On April 1st, Scientific American published an apology for their one-sidedness in the presentation of so-called ‘scientific’ ideas. I finally found the text. Go, you snarky scientists!
Yearly Archives: 2005
our bold atomic future blah blah blah
WorldChanging has a good overview of the “arguments for and against nuclear power”:http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002147.html as a solution to the current (and near future) oil/global warming/environment crisis. My personal view is that nuclear power can be useful in a few isolated cases, but improving efficiency and developing distributed alternative energy (solar, wind, geothermal) is a better use of our time and effort.
Oh, if only we could harness the mighty power of Internet debate!
I want I want I want!
Not a very good title for this, but true! I will save my money so I can learn about my genetic ancestors with National Geographic’s “National Genographic” project. Oh, this is so neat. Oh, I am such a dork.
Oh! It’s neat!
run for the hills
Aaaaigh! Crusaders! _(incoherent gibbering)_ “The Crusaders”:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393 are coming!
If only we had “some kind of missile”:http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/church.asp, we could take the steam out of those bells.
[UPDATE: I swear I didn't read "Karen's post":http://www.globalspin.com/mt/archives/000523.html before posting this. We're just on the same wavelength.]
Fundamentalists Flee In Terror!
I may have found a group to believe in: Unitarian Jihad. I found myself drawn to them, my world-view altered, my spirit lifted, when I read such charismatic phrases as, “We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public.” I could do with a few more trout and a few less lobbyists. Maybe that’s just me.