immunology professor this week (via hyacinth-willow)
I mean, a fever is basically your immune system going, “LET’S SEE WHO BURNS FIRST, MOTHERFUCKER.”
Hovertext: We need to stop enabling Saturn, you guys.
The melody was originally written before 1893 by sisters Mildred and Patty Hill, but the rights to the song were later transferred to Summy Co., which was eventually acquired by Warner/Chappell.
For decades, Warner continued to demand licensing fees from filmmakers, artists and other people who used the song in public, generating an estimated $2 million annually.
However, in 2013 a group of artists including musician Rupa Marya sued Warner’s music division claiming that the company doesn’t hold the rights to the song. Aside from missing agreements, the filmmakers argued that it’s not clear what the true origins of the song are.
Before even reaching a trial, Judge George King awarded a groundbreaking victory to the plaintiffs last fall. After a careful review of several agreements the court concluded that there is no evidence that the Hill sisters ever transferred their rights to Summy Co.
As a result Warner saw no other option than to settle the case. The settlement was announced last December and this week the terms were made public.
Under the terms (pdf) Warner agrees to create a $14 million settlement fund to compensate persons who paid Warner/Chappell Music or one of its predecessors licensing fees for Happy Birthday, since 1949.
In addition, Warner officially declares not to own any rights to the song.
“Defendants and Intervenors agree that, upon the Final Settlement Date, they will relinquish their ownership claims to the Song and all their rights to the Song,” the agreement reads.
Warner further agrees not to oppose a request from the artists to officially enter the Happy Birthday song into the public domain.
“Defendants and Intervenors will not oppose Plaintiffs’ request that the Final Judgment and Order include a declaratory judgment that, as of the Final Settlement Date, the Song will be in the public domain,” it reads.
Technically, Happy Birthday is now an orphan work which means that an unknown party could still step up to claim ownership. However, Warner/Chappell and the artists are both unaware of any outstanding copyright claims.
While $14 million is a significant amount, it’s relatively low considering that Warner probably made dozens of millions more from the song over the past 66 years.
The settlement marks the end of one of the most prominent copyright disputes in recent history. It also means that everyone is free to sing Happy Birthday in public, without having to look over their shoulders.
Can you use a magnifying glass and moonlight to light a fire?
At first, this sounds like a pretty easy question.
A magnifying glass concentrates light on a small spot. As many mischevious kids can tell you, a magnifying glass as small as a square inch in size can collect enough light to start a fire. A little Googling will tell you that the Sun is 400,000 times brighter than the Moon, so all we need is a 400,000-square-inch magnifying glass. Right?
Wrong. Here's the real answer: You can't start a fire with moonlightPretty sure this is a Bon Jovi song. no matter how big your magnifying glass is. The reason is kind of subtle. It involves a lot of arguments that sound wrong but aren't, and generally takes you down a rabbit hole of optics.
First, here's a general rule of thumb: You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.
There are lots of ways to show why this is true using optics, but a simpler—if perhaps less satisfying—argument comes from thermodynamics:
Lenses and mirrors work for free; they don't take any energy to operate. If you could use lenses and mirrors to make heat flow from the Sun to a spot on the ground that's hotter than the Sun, you'd be making heat flow from a colder place to a hotter place without expending energy. The second law of thermodynamics says you can't do that. If you could, you could make a perpetual motion machine.
The Sun is about 5,000°C, so our rule says you can't focus sunlight with lenses and mirrors to get something any hotter than 5,000°C. The Moon's sunlit surface is a little over 100°C, so you can't focus moonlight to make something hotter than about 100°C. That's too cold to set most things on fire.
"But wait," you might say. "The Moon's light isn't like the Sun's! The Sun is a blackbody—its light output is related to its high temperature. The Moon shines with reflected sunlight, which has a "temperature" of thousands of degrees—that argument doesn't work!"
It turns out it does work, for reasons we'll get to later. But first, hang on—is that rule even correct for the Sun? Sure, the thermodynamics argument seems hard to argue with,Because it's correct. but to someone with a physics background who's used to thinking of energy flow, it may seem hard to swallow. Why can't you concentrate lots of sunlight onto a point to make it hot? Lenses can concentrate light down to a tiny point, right? Why can't you just concentrate more and more of the Sun's energy down onto the same point? With over 1026 watts available, you should be able to get a point as hot as you want, right?
Except lenses don't concentrate light down onto a point—not unless the light source is also a point. They concentrate light down onto an area—a tiny image of the Sun.Or a big one! This difference turns out to be important. To see why, let's look at an example:
This lens directs all the light from point A to point C. If the lens were to concentrate light from the Sun down to a point, it would need to direct all the light from point B to point C, too:
But now we have a problem. What happens if light goes back from point C toward the lens? Optical systems are reversible, so the light should be able to go back to where it came from—but how does the lens know whether the light came from B or to A?
In general, there's no way to "overlay" light beams on each other, because the whole system has to be reversible. This keeps you from squeezing more light in from a given direction, which puts a limit on how much light you can direct from a source to a target.
Maybe you can't overlay light rays, but can't you, you know, sort of smoosh them closer together, so you can fit more of them side-by-side? Then you could gather lots of smooshed beams and aim them at a target from slightly different angles.
Nope, you can't do this.We already know this, of course, since earlier we said that it would let you violate the second law of thermodynamics.
It turns out that any optical system follows a law called conservation of étendue. This law says that if you have light coming into a system from a bunch of different angles and over a large "input" area, then the input area times the input angleNote to nitpickers: In 3D systems, this is technically the solid angle, the 2D equivalent of the regular angle, but whatever. equals the output area times the output angle. If your light is concentrated to a smaller output area, then it must be "spread out" over a larger output angle.
In other words, you can't smoosh light beams together without also making them less parallel, which means you can't aim them at a faraway spot.
There's another way to think about this property of lenses: They only make light sources take up more of the sky; they can't make the light from any single spot brighter,A popular demonstration of this: Try holding up a magnifying glass to a wall. The magnifying glass collects light from many parts of the wall and sends them to your eye, but it doesn't make the wall look brighter. because it can be shownThis is left as an exercise for the reader. that making the light from a given direction brighter would violate the rules of étendue.My résumé says étendue is my forté. In other words, all a lens system can do is make every line of sight end on the surface of a light source, which is equivalent to making the light source surround the target.
If you're "surrounded" by the Sun's surface material, then you're effectively floating within the Sun, and will quickly reach the temperature of your surroundings.(Very hot)
If you're surrounded by the bright surface of the Moon, what temperature will you reach? Well, rocks on the Moon's surface are nearly surrounded by the surface of the Moon, and they reach the temperature of the surface of the Moon (since they are the surface of the Moon.) So a lens system focusing moonlight can't really make something hotter than a well-placed rock sitting on the Moon's surface.
Which gives us one last way to prove that you can't start a fire with moonlight: Buzz Aldrin is still alive.
Sometimes in chat Adam is all “FOOTBALL” and “GRAND STRATEGY GAMES” and “LUNCH”. Usually my favourite Adam chat is “LUNCH”. Today, however, we had “WAVE SIMULATOR”. “WAVE SIMULATOR” is my favourite of all.
The wave simulator in question is a simple-looking wave tool by David Li which lets you tweak a patch of ocean, making it choppier or calmer according to your fancy. It’s fantastically soothing for me to have on in another browser window as I work.
It was brought to my attention that the tired excuse for when one doesn’t like something that was said on the internet was trotted out by the new CEO of Center For Inquiry, Robyn Blumner. It seems defending the old-school status quo is far more important than bothering with facts.
“I think Richard Dawkins is purposefully misunderstood at times as a way to generate clicks on some bloggers’ page. It’s because his name brings page views and eyes so why not generate a lot of heat around something that is pretty tame if you really unpack it.”
Dear Ms Blumner, the fact is that Richard Dawkins’ Twitter feed has become a source of power for those who wish to silence and harass minority voices in the atheist and feminist communities and beyond. His comments on abortion and down syndrome, rape, pedophilia, islamism, feminism, people with disabilities, white privilege and social justice are not “something that is pretty tame if you unpack it.” His comments are divisive, incendiary and out-right damaging to already muffled voices hoping to to be heard and wishing to be part of a community. There are plenty of more tweets I could link to- including ones he has recently deleted, but quite franky this topic has gotten tired don’t you think? It should however be pointed out to people such as Ms Blumner, since they have found themselves in a position of power in the free-thought community that the term “SJW” was created as an insult to people, mainly activists hoping to help minorities and create more inclusivity in communities such as atheism, humanism and gaming. Yes, caring about issues that affect the less privileged in society has become a popular insult and a joke used on a regular basis by antifeminists and the likes of Mr Dawkins. But maybe it’s not for attention. Maybe it’s purely out of spite.
Bloggers on independent networks such as this are not writing about issues such as atheism and free-thought for the “clicks.” We are literally the new generation of the free press. We are the indie mags. We are the Xerox copies handed to you at a gig on the Sunset Strip. We are people who work regular jobs during the day unrelated to blogging so that we can write with total freedom. We have no advertisers or bosses or board of directors breathing down our blouses dictating what is appropriate to say and when. We add and delete as we wish. There is no holiday bonus or book deals. We speak when we choose. We share truth and our own opinions when we so desire.
And about those clicks. The most I have ever made in a month blogging from ad revenue sharing was approximately $30. I remember this because I was so excited that it was enough to buy a cheap dress. Let that sink in. $30 in a month. Compare that to your CEO salary, Ms Blumner and come back here and tell me who has more to gain or lose by telling the truth. We independent bloggers are free speech. Money has no effect on what we decide to say. If you believe what you claim, that bloggers are essentially just vultures circling the feeds of famous men, in it for clicks and eyeballs, then you are ignorant on how the internet press works and blind to the damage your partner Mr Dawkins has done to minority voices. Your associate, Mr Dawkins regardless of intent, has encouraged harassment of women (including myself and others on this blog), bigotry and he has evolved over the past few years, like an excruciatingly slow train-wreck, into a very famous troll with literally millions hanging on each of his 140 character texts. Texts that we do not need to misinterpret or unpack because they speak clearly on their own.
Doing it for the clicks is simply another way of saying doing it for the attention. So tell me Ms Blumner, why does Mr Dawkins tweet these things and why do you defend it?
Hat tip to FTB and Monette for listening to a podcast so I didn’t have to.
Hovertext: Now, let's have the talk about how individual effort may matter less than other people's inherent ability.
After 800 people pointed out my crappy base-11 number line (that's what I get for doing base-11 before bed), I have altered to votey. So, please press z to go back and give it a look!
I’ve heard a number of explanations: it’s a private conversation with the supernatural emperor of the universe, or possibly a moment of communion with all-that-is, or even just a quiet personal centering of the self. These are all lies. As we all know, prayer is actually an opportunity to posture publicly, promoting one’s own piety.
We have another example to illustrate the accuracy of my definition. Phoenix had a request from the Satanists to be allowed to give an opening prayer at council meetings, and the council struggled with their decision — whether to allow a Satanic prayer, which would cause a huge outcry from fanatical Christians; to prohibit certain faiths from participation, which would clearly violate the separation of church and state and lead to lawsuits; or to simply stop the prayer nonsense altogether, and instead have a moment of silence, in which individuals could freely have a private conversation with god, commune with all-that-is, center their self, or whatever.
Phoenix wisely went with the moment of silence idea. Seems smart to me; as an atheist, I wouldn’t object, and believers are still allowed to chat with god, commune, center, etc., if that’s what prayer is all about.
The majority of the council seem sensible and are willing. But others are willingly validating my theory that prayer is about loudly and publicly pronouncing the depth of their faith, and are melting down at the idea that they can’t get any more brownie points with the gods by babbling at others.
The objections have been emotional, loud and generally ignorant. Christians are pushing for their right to pray, but they don’t seem to understand the fact they can’t allow their prayers while banning others. The Phoenix council had an option of either allowing the alternate prayers, or banning them while facing a First Amendment-based lawsuit that is practically a guaranteed loss for them. They chose a third option of banning all prayer (the best option) completely. Now they are being threatened with even more lawsuits from Christians that want to insert religion into government – as long as it’s only Christian religion.
You can’t win with these people.
Ppl be like “ I want an actual male gem, not just Steven.”
Jeez, it’s like having only one character
to represent your whole gender
in a group composed all of another gender
is a bit upsetting huh?
what this lack of representation
none of the listed shows are named after the one female character, either
it’s actually physically impossible for me to not reblog this post.
I want to say I’ve reblogged this before, but I’m reblogging again for the brilliant addition of, “None of the listed shows are named after the one female character, either” because FUCKING THANK YOU.
Every time I reblog this, there are new shows on the list.
Current Iron Builder competitor Tim Schwalfenberg is chugging through the competition, having already completed seven builds. His most recent creation is this delightful microscale train scene. That pin connector looks great as a tank car. But I wonder what that tiny village needs two full tanks of. Gasoline? Milk? Mountain Dew Code Red? Tim’s packed a lot of detail into this small build — my favorites, other than the train itself, include the railroad crossing sign and that glorious gorge-spanning bridge.
The Fibonacci sequence is found in many places in nature, including the branching of trees, leaves on a stem, the flowering of an artichoke, or an uncurling fern. But what if you applied this famous approximation of the golden spiral to our feline friends? Suddenly cats become even more awesome than we already thought they were.
[via Bored Panda]
This week PayPal stopped accepting payments for a company that provides VPN and SmartDNS tools, stating that these may facilitate copyright infringement.
So-called “unblocker” tools can be used to bypass geo-filtering blockades which Netflix and other video platforms have in place.
According to the message PayPal sent to UnoTelly and possibly others, these services are against the company’s policies because they help users to bypass copyright restrictions.
“Under the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy, or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction,” PayPal’s email reads.
“This includes transactions for any device or technological measure that descrambles a scrambled work, decrypts an encrypted work or otherwise avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates or impairs a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner.”
PayPal informs the affected business(es) that their accounts have been permanently limited and that this decision can’t be appealed. This means that they have to switch to other payment processing providers.
UnoTelly informs TorrentFreak that the decision came as a shock, without any type of prior notice. The company is disappointed and sees the move as a direct attack on open and unrestricted Internet access.
“We are disappointed at PayPal’s unilateral action and the way it acted without prior warning. We provide both DNS resolution and secure VPN services. Our services are network relays that connect people around the world,” UnoTelly’s Nicholas Lin says.
Under PayPal’s policy every VPN and SmartDNS service is at risk of losing its PayPal account. However, it seems likely that the company will mainly take action against companies that market themselves as an “unblocker” service.
UnoTelly, for example, specifically mentions its ability to bypass geo-blocks imposed by streaming sites such as Netflix and Hulu.
PayPal’s actions are not an isolated incident. They come a few weeks after Netflix started to increase its crackdown on VPN services and other unblockers, as requested by copyright holders. It would be no surprise if copyright holders are also behind PayPal’s recent move.
"A study out today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society: B that features IU paleobotanist David Dilcher as a co-author identifies a Jurassic-age insect whose behavior and appearance closely mimic a butterfly — but whose emergence on Earth predates the butterfly by about 40 million years.
Dilcher — who made international headlines last year for his role in discovering the mythical “first flower” — said these proverbial “first butterflies” survived in a similar manner as their modern sister insects by visiting plants with “flower-like” reproductive organs producing nectar and pollen."
"The butterfly-like insects, which went on to evolve into a different form of insect from the modern butterfly, is an extinct “lacewing” of the genus kalligrammatid called Oregramma illecebrosa. Another genus of this insect — of the order Neuroptera — survives into our modern era, and are commonly known as fishflies, owlflies or snakeflies...Text and images from Indiana University, via Vice's Motherboard.
... another evolutionary innovation found in the ancient lacewing fossils’ wings remained remarkably unchanged over the course of millennia: so-called “eye spots.”
This unique pattern on the wings, arising over 200 million years ago, is nearly identical to markings on the modern owl butterfly. To this day, owl butterflies use these circular marks as a defense mechanism against predators, which mistake the spots as the eyes of a larger, more threatening animal."
This LEGO model of a Scarlet Macaw by James Universe is currently being displayed at Dallas Zoo until April 10th 2016. James’ model is just under 12 inches tall and features a “tree stand” for displaying. Dallas Zoo is currently hosting an exhibition called Nature Connects by LEGO Certified Professional Sean Kenney and James’ model relates to this exhibition.
The rainbow plumage on this Scarlet Macaw is wonderful – the LEGO colour palate certainly works well for this species. I particularly love the use of multiple Medium Azure surfboards for the tail feathers.
Hovertext: But, when I look at bees, I don't see caste.
Amidst all the chaos of the self-proclaimed atheist leaders exposing their flaws, it’s easy to forget that they’re right about atheism. There is no god. The arguments for god are pathetic and silly. Many religious beliefs are self-destructive and poisonous. I’ve been seeing a few articles lately that are basically gloating that atheism is dead or dying because Richard Dawkins said something stupid about women’s equality…but they ignore the fact that he also said many smart things about god-belief, and the regressive nature of one guy’s antipathy towards feminism does not discredit atheism, or provide any comfort to religious advocates. It’s also particularly ironic when Catholics wag a finger at a few atheists who are blinded by privilege, while studiously ignoring that one of the biggest threats to women’s rights in the western world has been Catholic doctrine.
But as far as arguments for religions go, Dawkins doesn’t matter, and neither do the criminal activities of the Catholic church. What matters on the topic of god-belief are the qualities of the arguments. and really, they are appallingly bad. I’m not talking about just the goofy crap that comes out of lackluster minds like that of a Hovind or a Comfort, but the Big Guns of religion, like Aquinas. They are impossible to take seriously, unless one is doped to the gills with bad theology.
People often send me links from a site called “Intellectual Takeout” — there are a lot of Catholics who think I still need to be taken down a peg or two — and they are without exception absurd. The latest that was told would humble me is The Most Famous Proof for God’s Existence, which left me unimpressed. Here it is, in summary:
The “First-Cause Argument”:
– It’s impossible for a thing to be the cause of itself.
– If something is caused by another, then these causes must go back to infinity, or their must be a first, uncaused cause that begins the chain of causes in the universe.
– It’s not possible for causes to go back to infinity.
– Therefore, there must be a First Cause, which everyone calls “God.”
I have two problems with it.
The first is that I don’t know that their initial premise is true. Why can’t a thing be caused by itself, or better yet, have no cause at all? It’s simply an assertion, plopped down at the beginning of the argument, and it hasn’t been demonstrated.
The second is a related problem. What do you mean by “cause”? Just yesterday I was sitting down at a microscope, staring at high power at single cells, and seeing slow bubbling fluctuations in the membranes and the jittering activity of organelles, and also jerky movements of debris particles in the water, and I understood the cause: Brownian motion. This is simply the visible, random motion of ojects in response to collisions with the smaller atoms of water, which are all jiggling randomly with simple thermal energy.
Is that accepted as a “cause”? There is no intelligence behind it. Even if you accept some kind of determinism (I don’t), it’s not causal in the sense implied by Aquinas, who is reading some kind of planned purposefulness to it.
So is “God” just a form of heat?
It generally seems to be true that the deeper we look into things the simpler and more physical their causes appear. You might ask, “Why carbon?”, wondering why there’s so much of it here on Earth. And the physicists will tell you it all comes from nucleosynthesis in stars. Is nucleosynthesis “God”? Are stars?
So even if I accept their first premise, that all things are caused, I see no reason to believe that the primal trigger for all existence was an intelligent being with human-like personal qualities, like love and morality. Quite the opposite actually. This is an argument that leads me far, far away from the typical religious perspective of a deity, and closer and closer to an atheistic, scientific view of the universe.
In this sense, the religious apologists seem to be thrilled with internal dissent within the atheist community, because it is a useful distraction from the bullshit they’ve been peddling for a few centuries.
How long would it take for a single person to fill up an entire swimming pool with their own saliva?
—Mary Griffin, 9th grade
The average kid produces about half a liter of saliva per day, according to the paper Estimation of the total saliva volume produced per day in five-year-old children, which I like to imagine was mailed to the Archives of Oral Biology in a slightly sticky, dripping envelope.
A five-year-old probably produces proportionally less saliva than a larger adult. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable betting that anyone produces more drool than a little kid, so let's be conservative and use the paper's figure.
If you're collecting your saliva,This question is gross, by the way. you can't use it to eat.I hope. You could get around this by chewing gum or something, to get your body to produce extra saliva, or just by drinking liquid food or getting an IV.
At the rate of 500 mL per day from the paper, it would take you about a year to fill a typical bathtub.
A bathtub full of saliva is pretty gross, but that's not what you asked about. For some reason—I don't really want to know why—you asked about filling a pool.
Let's imagine an Olympic-sized swimming pool, which is 25 meters by 50 meters. Depths vary, but we'll suppose this one is uniformly 4 feet deep,You can read more of the regulations here; a pool with starting blocks does need a slightly deeper bit near each end, but it can be shallower in the middle. There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules about a maximum depth, so I suppose you can make a pool that continues through to the other side of the Earth, but then you run into trouble when you try to follow the instructions in section FR 2.14 about painting lane markings on the bottom. so you can probably stand up in it.
At 500 mL per day, it would take you 8,345 years to fill this pool. That's a long time for the rest of us to wait, so let's imagine you went back in time to get started on this project early.
8,345 years ago, the ice sheets that covered much of the northern parts of the world had mostly receded, and humans had just begun to develop agriculture. Let's imagine you started your project then.
By 4000 BCE, when the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent had begun to develop in modern-day Iraq, the saliva would be a foot deep, covering your feet and ankles.
By 3200 BCE, when writing was first developed, the saliva would creep past your knees.
Around the mid-2000s BCE, the Great Pyramid was constructed and early Mayan cultures emerged. At this point, the saliva would be getting close to your fingertips if you didn't lift your arms up.
Around 1600 BCE, the eruption of a huge volcano in the Greek island now known as Santorini caused a massive tsunami which devastated the Minoan civilization, possibly causing its final collapse. As this happened, the saliva would probably be approaching waist-deep.
The saliva would continue to rise throughout the next three millennia of history, and by the time of Europe's industrial revolution it would be chest-deep, easily enough saliva to swim in. The last 200 years would add the final 3 centimeters, and the pool would finally be filled.
It would take a long time, sure. But it would all be worth it, because at the end of it all, you'd have an Olympic-size swimming pool full of saliva. And isn't that, deep down, all any of us really want?No. It is not.
"As if I were being poked repeatedly in the eye with a blunt stick, I cannot avoid becoming increasingly aware of a painfully cynical trend in London architecture which threatens to turn the city into the backlot of an abandoned movie studio..."
A kind of authenticity’ is British Land’s oxymoronical attempt to sell this approach in their Norton Folgate publicity, as if there were fifty-seven varieties of authenticity, when ‘authentic’ is not a relative term – something is either authentic or it is phoney.Perhaps some reader of TYWKIWDBI can fill us in with some background.
i put the pics i used for inspiration side by side with mine and. … holy shit
I’m… this is… well yeah, ‘holy shit’ indeed
Please cast her in the new Star Trek series as the adorable android offspring of Data
I AM CRYING omg this is the best thing ever ever
Hovertext: I eagerly await your email about how, actually, the rock must contain radioactive elements.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I CANT BREATHE
Moleman just needs some solid dick.