Empty Cave

It was called to my attention this morning at gym that the “Hef” is discorporate.

I suspect he passed because the American Dream has been destroyed.

Another reason I am glad to be ORF.

Fruit Death

I have commented several times previously how every advertisement contains at least one prevarication. Over the week out, I observed a television commercial whose prevarication was absurdly inaccurate.

Humorously so. My ribs still ache from rolling about on the floor.

This commercial was for a fruit cocktail – which obviously isn’t really a cocktail – canned by a national brand corporation. The canned fruit industry is famous for dangerous preservation techniques and dangerous canning economies.

This commercial took the usual contemporary form of “my fruit cocktail is better than your fruit cocktail,” which primarily indicates that the fruit cocktail marketplace is saturated and the only way one corporation can increase its business is by stealing customers from another corporation.

So we know these people are disreputable from the get go.

What makes this commercial so laughable is its attempt at analogy, which it gets absolutely WRONG!

There are two consumers: the smart one and the stupid one. The smart one, who has made a “wise: choice of cocktail, asks the stupid one, who has chosen poorly, if she were a fish, would she prefer to be in an aquarium with “100% water” or some water based liquid?

This is where it gets rolling around funny.

The given answer is “100% answer”. The problem with this is that if you put fish in an aquarium with 100% water, then you quickly have DEAD FISH. If the water is 100%, then there is no oxygen in the water and any fish in it will quickly asphyxiate. 

This answer may be accurate for fruit (so called) cocktail but it kills fish. Not clear what the lethality is for humans that eat the product, of course.

But this is a good illustration of how stupid corporations think Bogs are.

Broken Ratings

Ran across an article [Link] entitled “What are the best Sci-fi Movies?” The article lists twelve movies as the best.


None are better than mediocre and most are rubbish.

Odoriferous rubbish.

The real list of best SF movies is:

  1. Forbidden Planet;
  2. Them!; and
  3. Earth versus the Flying Saucers.

Star Wars and Star trek don’t make the list. The Black Hole makes a list for the funniest SF movie but nowhere near a best.

I won’t comment on what’s listed. It would horrify too many Bogs.

Who can’t tell SF from S.

NERD Ignorance Pride

Six Day. Gym opens late. Icky. Didn’t really understand that word till now. Inconvenience that is distressingly uncomfortable?

Anyway, ran across an article [Link] entitled “Scientific Papers Are Getting Less Readable.” Natters on about readability indices and word rarities that exceed college graduation levels. 

I can’t argue with the title, but in my experience, they have the problem backwards. It’s not a case of the words in the article being too rare for college graduates to read, it’s a case of college graduates being too ignorant.

I have been composing scientific manuscripts for over fifty years now. Almost all of that time I have also served on one or more journal’s unpaid staff as a reviewer/referee, depending on how they designate. Over that period I have seen a decrease in composition skills of potential authors. Over 0.9 of all returns and rejections I have issued over the years have been for poor composition and inadequate grammar. Inadequate vocabulary goes with this.

I will concede that the composition form of refereed literature is different from that of Archie comic books and Dick and Jane readers. It can, however, be easily learned, otherwise the thousands of people who have contributed articles to all these journals would not have. 

But today we seem to have some sort of a stupidity infestation. People seem unwilling to meet the composition standards of refereed journals. I have returned manuscripts as many as tree times with the authors steadfastly refusing to make their manuscript compliant AND readable before asking the editor to reject the article. This behavior is evidently common because no editor has failed to support me nor chide me for excessive rigor.

I have entertained the conjecture that some contemporary authors are lazy but that seems inconsistent with the effort to prepare manuscript. Admittedly, the process of making a manuscript proper and readable is nagging and onerous, but an unreadable article is a waste of all connected with it.

So I come to the conjecture that contemporary authors are unable to learn how to compose. 

I would be tempted to comment on the cause of this cancer but it is too nauseating to deal with at this time.

Ex Oram Rana

Ran across an article [Link] this morning about a frawg, Beelzebufo ampinga

which masses in at about 4.5 kg and dined on dinosaurs (small ones, at least.) 

Somehow this seems enormously contemporary, almost a model of modern capitalist organizations preying on their customers. 

It also evokes a bit of the Hobbes – Locke debate with this fellow being the Hobbesian and the “hypnotoad” being the Lockeian. 

Humans are no d*** good and thus one may as well get some good out of them versus humans are unspecified and undecided so one might as well control them. 

Now all that I have to figure is the mapping into partisan politics. 

Is Correct Idempotent?

Five Day. End of Week In. And thankfully. But start of Week Out. And not thankfully.

The podcast was a bit of a bore this morning. Endless yammering with some developer zealot. Not my beaker of vegetable distillate.

Earlier this week, I had luncheon with a fellow with whom I went to high schule but haven’t seen since. He was back in Huntsville because of the Irma and so we took the occasion to reacquaint.

It was difficult. He is a biologist but somehow we kept struggling to find things to talk about. At one point I was trying to talk to him about self-similarity and he admitted he knew very little about fractals. I was a bit shocked and satisfied. The shock came from his claimed ignorance since many instances of fractals are found in biological systems; the satisfaction came from my perception that biologists are mostly acalculate being upheld one more time. 

Since then I have been musing on the matter of “political correctness” since we seemed to have need f a lot of it during our repast. So I decided that I needed to go find a workable definition to wrangle with the matter.

This isn’t something that I can do using my desktop dictionary client (one of the reason Linux is better than Winders and AppleOS.) Clearly “political” + “correctness” .NE. “political correctness”. I found alot and since this is clearly a social construct, I settled on the Wikipedia definition:

“The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.”

This is quite confusing. As a minimum, this is what was labeled as “good manners” when I was a bairn. Which confirmed my supposition that this was pure social fluff. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if it keeps us from descending into Hobbesian chaos. But from what I have seen lately, it seems to be driving us towards such.

The  it occurred that since this is a social construction, it has to be influenced by what happens in society, especially in the political arena. In effect, the political arena defines political correctness.

As I examined this, I discovered that it rather accurately represented the current state of politics in Amerika. Partisan politicians avoid language to the point that they will not communicate in any fashion with members of any other party. So politics is largely a matter of might makes right. 

Additionally, every group is now seen as disadvantage and downtrodden. Everyone is Pooh. As in, alas, poor me Pooh. Everyone is discriminated against, and everyone discriminates against everyone else who is different in any observable mode: skin color; eye folds; gender (plumbing;) hair color; any aspect of appearance.

So I went and dug out an old Kingston Trio album and listened to a song with the lyric “And I don’t like anyone very much.”

So it is not politically correct to be politically correct? Is the particle it’s own antiparticle? Or its own annihilation?