Something to scroll through...

29 February, 2012

Advertising

This does a great job of summing up why I don't watch TV, or listen to the radio etc...

(Expletives edited to bypass filtering in case you want to email to someone at work)

Banksy on Advertising

People are taking the pi§§ out of you everyday.
They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear.
They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small.
They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate.
They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it.

They are "The Advertisers" and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them.
Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

FƲcʞ that.

Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not, is yours.
It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use.
You can do whatever you like with it.
Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing.
Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy.
They owe you.

They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you.
They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.

~ Banksy

25 January, 2012

Those where the days...

Three cheers for free speech...

Rat shit, Bat shit, Dirty old twat,
Sixty-Nine Assholes tied in a knot,
Hooray, Lizard shit, Fuck!(repeat 2X)

- George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008)

18 January, 2012

'Content Creators' opining against file sharing

Copyright Laws are a scam!!!

The one thing that seems to be overlooked by 'content creators' opining against file sharing is that the impact this technology has on actual revenue cannot be fairly estimated.

Well over 90% of file sharing is done by individuals who have no intention what-so-ever of spending their money to obtain such data.

If such content / data were not available in a convenient way at no cost...

Most people would not seek it out at any price...
Others would dismiss it out-of-hand...
It would show as a mere blip on the radar...

These options generates just as much revenue as does sharing files, with the added benefit of eliminating exposure to some beautiful artwork and powerful perspectives.

Is it really worthwhile for the 'Content Creator' to cling so tightly to the financial reward aspect in order to limit and restrict the exposure they need?

After all, it is the achievement of recognition that keeps them creating in the first place - if the content creator aspires to make money doing it... There are many who create out of 'passion' and for no other real reason.

Popularity and exposure are what draw in those who will pay the source of that creativity.

The biggest issue preventing a creator from being adequately compensated in the first place is the number of middlemen that insist on latching on to the process.

These middlemen are who make it rich, and are able to afford millions to pay off politicos who will push things like SOPA, PIPA etc.

These middlemen don't give a shit about the 'content creator'... They care about staying in the middle and reaping their cut. They cry alligator tears and invoke 'content creators' as the reason for those tears... But there is no truth to those pleadings.

SOPA and PIPA type legislative initiatives intend to do one thing for certain... Make an outdated business model into law, so these middlemen can continue to get rich off the work of the creator.

Otherwise supporting that antiquated paradigm is patently un-American because it: inhibits innovation and production, provides an unfair advantage to those outside of the process.

Once that business model is killed off, and thus the cloud of middlemen are removed from the creative process... Content Creators will be in a much better position to make a living off of their work.

Until Content Creators realize that they are enslaved - Seeing this game for what it is will never happen.

16 January, 2012

Law of Non-Contradiction

A ? ¬A

The Law of Non-Contradiction, as stated by Aristotle:

"One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

Often, this is expressed in the formula: A ? ¬A, where "¬A" signifies "not A" or "not having quality A". (To prevent a common error, understand that it does NOT mean "the subset of everything except A." For example, to say that "an animal that is a cat cannot be, at the same time, a dog" is NOT an application of the law of non-contradiction. To say that "an animal that is a cat cannot, at the same time, also be a 'not cat'" IS to apply the law of non-contradiction.)

Worded a bit more clearly:

Nothing can both have the quality of A and lack the quality of A at the same time.

====================

This video does an excellent job of tackling the philosophical mess of the ontological argument and clarifying the nature of logic and mathematics incorporating A ? ¬A to help illustrate the point.:

I originally found the text above here... It was the first part of this article (emphasis and formatting added by me):
(the vid I found later)

Morality Is Relative But Not Subjective

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41972

I am making this material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License

13 January, 2012

Spinach and Prosciutto Lasagna

Prep Time 10 minutes
Total Time 55 minutes
Yield Serves 4

Cook's Notes:

It's important to squeeze the thawed spinach dry, or the lasagna may be watery.

I found that it is easier to break apart the chopped prosciutto by hand - Mix it together with some (a few Tbsp) of the tomato sauce and use your fingers to separate it in the sauce, then mix in the remaining sauce.

Ingredients

2 packages (10 ounces each) frozen chopped spinach, thawed and squeezed dry
1 1/2 cups part-skim ricotta
1 garlic clove, minced
1 tsp Salt
¼ tsp ground pepper
2 1/2 cups jarred tomato sauce
4 ounces thinly sliced prosciutto, chopped
6 no-boil lasagna noodles
1 cup shredded part-skim mozzarella (4 ounces)

Directions

Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Bake until browned, 35 to 40 minutes. Let stand 5 minutes before serving.

Make filling: (set aside)

In a medium bowl, stir together:

spinach,
ricotta,
garlic,
1 teaspoon salt, and ¼ teaspoon pepper;

In another medium bowl, stir together:

tomato sauce and prosciutto.

In an 8-inch square baking dish,

spread cup tomato sauce.
Layer 2 noodles,
1/3 filling, and 1/3 remaining tomato sauce; repeat twice.

Top with mozzarella.

Bake until browned
375 degrees. Bake until browned, 35 to 40 minutes. Let stand 5 minutes before serving.

29 December, 2011

Debunking 101

(Excerpts from the "Debunking Handbook" by John Cook & Stephan Lewandowski - Published on/by and found at skepticalscience.com)

The last thing you want to do when debunking misinformation is blunder in and make matters worse.
So this handbook has a specific focus - providing practical tips to effectively debunk misinformation and avoid the various backfire effects.
To achieve this, an understanding of the relevant cognitive processes is necessary.

It's not just what people think that matters, but how they think.

When people hear misinformation, they build a mental model, with the myth providing an explanation. When the myth is debunked, a gap is left in their mental model. To deal with this dilemma, people prefer an incorrect model over an incomplete model. In the absence of a better explanation, they opt for the wrong explanation.

For the alternative to be accepted, it must be plausible and explain all observed features of the event. When you debunk a myth, you create a gap in the person's mind. To be effective, your debunking must fill that gap.

One gap that may require filling is explaining why the myth is wrong.

This can be achieved by exposing the rhetorical techniques used to misinform.

The techniques include cherry picking, conspiracy theories and fake experts.

Another alternative narrative might be to explain why the misinformer promoted the myth.

Arousing suspicion of the source of misinformation has been shown to further reduce the influence of misinformation.

Another key element to effective rebuttal is using an explicit warning ("watch out, you might be misled") before mentioning the myth.

Experimentation with different rebuttal structures found the most effective combination included an alternative explanation and an explicit warning.

When people read a refutation that conflicts with their beliefs, they seize on ambiguities to construct an alternative interpretation.

Graphics provide more clarity and less opportunity for misinterpretation.
If your content can be expressed visually, always opt for a graphic in your debunking.

(LGT PDF on my Google Docs)
http://goo.gl/zC42k

Here is the original:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf