I love my Kindle…

but I want a new version, with:

  • Higher-resolution screen (200 DPI or more?) with greater contrast
  • Full Unicode fonts (or at least handle the Euro symbol, Cyrillic and the Greek alphabet)
  • Bigger, more responsive screen
  • Better fonts and typography (proper small-caps, LaTeX-style justification and hyphenation algorithm, etc.)
  • More attention paid to formatting in books and newspapers (The Times has articles with half the words run together sometimes, and some books are poorly formatted)
  • Better font and formatting selection (several books I have embed their own fonts, but they look terrible compared to the default, which isn’t very exciting anyway. Also, things like drop-caps and first-line effects would be nice)
  • More pictures in newspapers

That is all.

Socks

Has anyone considered how weird socks are? I mean, really. It’s like putting a hat on your foot. You’re sort of just wrapping two important appendages in fabric. It even looks weird, when you think about it.

That has been today’s weird moment. May you never look at a sock the same way again.

Alex’s Laws of Internet Argumentation

So it seems a thread on SFN inspired me to create Alex’s Law of Internet argumentation. I’d like to elaborate a bit on that, and propose a new Law or two:

  • Alex’s First Law
    As soon as an online discussion becomes an argument, the participants will never admit they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence against them. Winning an argument fairly is impossible.
  • Alex’s Second Law
    Upon reading something that flies in the face of accepted science or reason, the educated layman will immediately make an attack on the semantics of it, as he does not understand enough science or logic to make a more detailed response. Inevitably, the discussion will shift to the meaning of one or two key words rather than focusing on the science or logic.
  • Alex’s Third Law
    It is far easier to attack an argument by quoting one of the Laws of Argumentation than it is to actually construct a logical response.
    First Corollary:
    Using a Law of Argumentation (this includes laws such as Danth’s and Godwin’s) as a substitute for logical argumentation is justification for using Alex’s First Law against you.
    Second Corollary:
    Using Alex’s First Law to win an argument immediately makes you a victim of the First and Third Laws.

A list of the other Laws of Argumentation

Making Darwin UnComfortable

Evangelical minister Ray Comfort recently put out a “150th Anniversary Edition” of On the Origin of Species, with a Special Introduction attacking Darwin, the theory of evolution, and atheism.

Yeah, big deal. It’s been all over the Internet lately. Well, as an assignment for one of my university courses, I wrote a nice report on Comfort’s edition, comparing it to the original 1859 first edition, which we conveniently have a copy of in a library here on campus.

It was very revealing.

You can see the entire 11-page report here, though don’t be frightened by its length: it’s double-spaced and in a nice, large, easy-to-read font.

Enjoy, everyone! Feel free to spread this around the Interwebs as much as you’d like.

For the impatient, here are the highlights:

  • Ray Comfort’s table of contents omits page numbers entirely, so you can’t skip to specific chapters. In fact, new chapters start in the middle of pages, and chapter headings are in tiny font, so you can’t even find chapters if you want to find a specific detail. It’s worthless as the edition for “universities and higher education” it claims to be on the back cover.
  • The text of his Special Introduction is in a nice, large font, whereas Origin is in a tiny, unreadable font. It is painfully clear that Comfort does not even want you to read Origin, just his introduction. If he were truly interested in shortening this edition to make it cheaper to produce, he would have shortened his introduction as well.
  • The nice, 12-page index is completely omitted.
  • Darwin’s credentials, once present on the title page, are left out.
  • The one figure included in the first edition, a nice tree of life diagram, is omitted, leaving four pages or so of Darwin blabbing about a figure illustrating his point with no actual figure to illustrate his point. Comfort’s Introduction, however, includes numerous photographs and cartoons.
  • Comfort’s claim that atheists wanted book-burnings and generally had a huge violent outcry is mostly unsubstantiated. Though one atheist on RichardDawkins.net calls Comfort out on his “ideological masturbation fantasy.” (Yeah, the paper’s worth reading just for that quote.)
  • I did not, in fact, see much response at all from the religious online community, besides some criticisms of Comfort.

What does this lead me to believe? Well, here’s my conclusion:

Comfort’s edition of On the Origin of Species is not the product of a society that has rejected Darwinism. It is the product of a society that accepts Darwinism more than ever, whose acceptance has driven Ray Comfort to the conclusion that society is rejecting God. To a deeply religious minister, that is cause for action. Thus, a new Origin was produced, one designed to bring people back to God by emphasizing a religious message and discouraging anyone from even reading Darwin’s words. In his view, after all, Darwin is the man who drove them away from God in the first place.

This is no ordinary edition of Origins, with a nice introduction stating the “other side” of the story, as Comfort makes it out to be. It is an outright, but very subtle, attack. And it deserves to be treated that way.

Moderation Observations, part 1

I’ve been a moderator here at SFN for almost four years now, and an administrator for about three. (The promotion to administrator was rather ad-hoc and I’m not entirely sure when it happened in retrospect; one day blike needed help fixing something in vBulletin and he promoted me so I had access to the right bits of the admin control panel.)

Over this time I have collected various bits of wisdom about moderating and participating in discussions on Internet forums. As SFN moves ahead with new plans and new ideas for the future, I thought it best to write some of my thoughts down.

Continue reading →

Nerd Poetry no. 2

First, read the poem What I Believe, by Michael Blumenthal. It’s crucial to understanding my poem.

What I Believe

I believe that unicorns exist,
but that dolphins and iguanas
are entirely imaginary.

I believe that a hamster’s bite
won’t kill a man,
but that his wife will.

I believe that the weirder you get,
the crazier you are,
but the more fun you have.

I believe that if you roll over at night
in a small bed,
you will fall off the side.

I believe that no one
is spared insanity,
but some people get too much of it.

I believe in determinism,
but that’s not my fault.

I believe that, when all
the clocks melt,
Dali goes on without them.

I believe that whatever
pulls us under,
will do so violently.

so as to alarm everyone,
so as to make them shout
and inspire generations of filmmakers.

And I believe that there are living poets
that are quite good,
but that I have yet to find any.

Communication Media

[Note: There’s basically no point to this post. But hey, it’s the Internet. That’s allowed here.]

Media I can use to communicate with people I know in person:

  • Phone call. The highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency medium, unless you get voicemail. But somehow the least preferred.
  • Text message. Annoyingly brief and usually vapid; useful for arranging meetings or telling someone you can’t go to their party when you’d rather not have to explain on the phone.
  • Facebook message. Either wall post or private message. You can talk as much as you want, but in public you’d rather not and most private messages are just messages sent to groups to inform them that a party is coming up. (In my experience, anyway.)
  • Instant messenger, like MSN or AIM. You will never have a group of friends that entirely uses one protocol or another; there’ll always be the one or two people using a different system. IMs are convenient and fast, you can keep logs for yourself, and it’s a lot easier to type on a keyboard than on a phone; still, IM clients aren’t as portable. (If you have one on your iPhone you have to type with the tiny keyboard.)
  • Email. The original electronic communication method. It’s now basically the Snail Mail of the Internet, though emails only take two seconds to arrive most of the time. For some reason many people I know don’t use email for serious messaging at all, sticking to Facebook or text messaging.
  • Smoke signal. This is arguably my favorite system, although it is difficult to find willing people to communicate with and the fire department tends to show up a lot.

I’m the sort of person that likes to keep things archived. I have all of my email since my current email accounts opened; I have all instant messages logged and I keep offline copies of the (very few, as it happens) Facebook private messages I actually deem important. Text messaging presents a problem because there’s no good way to archive it, and of course nobody likes having their phone calls recorded.

My obsessive-compulsive need to have a cohesive record of my past isn’t being fulfilled! Stupid technology.