that there is a lot of dubious rhetoric floating around when it comes to drug reform advocates talking about comparative risk for drugs.
This article does provide some useful figures, some of which are surprising:
Fewer people use ice than alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, ecstasy and pharmaceuticalsThat's fewer meth users than media attention to the problem might suggest, but as the article goes to note, the "ice" phenomena is about the growth of it as the preferred type of methamphetamine, and its increase in frequency of use:
for non-medical purposes; 2.1% of Australians are methamphetamine users
(1% use ice), while 80% are alcohol users and 10% are cannabis users.
The same data show that about half of methamphetamine users prefer
ice over other forms. The proportion of users who use ice as their main
form of methamphetamine has doubled since 2010 - from 22% of users to
50% of users. This suggests that regular users are switching from speed
to ice.
In addition, these data show that existing users are using moreThe part that surprised me more, however, is the one about the number of ambulance attendances for cannabis use. Don't hear that bandied about much in drug reform circles:
frequently, with a larger percentage of users reporting using weekly or
daily, but a lower quantity. As a result of these changes, we have seen
an increase in harms associated with methamphetamine use.
In Victoria, there are an average of 4.7 methaphetamine-related ambulance attendancesPerhaps the article doesn't contain enough accurate information to be sure, but if alcohol is used by 80% of people versus 10% cannabis, it would seem the ambulance attendance figures for alcohol compared to cannabis are about the same. Very interesting...
a day (3.4 of those for ice) and about 87% of those cases are transported to hospital. This is less than alcohol (34 attendances per day), benzodiazepines (8.3 attendances per day) and heroin (5.1attendances per day). And it is similar to cannabis, with 4.4 attendances a day and around 86% transported to hospital.
As for a valid comparison between the "danger" of different drugs, the article goes squishy at the end:
While we certainly need to address the harms associated with methamphetamine use, we should keep in mind that our most widely used drug – alcohol - still results in more harms to individuals and the community, and other illicit drugs are also associated with more harms.Of course alcohol causes more harms "to individual in the community" - it's used by 80 times more people.
And the article does link to a 2007 study by former UK drug policy adviser David Nutt. But as another article shows, the exercise Nutt went through with drug experts to rank drugs in terms of their danger is fraught with difficulties:
Nutt's analysis measures two different issues related to drug use in the UK: the risk to an individual, and the damage to society as a whole.
The individual scores account for a host of variables, including mortality, dependence, drug-related family adversities, environmental damage, and effect on crime.
Even if two drugs score similarly in Nutt's analysis, the underlying variables behind the scores can be completely different. For instance, heroin and crack cocaine are fairly close in the rankings. But heroin scores much higher for mortality risk, while crack poses a much bigger risk for mental impairment.
There's also some divergence within the specific categories of harm. Alcohol and heroin both score high for crime. But alcohol's crime risk is due to its tendency to make people more aggressive (and more prone to committing crime), while heroin's crime risk is based on the massive criminal trafficking network behind it.
The analysis doesn't fully account for a drug's legality or accessibility. If heroin and crack were legal and more accessible, they would very likely rank higher than alcohol. The harm score for marijuana would also likely rise after legalization, but probably not too much since pot use is already widespread....
"You can always create some composite, but composites are fraught with problems," Caulkins said. "I think it's more misleading than useful."Excellent. Backs up the skepticism I've had about comparative "drugs harms" claims for years.
The blunt measures of drug harms present similar issues. Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription painkillers are likely deadlier than other drugs because they are legal, so comparing their aggregate effects to illegal drugs is difficult. Some drugs are very harmful to individuals, but they're so rarely used that they may not be a major public health threat. A few drugs are enormously dangerous in the short-term but not the long-term (heroin), or vice versa (tobacco). And looking at deaths or other harms caused by certain drugs doesn't always account for substances, such as prescription medications, that are often mixed with others, making them more deadly or harmful than they would be alone.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
More "something about the eyes"
Staring into someone’s eyes for 10 minutes induces an altered state of consciousness - ScienceAlert
It was a bit odd this week to read about an experiment indicating that staring into someone's eyes can induce hallucinations, when earlier in the year the big story was how staring into your partner's eyes could be a key part of falling in love, if you do it right.
As I wrote at the time "what is it about the eyes?". Since then, I have wondered if it is to do with bonding with babies. Seems as good an explanation as any.
Anyhow, the link at the top notes that the same Italian psychologist who did this recent experiment also wrote back in 2010 about how staring at your own face in the mirror in a dimly lit room is a good way for a lot of people to have some weird, face changing, hallucinations. This discussed in detail at the time at the Mind Hacks blog, and the very long thread that follows indicates that anyone with a susceptibility to mental illness is well advised not to try it.
Given my brain's dogged reluctance to experience weirdness, even though I find the paranormal and unusual perceptions very interesting topics, I pretty much expect my face would not morph a bit if I tried it. Perhaps I should give it a go and report back. (If the blog ends abruptly, someone send around the men in white coats, please.)
It was a bit odd this week to read about an experiment indicating that staring into someone's eyes can induce hallucinations, when earlier in the year the big story was how staring into your partner's eyes could be a key part of falling in love, if you do it right.
As I wrote at the time "what is it about the eyes?". Since then, I have wondered if it is to do with bonding with babies. Seems as good an explanation as any.
Anyhow, the link at the top notes that the same Italian psychologist who did this recent experiment also wrote back in 2010 about how staring at your own face in the mirror in a dimly lit room is a good way for a lot of people to have some weird, face changing, hallucinations. This discussed in detail at the time at the Mind Hacks blog, and the very long thread that follows indicates that anyone with a susceptibility to mental illness is well advised not to try it.
Given my brain's dogged reluctance to experience weirdness, even though I find the paranormal and unusual perceptions very interesting topics, I pretty much expect my face would not morph a bit if I tried it. Perhaps I should give it a go and report back. (If the blog ends abruptly, someone send around the men in white coats, please.)
Friday, August 21, 2015
Secret thoughts of a Royal Commissioner
For a while now, everytime I see Dyson Heydon's picture, I've been thinking "Gawd, he's got a high forehead." I associate high foreheads with large brains, and large brains remind me of brains the size of a planet (that is, Marvin the glum, paranoid android), and Dyson does look sort of glum to me all the time too. Hence, the following:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)






