... and here's why!
... or get the video here.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Darwinmania!
Olivia Judson / The New York Times
The party is about to begin.
In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species” (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.
But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.
It was a few months after returning from this voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of evolution, or the “transmutation of species.” At this time he knew nothing of Wells’s and Matthew’s accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the “Origin” was published. (After the “Origin” appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection” on the title pages of his books. This annoyed Darwin.)
More after the click ...
The party is about to begin.
In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species” (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.
But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.
It was a few months after returning from this voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of evolution, or the “transmutation of species.” At this time he knew nothing of Wells’s and Matthew’s accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the “Origin” was published. (After the “Origin” appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection” on the title pages of his books. This annoyed Darwin.)
More after the click ...
Monday, June 02, 2008
How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
By Yvonne Raley / in Scientific American
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
More after the click ...
By Yvonne Raley / in Scientific American
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
More after the click ...
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Thought for the day
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."
-- Ashley Montague
-- Ashley Montague
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Another "Uniter not a Divider"?
Sam Stein / Huffington Post
As the battle over Indiana progressed between Sens Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, a set of depressing polls numbers were finalized for John McCain.
In the GOP primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, the basically uncontested Republican nominee did not gain more than 80 percent of the vote.
In Indiana, McCain earned the backing of 78 percent of Republican primary voters, with exited candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney gaining 10 percent and five percent respectively. Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race, has received seven percent of the vote.
The numbers were even worse in North Carolina, where McCain won 74 percent of the vote, with Huckabee earning 12 percent, Paul earning seven percent, and four percent of Republican primary goers simply voting "no preference."
More after the click ...
My comment:
Having divided the country for eight years, the Republican Party now works to divide itself out of existence.
As the battle over Indiana progressed between Sens Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, a set of depressing polls numbers were finalized for John McCain.
In the GOP primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, the basically uncontested Republican nominee did not gain more than 80 percent of the vote.
In Indiana, McCain earned the backing of 78 percent of Republican primary voters, with exited candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney gaining 10 percent and five percent respectively. Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race, has received seven percent of the vote.
The numbers were even worse in North Carolina, where McCain won 74 percent of the vote, with Huckabee earning 12 percent, Paul earning seven percent, and four percent of Republican primary goers simply voting "no preference."
More after the click ...
My comment:
Having divided the country for eight years, the Republican Party now works to divide itself out of existence.
Thought for the day
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
-- Krishnamurti
-- Krishnamurti
Friday, May 02, 2008
A Conversation with an Air Head
ModelMayhem is a legitimate site for photographers and models to find each other. The listing of models and photographers contains many very serious and talented types. but on both sides of the camera one can sometimes find a vacuum. The following started with a new listing in the Tucson area. My assumption was three part: 1.) She listed herself as a model and therefore was interested in modeling assignments; 2.) She is local so a local assignment would be attractive to her; 3.) my on-line portfolio contains about 70 images that demonstrate I have a certain skill level, one that is significantly more polished than the 4 snapshots she has in hers. Each photograph in my portfolio has a model credit and a link to their portfolios (which incidentally has a site email link so people on the site can communicate with each other) so my references are very easily checked so that one can find out that I really am who I say I am and I do what I say I do with no funny business in between.
So, without further ado, I wrote to the newbie model:
I thought I was pretty clear, particularly to a newbie, about what she needed to do to make something happen. Look at my work, if you like it then check my references. If my references don't scare the poop outa ya then tell me you'd like to work something out ... and we will. The implication is also that if you don't like my work or my references aren't to your satisfaction, either say "no thanks" or ignore this message. There's ample precedent for both of those options. So, she responded:
"Likely be interested"? "Let me know"? I hate dealing with air heads! So, in a fit of pique, I wrote back:
My original response .. the one I didn't send ... was less gentle.
So, without further ado, I wrote to the newbie model:
Welcome aboard, neighbor! I see you're in Tucson. I'm on the far east side - like abut a 1/2 mile off XXXXXXXX Rd., not far from XXXXXXX XXXXX Park.
Check my portfolio here on MM ...
Check my Casting notice ... (either by going to Casting on the menu above or by following the link from my MM page) - I'm looking for people interested in doing some lingerie and/or swim wear shots ...
Then ... if you're interested in working together
Check my references (their names and MM numbers are all over my MM pages) ... I'll be happy to provide a list if you like.
Once you get a little feed back from some of the people I've worked with, hit me up ... I'd like to work with you. I think I might be able to do some things that would expand your portfolio in a positive way ... and I think you could be helpful to me, as well.
Best of luck.
Let me know.
J
I thought I was pretty clear, particularly to a newbie, about what she needed to do to make something happen. Look at my work, if you like it then check my references. If my references don't scare the poop outa ya then tell me you'd like to work something out ... and we will. The implication is also that if you don't like my work or my references aren't to your satisfaction, either say "no thanks" or ignore this message. There's ample precedent for both of those options. So, she responded:
Thank you for the shout, I'm always interested in expanding my portfolio and would likely be interested in working with you.
Just let me know, I have to plan all my modeling around a full-time job and so often have problems keeping dates in order. Regardless, let me know--
"Likely be interested"? "Let me know"? I hate dealing with air heads! So, in a fit of pique, I wrote back:
Not sure what I need to let you know.
The casting notice (or a look at my front page - little box right under the bit about me) says I'm looking for lingerie / swim wear at the moment. I think I mentioned it in my not above, too.
I work for myself so my schedule is flexible and I can probably work around your full time commitment.
My references are all over my pages ... names and MM numbers so you can verify that I am who I say I am and I do what I say I do. I'd check them for you if I could but I don't think that would be really acceptable. Better you check photographers references independently.
Not sure what else there might be. If you can tell me what I need to let you know ... I'll probably let you know by return e-mail. So, help me out here ... let me know what I need to let you know so I can let you know.
J
My original response .. the one I didn't send ... was less gentle.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Thought for the day
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
- George Orwell
Shooting Renny and Tracy
Shooting Renny and T-racy. (I'm working toward a
"Story Telling" style and techniques that give me a
"300" look.)
For anyone interested in what it really looks like ... 2 models, 2 photographers, a photographer/makeup artist, an empty house and a day with nothing better to do.
We started shooting at about 11:30AM after I got the painters going with a little cash to buy the paint so they could start painting the next day ... I'm having one of the bedrooms painted in the hope that it'll help sell the house.
We wrapped up around 4PM because everyone was hungry. I picked up Candy while the others grabbed a table at Casa del Rio, our favorite Mexican restaurant at Pantano and 22nd. (Food is cheap but really, really good!)
Early dinner. A great time was had by all.
I'd rather hang out with young people than old people. I tried hanging out with older people ... people my age ... they're just too friggin' old. The life is draining out of them and it shows. Young people want to DO something. they're much more fun.
Making photographs is much more fun than sitting around, waiting around for the world to end.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
How Others See Us
"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair."
- Arnold Toynbee
- Arnold Toynbee
Monday, April 28, 2008
Health Care in America
forwarded from a friend:
A Japanese doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."
A German doctor said, "That's nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."
A British doctor said, "In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."
A Texas doctor, not to be outdone said, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House and now half the country is looking for work."
A Japanese doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."
A German doctor said, "That's nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."
A British doctor said, "In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."
A Texas doctor, not to be outdone said, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House and now half the country is looking for work."
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thought for the day
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw
- George Bernard Shaw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)