A0u on Xanga - Weblog

Weblog

Sunday, 20 December 2009

Lulz

Behold -- the secret to college admissions --

Read this.

Then read this.

Such is the definition of EPIC WIN.
L'anglais - tu le parles?

This must be the most creative piece of vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia: replacing an article with a (comprehensible) 1:1 French translation.

Sunday, 06 December 2009

lolwut?
What complete B.S. - This is a school to avoid in the U.K.

A rebuttal:
1. Science does not preach certainty. The reason that scientists can place their confidence in a theory is from the overwhelming support offered by a massive body of empirical evidence (objectively verifiable facts). The constituent hypotheses have continuously retested and revised as more evidence is encountered, and the overall premise of the theory has withstood scrutiny time and time again.
2. No, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not invalidate the scientific method.
3. The author grossly misunderstands the phrase "God of the Gaps." The aforementioned "gap" in scientific knowledge is actually shrinking, as phenomena previously attributed to a divine being can now be explained in purely naturalistic terms (e.g., lightning, evolution). In other words, science has greater explanatory power than the myths it replaces.
4. Just because method A cannot explain everything does not automatically validate alternative B.
5. "...but it must also be stressed that much more of science has no true evidence to support it."
  Cite examples.
6. "But the fact that, today, we have no explanation for why the universe holds together..."
  The Standard Model is incomplete, but so far it is consistent with observations.
7. "... and the computer at which I am typing doesn’t just turn into a duck which must lead one to the conclusion that there needs to be an explanation and that Philosophy may have it."
  ...Seriously?
8. "Philosophy teaches you to open your mind to new ideas and opinions, and to search for what you believe to be the truth."
  
  I quote Feynman:
  "Keep an open mind, but no so open that your brain falls out."
Apparently the author is unaware that the server used to publish the article is a product of electromagnetic theory, or that modern life is a direct consequence of scientific advances...

Saturday, 05 December 2009

End of the decade?

I feel a strong urge to facepalm upon seeing TIME and Newsweek -- and society at large -- implying that 31 December 2009 will be the end of the decade.

No. The true "end of the decade" will be, in fact, on 31 December 2010. It is presently one year too early to begin reviewing the "past" decade as if it were already history.

Why? The reason is that there was no year zero in the Gregorian calendar, as Dionysius Exiguus did not have the benefit of the number zero when he devised the BC-AD notation in the 6th century. (The lack of zero stems from limitations in the Roman number system, still in use during the European Dark Ages.)

Consequently, 1 BC is followed by AD 1. The 1st century spanned from year 1 to year 100 inclusive, and the 2nd century from 101 to 200, etc. The 20th century began in 1901 and ended in 2000 (not 1999, when the public, including myself as a seven-year-old, prematurely celebrated the end of the last millennium).

As you can see, the current decade began in 2001 and shall end in 2010.

This mathematical mix-up is not surprising, but the fact that major publications have repeated this error may indicate something about their vetting process...