http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10461066.stm
Shit yeah
The largest whale has been discovered (at least so far as we know).
It is huge.
It is a toothed whale with more in common with the badass Orcas and Sperm Whales than the huge Blue Whales.
It is bigger than Megaladon, the largest Shark known.
Leviathan Melvillei and Megaladon were contemporaries.
I'm just gonna let this all sink in, and maybe read Moby Dick again.
epic song for an epic find
-- Knuttel
Showing posts with label aqualife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aqualife. Show all posts
6.13.2010
Knuttel Clears Out His Bookmarks
OK, so these are all things I bookmarked over the past few weeks with the intention of writing small or full sized articles on them (what's the difference, I dunno, I never wordcount anyway).
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
3.15.2010
Evolution of a Situation: The Real Danger of Teaching Creationism
Full disclosure: I am not a biologist, nor have I studied in depth the theory of evolution, but I fancy myself to have a better understanding than those discrediting it. I believe it to be an imperfect work in progress, but the closest thing we have to the truth. I also spent grades 4-12 in Catholic school, making my education during which I'd learn this very Christian.
That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.
But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.
Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.
And there I start to ramble.
The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.
Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.
This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?
Goddamnit, Texas
-- Knuttel
seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.
That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.
But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.
Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.
And there I start to ramble.
The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.
Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.
This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?
Goddamnit, Texas
-- Knuttel
seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.
3.08.2010
Film: The Final Frontier
So I recently took it upon myself to watch the first six "Star Trek" movies, you know the ones that starred the cast from TOS (the original series). Seven featured Kirk, and maybe a few others, but that was a handoff, largely dominated by the cast of TNG (the next generation).
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
Feel Good-umentaries
What has happened to documentaries?
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)