Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next


I have links:

  • Tory Atlas of the World, from Spitting Image in the '80s, but still funny. Can't remember who I stole that from days ago, sorry! In an '80s politics vein, I'm reading the Yes Minister Diaries just now and they could have been written this year. In fact, they're a bit like The Day Today in that they don't really seem like satire any more.

  • I was mildly shocked by this article by Charlotte Allen on CiF the other day - imagine the fuss if an atheist talked about Christians like that - but it's turns out she's just another nutter (or, if I'm feeling charitable, the print equivalent to a shock jock). This article she wrote for the Washington Post is frankly mind-boggling:

    So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. (Even I, who inherited my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal grandmother, whose idea of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can make a house a home.) Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are...kind of dim.

  • There's a great post by [info] - personallone_lilly explaining privilege here (via [info] - personalmiss_s_b)

  • And a good article from CiF about the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, with loads of links, and a bunch of anti-choice crazies in the comments. (Calling them pro-lifers now would be PARTICULARLY ironic.)

  • The BBC has pretty pictures of a new kind of cloud that Gavin Pretor-Pinney is trying to get classified

  • And Richard Wiseman and the New Scientist are doing an experiment on remote psychic viewing via Twitter, starting tomorrow afternoon. Er, this afternoon. Tuesday. There was a test run on Monday that was pretty interesting and kind of fun, although I can't see how the thing can be seen as remotely* scientific.

  • Also, thebookpeople have a clearance website, bananas.co.uk - it's EVEN CHEAPER. Thankfully there's not that much on it, or I would be killed by my book mountain sooner than expected.

    *No pun intended, but I must leave it now it's there.


( 5 comments — Comment )
Jun. 2nd, 2009 07:45 am (UTC)
I remember seeing an interview with one of the writers of Yes, Minister. He mentioned that when he was writing the series he saw a newspaper from the 1960's*. The political stories were about Britain's place in Europe, unemployment, rising crime figures, and generally the same things that we're talking about today.

*I may have got the decade wrong but the whole point is it doesn't matter.
Jun. 2nd, 2009 03:36 pm (UTC)
Heh, yeah, it's pretty much always the same. "We've lost our trust in the government...again!"
Jun. 2nd, 2009 09:34 am (UTC)
Whats your beef with Wisemans study?
Jun. 2nd, 2009 03:42 pm (UTC)
Well, anything done online is pretty open to abuse - multiple entries, sceptics getting loads of mates to come on and randomly guess, etc. It depends what kind of conclusions they're trying to come to. Self-selecting entrants, too, which is always a bit dodgy. If they're just using it to find people who get all four right, then continue to test them, that makes sense, but I don't think that the inevitable lack of statistically significant results in this will be particularly meaningful.
Jun. 2nd, 2009 05:00 pm (UTC)
A lot of these issues are issues in lab-based research as well.

All research with people involves self selecting entrants.
( 5 comments — Comment )


bad wolf
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com