Let them down gently

James Randi's latest Swift commentary has this piece about Street Light Interference:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/060807.html#i1

It reminded me of something I read recently while browsing the JREF forums, concerning an applicant for the million dollar challenge:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50014

Marcus Tisdale, a 19-year-old student, applied for the challenge in January 2006, claiming that he could control street lights "by paranormal or otherwise unknown circumstances."

What struck me about the email exchange was not the claim itself, or the conviction of the applicant that he was able to do this thing, but the sensitivity with which Kramer dealt with the application: "Perhaps the answer you seek is simpler than the one you have imagined."

Occam's Razor, yet again.

Potter's witchcraft - a threat after all?

I used to think that the Christian outcry against Harry Potter was just plain silly. I've said as much online. More recently though, I've come to the conclusion that Christians are right to be concerned. J K Rowling's blockbuster series could indeed be a serious threat to religious belief. Children who read about Harry's exploits may eventually come to realise that the events depicted have about as much basis in fact as those in certain other books they are being asked to take seriously.

So perhaps the religious uprising against Harry Potter should be welcomed. At least it should prompt people to think about what they are being told to believe.

My own prompting for this post was this article at Guardian Unlimited:

"Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter"

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2098322,00.html
(via RichardDawkins.net)

Who are the lucky ones? (repost from other blog)

We are. That is, those of us lucky enough to be within broadcast reception range of BBC1 television at 7:10 on Saturday evening.

I've waxed ecstatic previously on this blog about the spin-off series Torchwood, and now I can do the same about its 'parent', Doctor Who.

Doctor Who? Kid's programme, innit? Maybe so, but it has all the ingredients of ideal family viewing -- something for the kids, something for the grown-ups. The latest series (number three of the 'reincarnated' version), with David Tennant really getting into his stride as the Doctor, and Freema Agyeman in her first series as his not-so-ditsy companion, has shown us some impressive spectacles, including the strangely art deco Daleks in a decidedly art deco New York, as well as the Bard of Avon in mischievous mode.

But the zenith of series three so far for me has been the two-parter that concluded last week: "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood". Scripted by novelist Paul Cornell (who adapted his Doctor Who book Human Nature), these two episodes reveal characterization to a much greater depth than previously seen, and reinforce the notion that I've always felt about great science fiction -- that it tells us more about how we live our lives in the present, than how we might live in the future. Not that this particular story was about the future, despite the tantalizing glimpses of times that might have come to pass for some of the characters.

The Doctor is being pursued by the Family of Blood -- a group in search of a Time Lord for its own nefarious purposes -- and the only way he can evade detection is to become completely human. And he does so in a pre-First-World-War English public school, leaving Martha to look after not only herself, but his own Time-Lordly essence. When, at the beginning, he asks her if she trusts him, he's really asking himself if he trusts her.

Despite its historical setting, this story exhibits well-known SF tropes, such as an invisible space-ship, time travel (of course) and (hooray!) ray guns. (Or should that be hooray guns...?)

I'll not risk spoilers here, as I know that there are people not as lucky as those of us in the British Isles; impoverished souls who have yet to relish these episodes, condemned to wait until their local TV networks deign to show the latest series, and therefore reduced to squinting disjointedly at blocky YouTube fragments, or ploughing through online directories purporting not actually to host anything at all (apart from dubious thumbnail images that predominate in an excess of exposed skin).

For those less fortunate, but willing to search, may I suggest that entering such terms as "Doctor Who Human Nature Family of Blood" will harvest a veritable torrent of results.

Oh my, you have a treat in store.

Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Carl Sagan reads from his book Pale Blue Dot

Church to impose 'rule book' of beliefs

This from the Sunday Telegraph (2007JUN03):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/nchurch03.xml

The bishops' paper warns that in order to preserve the unity of the Church, those who do not conform to a more prescriptive statement of faith will be "forced out".

I appreciate that this is probably the Telegraph's journalistic interpretation, but it still left me wondering about the logic of trying to counter disunity by ... enforcing disunity.

And anyway, doesn't the Church of England already have a 'rule book'? (I think King James had something to do with it....)

Apple TV: useful at last? (repost from other blog)

Steve Jobs gave tantalizing glimpses of some Apple related things, and remained tight-lipped about others, in this interview with Walt Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal's D Conference (via Podcasting News).



The stuff about Apple TV is what interests me. To date I've remained unconvinced that Apple TV would be useful to me (see my previous rant here). But now that Apple TV is offering YouTube browsing, I hope that this signals further developments that might make it more useful to me. Apple have announced a fatter version of Apple TV with a 160 GB hard disk, so this does seem likely.

But what I need to know, before even considering buying one of these, either fat or thin, is this: will the Apple TV work with a monitor rather than a widescreen TV? I can't justify the purchase of a widescreen TV, but I do have a 19" widescreen computer monitor with a DVI input. This works with my Panasonic DVR using an adapter cable (HDMI to DVI) and it works with my MacBook using the same cable plus Apple's adapter. It seems reasonable to suppose that this set-up would work with Apple TV, but I don't know.

Anyone?

The Bill O'Reilly Delusion

A few seconds into this clip I couldn't believe my ears. The interview with Richard Dawkins that O'Reilly refers to is the one I linked to here.


Direct link to YouTube video:
http://youtu.be/GY6pKsBR8UQ

No, Bill, you didn't 'beat' Dawkins, and if you honestly think you did then you weren't listening to what he said.