RIAA gives up on suing music downloaders

After several years of futility, the Recording Industry Association of America has finally realized that they're not going to scare everyone away from downloading music by hunting down and suing individual people (35,000 since 2003, apparently). So are they going to just chill out and find something more worthwhile to focus their time and energy on? Well, not quite.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

This is kind of like trying to get the people who fill potholes to be the same guys who give out speeding tickets. Not only that, but how exactly does the RIAA expect ISPs to detect this? There is no way for an ISP to pull this off in any way that isn't easily-defeated by users. Yet another waste of time. This is how you eliminate illegal music downloading, by the way.

Recommended Blogs section revamped and Add This button added

I just realized today that Blogger has a built-in 'gadget' for a list of blogs that includes a fun little icon, and the title of the most recent post to it, dynamically-displayed. So I quickly replaced my generic link list with that gadget, and I think it looks great.

In addition, I grabbed a versatile sharing button from Add This and plopped it into the Other Links section, while also spacing out the list items in that list a bit and removing some CSS that apparently was completely unnecessary. Oh well, looks good to me.

A few new aliases for this blog

I recently noticed that tinyURL now allows you to choose the string of characters and the end of the shortcut URL (provided they aren't taken, of course). So, I jumped at the chance and created a few 'shortcuts' to this blog that take a bit less time to type out than this full URL:

1. www.tinyurl.com/clarusvisum
2. www.tinyurl.com/cvblog

That's all for now.

Who originally came up with the "War on Christmas" nonsense? The answer may surprise you

It wasn't any group of insecure religious nuts who first started talking about this, no sir. It was in fact a group of insecure racist nuts.

Back during the culture wars of the 1990s, Peter Brimelow, then a Fortune magazine editor, grew incensed with the increasing use of the phrase “Happy Holidays” by retailers like Amazon.com. “I just got real interested in the issue,” Brimelow told The Daily Beast, “because I noticed over the years there was this social shift taking place where people no longer said ‘Merry Christmas.’”

In his 1995 book, Alien Nation, Brimelow argued that the influx of “weird aliens with dubious habits” from developing nations was eroding America’s white Christian “ethnic core,” and in turn, sullying its cultural underpinnings. The War on Christmas was, in his view, a particularly pernicious iteration of the multicultural “struggle to abolish America.”

But hey, is there really that much of a difference these days? Xenophobia is xenophobia. Only someone who is very insecure would care about their proprietary holiday greeting being replaced with a greeting that includes everyone celebrating something this time of year. I mean, just think about the kind of mental state it takes to get so inflamed at the notion of a custom being changed to be more inclusive. Some people would just rather we be divided, I suppose.

Swedish body-snatchers...sort of

A group of neuroscientists in Sweden have achieved the illusion of "body-swapping". It's not quite as sci-fi as it sounds; basically, these guys have succeeded in completely fooling people into thinking that inanimate 'bodies', like those of mannequins, were in fact their own bodies.

In one experiment, the team fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of volunteers' eyes, so that they had the same view as the mannequin.

When the mannequin's camera eyes and a participant's head were directed downwards, the participant saw the mannequin's body where the person would normally have seen their own body.

The researchers created the illusion of body-swapping by touching the stomach of both the mannequin and the volunteer with sticks. The person saw the mannequin's stomach being touched while feeling (but not seeing) a similar sensation on their own stomach. As a result, the person developed a strong belief that the mannequin's body was actually their own.

Poking people in the stomach with sticks...for science! How many people can say they made a breakthrough, and got paid, for poking people with sticks?

Even more interestingly:

This illusion worked even when two people looked different or were of different sexes.

I can't help but wonder how many male subjects instinctively reached for their chests upon being 'swapped' into a female body.

And then there's this:

It did not work when a non-humanoid object -- such as a chair or large block -- was used.

Now this makes me wonder where the 'stomach' on a chair is. Is it on the cushion, or maybe the lower part of the back, but the front side of the back? You know, where it's technically still the back, but it's the forward-facing part, so it's more like the front?

I'm weird.

A crappy reindeer game

A zoo in Illinois is selling, from its gift shop, "christmas ornaments handcrafted out of reindeer dung". Now, I know what you're thinking: "How do I know it's really reindeer dung? They aren't going to shortchange me with inferior dung, are they?

Well, don't you worry about that; they will provide a certificate of authenticity with each all-natural ornament. You can either have your dried chunk of reindeer feces clear-coated or "rolled in glitter". Imagine, for only five dollars you can have a ball of glittery reindeer turds!

The newspaper said Friday that while reindeer are not small animals, their waste products come out in small chunks suitable for the branches of a tree.

Hey, thanks for letting me know, nameless newspaper. I was thinking of just putting it where the star goes until I got that tip.

Bonnie Cox: You Fool!

Recently, a person (apparently) named Bonnie Cox sent a truly ridiculous e-mail to PZ Myers for encouraging people to write to the Cincinnati Zoo to voice their concern about the national embarrassment, the Creation Museum, basically trying to lend credibility to itself by getting the zoo to sell joint tickets to both places. The writing campaign worked, and the zoo backed out of the 'deal', preserving its reputation among rational people.

But Cox just couldn't bear the thought of a group of people she disagrees with being able to convince the zoo not to align themselves with anti-science charlatans, so she e-mailed PZ, and he posted it to his blog. Since he didn't release her e-mail address, I can't send the following to her directly, but here it is 'for the record', my response.

Professor P.T. Myers
Dr. PZ Myers
Division of Science and Mathematics
600 E 4th Avenue
University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN 56267

Dear Mr. Myers,

I am writing to you concerning the email campaign you instigated against the Creation Museum and the Cincinnati Zoo and your personal vendetta against Mr. Hamm. I don't know what your ultimate agenda is in propagating a writing campaign to a Zoo in a state you don't live in and your taxes don't support,

Actually, the "ultimate agenda" was painfully obvious from the beginning--get the Cincinnati Zoo people to realize their credibility and commitment to proper science goes down the toilet if they align themselves with a virulently anti-science organization such as the Creation Museum.

but your ignorance is apparent. How someone so intolerant and closed minded could possibly be considered educated is beyond my comprehension.

Firstly, I wonder if Bonnie would "tolerate" evolution or abiogenesis being taught at her church. Secondly, this statement coming from her would be more accurate if she spoke it to a mirror.

What scares me more is that people like you are teaching our children.

Apparently the idea that evidence-less nonsense isn't treated with just as much respect as centuries of real, hard, unsexy science is terrifying to Ms. Cox.

You don't teach science. You indoctrinate with propaganda.

Where's that mirror? This one's even better for it. You're defending an institution that teaches religion while pretending it is science, remember? Don't forget your place, Bonnie.

Also, I'd bet anything you can't even properly define evolution, let alone be knowledgeable enough to construct a cogent argument against it.

Darwin has about as much evidence proving natural selection as you have in proving there is no God.

Here is where Bonnie displays projection and ignorance in clearest terms (thus far). You can tell from the above sentence that Bonnie has been indoctrinated into seeing evolution as if it's a competing religion, rather than the cornerstone of modern biology it is. You see, Bonnie, science is different from religion.

In a religion, you've got a main guy, and he's the singular and eternal authority. By viewing evolution through this lens, you clearly show that you think Darwin is 'the guy' of evolution the way God/Jesus or whoever is for Christianity. But not only isn't he, but in science, there isn't 'a guy' like that at all.

See, unlike in religion, science is driven by evidence, not by authority. Now, when someone is the first guy to come up with a concept that the evidence ends up supporting in a big way, we give the guy a lot of credit, all well-deserved. Darwin's the first guy to come up with the concept of natural selection, and after a century and a half, not a single piece of evidence has contradicted that idea. On the contrary--the evidence has invariably supported and reinforced it since then, especially when genetics came about.

Darwin would literally have a hard time recognizing modern evolution (the study, not the event) if were alive today. Because also unlike religion, science is not static. It's not like one guy comes up with something, all the scientists get together and nod vigorously, and then we declare it a fact and that's that. Darwin 'only' blazed the trail--the Theory of Evolution 'belongs' to countless biologists and other life and earth (well, you're not going to find fossils in a lab, are you?) scientists who have tested and in turn refined the crap out of it.

You are quite free to believe what you want to believe,

Which, of course, has nothing to do with this because science is not about "belief". If I pick up a rock and drop it, it will fall no matter what I believe concerning gravity. This is just another attempt at trying to convince yourself that nonsense creationism is on par with actual science by applying religion vernacular to the science regardless of whether it makes sense to do so. In other words, face it: creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

but unless Hitler was your mentor, you should know that you have NO RIGHT to interfere with other organizations or businesses that want to colaborate just because you disagree with their arguement.

Because Hitler waged one HELL of a letter-writing campaign. Poland wasn't actually invaded and its people weren't actually shot at, they were just buried under tremendous piles of letters containing disagreements.

I know it's a lot easier to attack a straw man than reality, but the reality is that sending a letter or an e-mail to the Cincinnati Zoo doesn't "interfere" with anything; all they did was voice their disapproval of the Creation Museum's sneaky attempt to lend its anti-scientific message credibility through affiliating itself with a public zoo, and the zoo decided to listen. Ration and reason win again.

This only proves your hatred of people of faith. What are you afraid of?

What is the Creation Museum afraid of, that they have to pretend their message is scientific when it is obviously religious and anti-science? If the Creation Museum wasn't so afraid of receiving the ridicule it so rightly deserves, why does it try to hide its true intentions? All PZ helped to do was prevent people from being fooled into thinking that the Creation Museum is a place, like the Cincinnati Zoo is, where one can learn.

It is teachers like you that have exploded the growth of home schooling.

Don't blame teachers for parents' fear of reality.

It is professors like you that have encouraged the installation and growth of faith based and Christian Colleges. So for that, I guess I have people like you to thank. Thank God my children will have somewhere else to go.

Because if there's one thing a good parent will do, it is shield their children from learning about the world, and then wonder why they can't compete in the global economy when they grow up. Oh, wait...

I don't want them learning the fairy tale of evolution,

Hey, you know how no one gets polio or smallpox anymore? Guess why. Hint: it wasn't because people prayed really hard.

Modern vaccines exist as a direct result of our knowledge and understanding of evolution. They couldn't exist without it. As a result, living in a world where polio and smallpox are no longer a threat, while simultaneously declaring that evolution is a "fairy tale", makes as much sense as taking a deep breath in order to loudly declare that air is a fairy tale.

I want them to be free to investigate ALL available arguments. All of them.

Investigating arguments that have zero evidence would be a waste of time. Scientists have no fear in considering alternative explanations. You just need two things to go along with them for them to be taken seriously: a testable hypothesis, and evidence (which generally comes from testing said hypothesis). Creationism has neither, and therefore isn't even science to begin with. So why are you surprised that it gets the same amount of attention in peer-reviewed journals as the "argument" that a magical gnome's farts guide the progression of life?

I mean, the theory of evolution is all you have? Seriously?

It is the only theory that fits all the evidence. It's all anybody (who is intellectually honest) has. I'm sure Bonnie will let us all know when she comes up with a testable hypothesis for creationism.

Science isn't in the box, professor. You can't prove evolution

You wish.

Of course, technically you're correct, but on a level your complete ignorance of science would likely prevent you from ever realizing on your own. Science, and I mean all science, doesn't "prove" things. Nothing in science, including the explanations for why you don't float off the Earth into space, and why something like "e-mail" can exist in the first place, is 100% certain. Absolute certainty is an impossibility for a species with such imperfect perception as ours. However, what we can do is rule things out through experimentation. And that's how science works. Nothing that we discover with science is treated like some 'absolute truth'. Everything is provisional, and subject to new evidence. That's what makes science so powerful--its adaptability to our ever-increasing body of knowledge.

Gravity is "just a theory" too, Bonnie. "Theory" is a title reserved for those scientific concepts that have been tested extremely thoroughly, and that now stand alone as the only explanation that makes sense given the entire body of evidence. If there is conflicting evidence, the theory must change to fit it. On the other hand, a creationist does it backwards: s/he begins with the conclusion, and looks for "evidence" to support it while completely disregarding all contradictory evidence.

and you can't prove creation. No one can.

The most sensible thing Bonnie has written thus far, by a wide margin.

So why can't we talk about both?

Because:

1. They're not both science
2. They don't both have evidence
3. They don't both make testable predictions

Creationism doesn't belong in science classrooms for the same reason that Beowulf doesn't belong in an algebra classroom.

We rehash the same dead, unproven, broken theory

I wonder if Bonnie could make one single argument against evolution that isn't an already-destroyed, antiquated argument. She seems like a "747 and tornado" fallacy kinda gal, what do you think?

when there are so many other questions out there to be asked, researched and experimented with?

Slight problem: there is no possible experiment for creationism. That would require an experiment to verify the existence of a supernatural force. How, exactly, does Bonnie suggest we do such a thing? Or does she hope no one notices she's faulting scientists for not having done something impossible?

That sir, is intolerance. That is bigotry. That is ignorance.

Let's not forget that this tirade is the result of her inability to tolerate a few e-mails.

I don't think the Cincinatti Zoo will be thanking you.

Their not being a part of the Creation Museum's scheme is thanks enough.

As a result of your hatred and intolerance toward anyone that says "bless you", The Cincinatti Zoo has lost a very valuable partner,and a lot of visitors to their website.

Yes. A partner who wishes to completely undermine science in favor of pushing religious doctrine disguised as science using the good name of the zoo as PR capital. Truly the zoo has suffered a staggering loss in not pursuing such a partnership.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Myers, that you are not the only one who runs a blog,and you are not the only one who can write.

Of course not. Do you think he was the only one sending all those letters that caused the Cincinnati Zoo to change its mind?

I may not be a professor, but I know how to write a press release and I know how to advertise. That's my business. So here's what I will do for you.

How about you run a spell check on your e-mails before you send them? Maybe then you wouldn't spell the name of the city you're talking about wrong every single time you write it. If that's how you advertise, remind me to stay far away from your business.

Let's see how your school handles an email blitz from Christians (which I will point out to you sir, comprises of approximately 97% of the population of the United States).

Slight problem with her logic there: most Christians are okay with evolution.

But there's an even greater absurdity here: Ninety-seven percent? Are you serious? Let's see what the CIA's World Factbook has to say about it:

"Religions: Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%"

That comes out to 78.5%. In other words, Bonnie inflated the number of Christians in the US by over 56 million. Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

I am suddenly motivated to hit every one of my news sources and let them know how marxist you are.

I guess "Marxist" remains a buzzword for ignoramuses even after the general election. Ten bucks says she can't define "Marxist" correctly without looking it up.

I want every parent in this country to know exactly what dangers their kids face, risking having you as a professor in that school. I want them all to know that it's not good enough to indoctrinate just the students in your lecture hall. You want to make sure NO ONE gets exposure to any possible answers.

If teaching students the results of rigorous scientific study and evidence-gathering is "indoctrination", I wonder what Bonnie thinks of teaching children Biblical literalism, which has no evidence whatsoever?

I want all those Christian families to think twice before ever considering sending their kids to University of Minnesota

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, Bonnie, but most Christians think people like you are crazy.

. . . and don't worry. I'll make sure you get plenty of credit for their decision. Email campaigns can work both ways professor. Oh, I know your school is not the only culprit and you're not the only marxist professor teaching in our colleges. However, we can start with this one.

Evolution is a failed hypothesis. It cannot even be scientifically tested.

Would I ever love to hear her answer to the question "why not?"!

You know it, and most of your radical scientists know it. And this kind of attack from you is just evident of the death throes of the false theory of evolution.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. Would a theory in its "death throes" be accepted by over 99.7% of all life scientists in the US, and over 99.9% in other countries? This is just a product of an overactive imagination. Regardless of Bonnie's fantasies, the Theory of Evolution has only gotten stronger since its inception, as we find more and more evidence that supports it.

Much like the snake trying to get one last bite as you cut off it's head, it knows it's dying . . . it knows it's not going to win, but it's going to try like hell to do as much damage as it can before it dies.

Excuse me, but as I already stated, there is no competing theory. If evolution were to suddenly be overturned by some very powerful piece of evidence, then I'm sorry, Bonnie, but creationism will not magically take its place. There isn't a dichotomy here. Even assuming her delusion becomes reality, what replaces evolution as the foundation of modern biology would have to be, you know, science. Supernatural-force-no-experiment-can-detect-poofed-everything-into-existence doesn't, and will not, ever be considered science.

Real scientific, doc. Darwin is your god.

More signs that Bonnie just doesn't understand that science just isn't like religion.

We have proof that he is dead. Mine is not. You have no proof that he doesn't exist.

Of course, evolution is not in any way atheistic, so this is irrelevant. Regardless, Bonnie, the important part is where you provide evidence that he DOES exist. Or shall we lock Bonnie up for assault, since she can't definitively prove that she's never assaulted anyone ever in her entire life? I wonder if she would find her logic reasonable if imposed upon her thus.

You won't let anyone try to prove it, which I guess answers what you are afraid of.

By Bonnie's logic, she's afraid of the Mystical Farting Gnome I mentioned earlier, since she has made no attempt to disprove His existence.

Let the kids discuss it professor. What are you afraid ot? Research is the mother of discovery.

Be sure the MFG gets equal time. Teach the controversy!

Ninety-seven percent are Christian in this country, professor, think about that. It's a well known statistic. . . I know state taxes don't pay ALL your school's bills.

Maybe it's well-known in the body part Bonnie pulled it out of, but out here? Not so much.

You can post this on your blog, you can laugh or throw it away, delete it . . . I don't care.

In fact, she cares so little that she took the time to write this all out. She is surely the embodiment of apathy.

It is of no consequence to me. I just wanted to let you know how I feel and what I'm about to embark on. Because marxists are not the only ones afforded freedom of speech and freedom to inquire in this country. If freedom to bully others is an ammedment I haven't heard of yet, then I guess we both share that right as well.

 

I hope this doesn't offend you, but I end most of my letters this way . . . God Bless you. You are the one who needs it.

Respectfully,

Bonnie Cox

Ahem:

One of the most condescending things a theist can do to an atheist is to make a point of announcing that they'll be praying for us. Atheists don't believe in the power of prayer, but even theists can't think that prayer will be more effective for having announced. So what's the purpose? Some say that it's to express well-wishes, but people say that they'll pray for someone when the person is sick or having trouble. One way or another, the theist appears to be expressing superiority over atheists in a passive-aggressive manner. That suggests they weren't interested in serious conversation to begin with.

Bonnie Cox: You Fool!