Quickies
Quickies: Flipping the Bird, Scott Adams Has Horrible Opinions, and Lawrence Krauss
- We Made Victorian Condoms and It Was Much Grosser Than We Expected – Figure out how the Victorians made condoms using chemicals and sheep guts. The end result isn’t that bad actually.
- Proposed National Law Would Crack Down on Swatters with Serious Jail Time – “Although there’s already federal legislation on the books criminalizing calling in fake terrorist attacks or bomb threats, it doesn’t cover calling in other fake emergencies, according to the lawmakers’ press release. This bill purports to close that ‘loophole.’ ” From Amy.
- How Humans Went From Hissing Like Geese to Flipping the Bird – “If the intent behind the gesture is viscerally obvious, the name isn’t. No one is turning over a chicken—so why do we call it flipping the bird? It turns out that this fowl expression began its incubation millennia ago, in the classrooms and coliseums of of ancient Rome.”
- Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex – This guy sounds like he’d be a horrible date. But at this point I would be more surprised if I read any article about Scott Adams that said he was a good person. From Buzz Parsec.
- Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher? – ” ‘It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.’ Physicist George Ellis commenting on Lawrence Krauss’s book A Universe From Nothing.” From Radium.
I don’t find the criticisms I’ve seen of Krauss’s A Universe from Nothing to be convincing, including the criticism linked here. They generally boil down to either:
– Krauss’s definition of nothing isn’t really nothing.
or
– We can’t know what came before our universe.
The first may be true, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. It feels like a philosophical dodge.
The second may or may not be true. I don’t think it’s a useful criticism of a potential explanation of the origin of the universe. I would see this as a legitimate criticism if Krauss were saying that he has proof that his explanation is correct. Has he done that?
I’m just going to leave this right here…
Mary,
So according to Dilbert’s creator, not being able to rape women at will without consequence means that we live in a culture that unfairly favors women over men? Wow, I don’t think I’ll ever read Dilbert again!
Wish I could be surprised, but Adams has a history of saying incredibly stupid things. He’s the kind of person who’s so convinced of his own brilliance, he feels no need to fact-check; if Scott Adams thought it, it must be true.
Lykex,
This is worse than just incredible stupid through. Its vile. Its basically saying that men have a right to rape women.