Hempel's Ravens

Adventurous nights of reality hacking

2008-08-21T01:38:00.003Z

It was a long, long time ago. Objectively, it can't be said it really was a long time ago, but psychologically, it seems to me as a long time, indeed. We used to write all that came to our minds and that we found deserved some kind of obscure exposure. Which, between us, was essentially everything that we decided to talk about. This blog remained as a record of those adventurous nights where we threaded on the very scaffolds of reality. We used to break down reality, and we assembled it back, sometimes haphazardly, like kids experimenting with a new toy. We shared that childlike joy, and sometimes, we'd get angry over who got to keep the toy.

We hacked reality, and we wrote our own instruction manuals and user guides. Tentatively.

But we were happy.

L3

On new scientific fields

2008-08-21T01:35:00.003Z

Sapiosexuality and quantum kisses should be a core issue on neuroscience and quantum physics. They both represent two new paradigms that permeate our reality.

On the off chance anyone wants to spend £5 on me...

2008-03-28T13:07:00.001Z

I bought a copy of the New Scientist and of The Economist abiout 3 days ago, and now there's a brand new issue out of each, and I'd love to read them!

Alternatively, if anyone has a copy of either... I have a copy of the previous 2 that I can loan-swap for a couple of days.

Plato's Theory of Forms

2007-05-16T02:03:00.000Z

Working on it (I'm back!).

Iran

2007-04-04T16:16:00.001Z

Iran: We are letting your 15 soldiers go, as a gift to your country. We have pardoned them. I hope you appreciate the value of this gift to your nation. It is a unilateral decision.

Britain: Eh? huh? what?! You've "pardoned them"?

Iran: Yes. You now have a debt of gratitute dto us, because we have decided to be nice.

Britain: But that's not the conditions we established.

Iran: Yes, we know... we're giving you the soldiers. They've been pardoned.

Britain: Don't be silly, you can't pardon someone that hasn't done anything wrong.

Iran: Don't worry, Iran is great! We have pardoned your foolish soldiers. It is a new day for our country's relations!

Britain: But... we don't want them back on a pardon. We want you to admit your error.

Iran: There is no difference.. you get your soldiers back.

Britain: We do...

Iran: And now you owe us...

Britain: Eer... no?

The rest of the conversation is left to you, but think of all the possibilities...

Citações parte 2.

2007-03-30T04:43:00.001Z

Fláv says (05:41):

Eu nunca vi referência ao atum na Crítica do Programa de Gouxa (é Gotha, mas não faz mal)

nem no Das Kapital.

é uma lacuna grave.

Omg. &hearts;

Citações que valem ouro.

2007-03-30T04:41:00.001Z

Ora bem...

Fláv says (05:39):

Thing is: Marx nunca incluiu os atuns no seu testamento político.

Hitler sempre foi mais abrangente.

mete judeus e atuns no mesmo saco.

Filosófico ou Psicológico?

2007-02-12T14:49:00.000Z

Ainda bem que eu [não estou] ∨ [estou] deprimido. Ou pelo menos é esta a conclusão a que chego, após um auto exame na competência da psicologia, filosofia e neurofisiologia. A depressão, inclui nos seus terríveis sintomas, a perda de apetite e a anhedonia (perda de prazer pelas actividades que costumam ser prazerosas). É a leveza do ser, que se torna em puro...desespero? Talvez seja isso que eu esteja a entender enquanto depressão (o neurofisiologista em mim diria que é depressão porque ele vê isso na MRI. Mas se eu o ouvisse sempre...) seja um mal filosófico, não psicológico (o psicólogo em mim diz que um mal filosófico se repercute invariavelmente numa atitude comportamental). Existencial, em vez de emocional, na sua base. Mental, mais que comportamental.

Dor. Mas que tipo de dor, questiona o leitor. Eu diria que essa se localiza na cabeça. O leitor perguntaria se se assemelha à cefaleia tradicional, quiça enxaqueca. E eu ripostaria que não, mas que a dor se expressa de forma análoga. Tanto que gostaria que parasse, mesmo que isso significasse o fim da minha existência. Mas não, não existe aqui uma mensagem suicida!

'Pensas demais', é a observação que muitos dos meus mais chegados amigos, que não se envolvem profundamente nestas coisas da filosofia, fazem. É essa coisa da 'vida examinada'. Certamente que certas questões, da índole 'deverei grelhar um bife ou preparar uma salada para o meu jantar?' são questões assaz filosóficas. Não na medida em que as minhas papilas gustativas e nervos cranianos, que levam as mensagens sensoriais das últimas até ao centro somático correspondente. Mas certamente a questão 'deverei comer carne, sabendo que um animal foi criado para este propósito?', e um animista vegetal, nas suas divagações filosóficas, recusar-se-ia a comer vegetais, igualmente.

'Que raio', diria o neurofisiólogo em mim. 'Ide comer chocolate!'. E ele está correcto na sua sugestão, o chocolate é benéfico na medida em que estimula a produção de serotonina, e aumenta o sentimento de felicidade geral. O psicólogo em mim diz-me que eu deveria encontrar factores de motivação. O filósofo diz que essa motivação se encontra, apesar dos altos e baixos, no palmilhar do "caminho sem destino" da filosofia. Existirá uma hierarquia? Certamente que a filosofia e a psicologia correm lado a lado, na medida em que a psicologia, ainda que imbuída "apressadamente" de um método científico, é, no seu cerne, sólida filosofia. À neurofisiologia falta-lhe este núcleo filosófico consistente, mas também o neurofisiólogo pode ser um filósofo quando coloca alguma questão ainda mais basilar, no que concerne, por exemplo, à consciência.

A Sophia, aqui por detrás do meu ombro, coloca-me a questão, ao bom estilo socrático: 'O que é o prazer?' Não responderei, por ora, e irei antes deslocar-me ao supermercado no sentido de adquirir um delicioso chocolate. Penso que aí, estarei (mais) em posição de discorrer sobre a natureza do prazer, e se esta é intrinsecamente boa, ou não.

PS. Estou a "dever" à Maguida dois pequenos ensaios. Um sobre teleologia moral, e outro sobre a Teoria das Formas de Platão.

Some (small) considerations on epistemology

2007-01-31T06:41:00.000Z

For a fleeting moment, while I contemplated quantum immortality, I thought if I wasn't dreaming. If my life was after all, a dream. Whether I could trust my senses, or more so reason itself, to provide me with a definitive answer, a priori or a posteriori, about the very nature of reality.

All of this in a fleeting second. And this question, those thousands of impromptu fleeting moments (not considering the hours I spend contemplating the question for itself), brings me back to a main question: What can we really know? Is it safe to make metaphysical assumptions? Are we ready to know an objective reality, if any exists?

Well, I couldn't sleep, and I'll have to make some physical effort, since I'm moving to Rotterdam-Zuid. I guess I'll have to take a Red Bull for the placebo effect. But aren't those nights I spend awake great for thinking?

Thesis: The Case Against God from a Zen Perspective

2007-01-31T04:59:00.000Z

Author: Flávio Santos
Title: The Case Against God from a Zen Perspective

Abstract:

A New Public Holiday

2007-01-30T16:47:00.001Z

The other day I accidentally insulted a friend by implying that the Creation Story of God, Seven Days, "Fiat Lux" and Mr. Adam and Ms. Eve was all a large deal of absolute crap. I didn't mean to imply it, but for some reason he thought I had and I spent a long while trying to convince him otherwise.

Now, I think it's fairly obvious that if I don't believe in a God, I don't believe the creation Myth thus attached to it and I generally hate dogmas. Having said that, I actively encourage you to challenge what you are told, not believe everything you read, and just generally ponder things. Yes, yes, it might all sound very obvious but it really just isn't and I can't stress that enough.

I'm not going to tell you to stop believing in religion, that would be stupid, and if you want to close your eyes and simply not challenge anything, fine. Go for it. You've probably not got anything to lose anyway.

Now, if someone had asked me: "We want a secular public holiday to be created, what would you like to celebrate?", I wouldn't have answered "National Agnostic/Atheist day" but then again, I might not have said "Darwin Day". I don't really have any decent proposal... but as far as science goes, it wouldn't be too bad. I just think it's a bit "In your face" for creationists.

And I can't stress enough my frustration regarding creationism. So, I won't.

Happy Darwin Day (coming soon):

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Darwin-Day/

In the UK there are nine public holidays. ( New Year, St Patrick's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, Spring, August, Christmas, and Boxing Day.) Seven (inc New Year's Day) of which are plainly rooted in religious traditions and practices.

That is 78%(aprox) Religious, primarily Christian/Pagan holidays. In this secular and mixed faith nation. We propose that a new secular Public Holiday be created.

To this end we petition the Office of Prime Minister to establish February 12th as 'Darwin Day', a national public holiday, celebrating the Life and works of Charles Robert Darwin.

2009 sees the 200th anniversary of his birth (February 12th) and also the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On The Origin of Species" so there would be no better time to make his birthday a national public holiday in recognition of this great man.

Techie Joke -> Intelligent Design

2007-01-28T19:46:00.000Z

After having dug to a depth of 1000 meters last year, Scottish
scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 1000 years and came
to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network
more than 1000 years ago.

Not to be outdone by the Scots, a few weeks later English scientists
dug to a depth of 2000 metres;

'English archaeologists have found traces of 2000 year old fibre-optic
cable and have concluded that their ancestors must have had a
high-speed digital communications network a thousand years earlier
than the Scots'.

A month later an Irish newspaper reported the following:

'After digging to a depth of 5000 meters in County Maobog, Irish
scientists have found absolutely nothing.

They have therefore concluded that 5000 years ago Ireland's
inhabitants were already using wireless technology.

--

For how long will proponents of Intelligent Design (neo-creationism) continue to infer God's existence from copper wires and watches?

What if?

2007-01-27T22:14:00.000Z

An excerpt from Arthur C. Clarke's Foundations of Paradise:

"Almost all the Alternative History computer simulations suggest that the Battle of Tours (AD732) was one of the crucial disasters of mankind. Had Charles Martel been defeated, Islam might have resolved the internal differences that were tearing it apart and gone onto conquer Europe. Thus centuries of Christian barbarism would have been avoided, the Industrial Revolution would have started almost a thousand years earlier, and by now we would have reached the nearer stars instead of merely the further planets."

I tend to agree with what is speculated in this science fiction book, lato sensu.

Liberdade de Expressão?

2007-01-26T08:16:00.000Z

O semanário marroquino Nichane publicou, no passado dia 9 de Dezembro, um dossier que visava analisar, de uma perspectiva jornalística, algumas piadas populares entre os marroquinos (noukat) que possuem como tema a religião, a sexualidade, e a política.

Assim que a edição viu a luz do dia, iniciou-se uma campanha violenta contra a publicação. No dia 20 de Dezembro, é instaurada uma queixa contra o director do Jornal e contra a autora do dossier, com base na acusação de “ofensa aos valores sagrados”. Mais tarde, nesse dia, o semanário é proíbido (ilegalmente) por decreto do primeiro ministro marroquino.

(Via e adaptado de Diário Ateísta)

O direito a criticar assiste a qualquer ser humano, livre e consciente. Em Marrocos, é proíbido criticar o Rei e o Islão, assim como a ocupação do Sahara Ocidental por parte deste Estado. Um país no qual o pensamento é amordaçado, e sujeito ás correntes da religião e do Estado, é um país onde é negado um direito que assiste a todos os seres humanos: o direito à liberdade de expressão, de criticar as instituições e, dessa forma, potenciar mudança social.

Vale a pena sublinar que este não é um problema enfrentado unicamente pelo Nichane. Várias publicações marroquinas, que ousam criticar as instituições sociais incorrem na acusação de “ofensa aos valores sagrados”.

É da minha opinião que a liberdade de expressão é, igualmente, um valor fundamental, que não deve ser violado por instituição alguma.

É possível assinar uma petição electrónica, demonstrando solidariedade pela causa do Nichane, ou enviar uma carta ao Embaixador de Marrocos em Portugal (formato .doc, podendo ser imprimida e enviada por correio normal, ou por e-mail).

(Publicado simultaneamente no "Whys and Wherefores")

A.H. de Oliveira Marques

2007-01-26T07:12:00.000Z

Faleceu, no dia 23 de Janeiro de 2007, A. H. (António Henrique Rodrigo) de Oliveira Marques, um dos grandes historiadores portugueses.
Este senhor, através da sua vasta obra, exerceu considerável influência no gosto que tomei pela História, desde os primeiros dias. Deixo assim o meu 'obrigado', e a minha homenagem sentida.

Artigo na Wikipedia em Língua Portuguesa

Página pessoal de A. H. Oliveira Marques

E agora?

2007-01-26T05:46:00.000Z

	God exists (G)	God does not exist (~G)
Belief in God (B)	+∞(Yay! Everlasting Joy)	−Nf (Status Quo)
Non-belief in God (~B)	−∞(Oh shi-)	+N_{f (Status Quo)}

What if I am God? Now I might or might not be, I might or might not pwn you.
So, act in accordance to rationality: Hail me as your God.

U.S. and Them

2007-01-26T01:41:00.000Z

Relations Break Down Between U.S. And Them

Source: The Onion

Except...

2007-01-25T00:41:00.000Z

"Everything has been figured out, except how to live."

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

O Nietzsche é que sabia...

2007-01-24T18:24:00.000Z

What great philosopher hitherto has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer--these were not. A married philosopher belongs in comedy . . . and that exception . . . the sarcastic Socrates, it seems, married ironically just to demonstrate this proposition.

(On the Genealogy of Morals, Part III, Section 7)

Jesus, Rei da República Polaca, ou a Suprema Incongruência

2007-01-23T20:35:00.000Z

Jesus Cristo, Rei da República Polaca?

O leitor poderá indagar-se sobre o ridículo e o impossível do título deste post. Mas por vezes, o surreal concretiza-se, desta feita na forma de 46 deputados polacos que pretendem levar a votação uma moção que visa proclamar Jesus Cristo enquanto Rei da República Polaca.

Da mesma forma que a Virgem Maria é Rainha Honorária(?) da República Polaca há 350 anos, Jesus Cristo deverá seguir os passos desta última, levando a uma instância paradoxal: uma República que possui dois elementos régios, consagrados pela Lei.

A suprema incongruência, que se verifica entre o título 'Rei' e os princípios sob os quais a República Polaca assenta. Atribuem um título não-existente no contexto legal Republicano, a um indivíduo que, 'historicamente', já faleceu. E se insistirem em afirmar que este se encontra vivo, podemos recorrer ao argumento da ignorância metafísica. Não podemos apontar um Rei de cuja existência duvidamos.

Se os Polacos insistirem em apontar um personagem de ficção para Rei da República Polaca, temo que os franceses seguirão na senda e elegerão Tintin enquanto Imperador dos Franceses. É um consequente coerente. (Peço desculpa, penso que argumentar formalmente contra algo que é surreal e claramente incongruente é uma perda de tempo pecaminosa.)

E pur, si muove

2007-01-22T18:36:00.000Z

O Blogue do Não publica o seguinte post, no qual é mostrado um registo de uma ecografia ás 10 semanas de gestação:

Com o texto que se segue:

Ecografia às 10 semanas de gestação, em que se observa claramente o feto e se ouve o seu coração. Porque as imagens e sons valem mais que mil palavras.

Ao qual teci o seguinte comentário:

Caro Fernando,

Gostaria, no entanto, de notar que o batimento cardíaco (que é mantido pela presença de um tronco cerebral funcional) não é, por si só, indicador de 'vida humana'. Não define o estatuto ontológico do feto/embrião. Este ainda não possui as características que são inerentes e definem o 'ser humano'.

Abraço,

É notório o facto que este post faz uso de um argumento falacioso, um apelo à emoção, sem apresentar qualquer facto de índole científica ou filosófica para suportar a afirmação.

Demagogia.

2007-01-22T17:45:00.001Z

Dão nas vistas em qualquer lugar, jogando com as palavras como ninguém, sabem como hão-de contornar, as mais directas perguntas.
Aproveitam todo o espaço, que lhes oferecem na rádio e nos jornais, e falam com desembaraço, como se fossem formados em falar demais.

(E agora o refrão mais porreiro de sempre)

Demagogia feita à maneira / É como queijo numa ratoeira
P'ra levar a água ao seu moinho, têm nas mãos uma lata descomunal, prometem muito pão e vinho, quando abre a caça eleitoral.

Desde que se vêem no poleiro, são atacados de amnésia total, desde o último até ao primeiro, vão-se curar em banquetes, numa social.
Demagogia feita à maneira / É como queijo numa ratoeira.

Obrigada, Lena.

Hagia Sophia

2007-01-21T08:12:00.000Z

Hagia Sophia idealized (free of islamic architectural influences)

Há noites bem passadas, encostados a uma das paredes da Hagia Sophia.

Só é pena que eles não tenham edredons.

So...

2007-01-19T03:23:00.000Z

I had a post, but then Firefox crashed. I'll rewrite it later ._.

Soviet Wiki

2007-01-16T16:54:00.000Z

Long live our Soviet Wikiland
Built by the editors mighty hand
Long live our wiki, united and free
Strong in our friendship tried by trolls
Long may our edit button inspire
Shining in glory for all them to see.

Guilt ridden?

2007-01-16T12:55:00.001Z

Morality is only as strong as your guilt.

Guilt is a reflection of your personal beliefs in right/wrong.

When betraying one's own beliefs, one will often repress the truth from themselves and others and deny it until the guilt is too big too handle.

That's my view. What do you think?

A Creator God and Creationism in US State Constitutions

2007-01-14T22:55:00.001Z

Answer to the previous question:

(...) Maine “Sovereign Ruler of the Universe.” Delaware's says “Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator” The Virginia Bill of Rights says we have a “Duty which we owe our Creator.” Washington Preamble says “We the People … grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.” All state constitutions refer to God as understood by the writers as a creator God, not the impersonal god of Hinduism or Buddhism. The common expression "grateful to Almighty God for our freedom" refers to the belief that the source of our rights is not government but God. The constitution needs to be used when teachers are denied the right to critique Darwinism. It is a constitutional right. After reviewing the acknowledgment of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that the ACLU and the federal courts are wrong.

Alabama 1901, Preamble: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…

Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble:. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution…

Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble: We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe .. In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...

Michigan 1908, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work. …

Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness... Establish this Constitution.

Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution

Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom… Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty

New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble:. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty establish this.

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, and Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man…

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties establish this Constitution.

So much for Church-State separation.

http://www.rae.org/creator.html

Preamble to the United States Constitution

2007-01-14T22:55:00.000Z

"We the people..." ... I can't read the remaining of the constitutional text, but I'll wager it says the people are idiots.

By the way, does it predict Theocracy?

Why People Believe Americans Are Stupid

2007-01-14T22:09:00.000Z

It's a ploy! In the Internets!

Scientists Struggling to Make the Kilogram Right Again

2007-01-14T16:20:00.000Z

By OTTO POHL

BRAUNSCHWEIG, Germany. In these girth-conscious times, even weight itself has weight issues. The kilogram is getting lighter, scientists say, sowing potential confusion over a range of scientific endeavor.

The kilogram is defined by a platinum-iridium cylinder, cast in England in 1889. No one knows why it is shedding weight, at least in comparison with other reference weights, but the change has spurred an international search for a more stable definition.

"It's certainly not helpful to have a standard that keeps changing," says Peter Becker, a scientist at the Federal Standards Laboratory here, an institution of 1,500 scientists dedicated entirely to improving the ability to measure things precisely.

Even the apparent change of 50 micrograms in the kilogram — less than the weight of a grain of salt — is enough to distort careful scientific calculations. (...)

Read more

Emagrecer sem exercício. The easy way.

The Athenian Democratic Model that shaped the world as we know it

2007-01-13T20:40:00.000Z

(...)

Let me say at the outset that there is another technical word for this democratic theory and it is buncombe. I knew it was buncombe by the time I was old enough to vote, which back in the good old days was 21. How? I had taken no classes in political science or philosophy and had studied only the potted American history they teach in high schools and universities, though the one semester I had taken on the French Revolution might have scared the democratic illusions out of any normal human being. No, for the previous 5 years I had been doing little else in school than read Greek and Latin, but that was enough to tell me that democracy, as used in modern America, was simply a propaganda term for a certain kind of European and American regime that was better than many alternatives, such as Nazism and Communism, but perhaps not as good as the system set up in 1787 in Philadelphia, and that was certainly no democracy.

It is not often commented upon in civics classes, but few of the founding fathers of the American republic were fond of democracy. The exception was Jefferson, but his view of democracy was completely opposite to the American system today, whose centralized and intrusive power would have horrified the poor states-rights Virginian. But Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and the others were determined, in drawing up the Constitution, to prevent democracy, which they regarded as a kind of mob-rule that ended in tyranny. As Franklin said, when asked what kind of government they had given the nation at Philadelphia, “a republic, if you can keep it.” Any government that has no monarch may be described as a republic, but the word is also used in something of the sense of Aristotle’s word politeia, a constitutional commonwealth, what John Adams to as the rule of law and not of men. As Aristotle also points out, a democracy that elevates the will of the people above the law is really only another kind of tyranny.

Most of the leaders of the Revolution and the framers of the Constitution were classically educated. They had read Plato’s scathing critiques of democracy—Plato says the fate of a just man under a democracy is to be killed. They had also read Aristotle’s more balanced but highly critical analysis of the forms of government and of the process by which they become deformed—how constitutional democracies collapse into a mob tyranny run by political propagandists. Some might have also read a little anti-democratic pamphlet wrongly included in the works of Xenophon. The author of the pamphlet, the “Old Oligarch” as he is known, though he might have been under 30, praises the cynical Athenian democracy for breaking every known moral law in pursuing its own selfish interests. For example, he insists that Athenian democrats have to overthrow the aristocratic governments of their allies because they can only trust politicians who agree with them on policies of looting the rich. This is the first analysis of democratic globalism.

Above all, they would have read the historian Thucydides, who charts the tragic course of Athenian democracy. We are taught in school that Pericles was a great democratic leader who gave Athens its golden age. Thucydides, his younger contemporary, has a more measured view. While he praises Pericles’ intelligence and abilities, he also points out that while they called it democracy, the period of his influence was really the rule of one man-in other words a dictatorship.

For all his capacity and prudence, Pericles made several moves that sealed the doom of his city. First, he drove his moderate and responsible opponents into exile, thus depriving Athens of their considerable talents. Among them were prominent members of Thucydides‘ own family. Second, he radicalized the democracy and ruined the institutions that were designed to prevent mob rule. Third, he insisted simultaneously on fighting a war with Sparta and on turning the Delian Confederacy into the Athenian Empire. In Pericles’ own lifetime, the Athenian democracy brutalized any Greek city that tried to leave the empire, but the worst incident came later, after his death, when mob-orators and demagogues could stir up the Assembly to any crime.

I shall give the story only very briefly, since most of you know probably it. Athens demanded that the tiny island of Melos join the empire. The Melians refused. Unlike the Athenians, they were Dorian Greeks, not Ionians, and they had a longstanding alliance with Sparta. They appealed to law, tradition, and the gods. The Athenians responded with sneering contempt for both law and religion. When the Melians persisted in refusing this offer that could not be refused, Athens conquered the island, killed all the men and enslaved the women and children. This was the greatest of the world’s democracies, the model for democratic states that we are told over and over do now wage aggressive war. As the poet Yeats would say, “they say such different things in school.”

(...)

Thomas J. Fleming

10th February Referendum

2007-01-13T03:48:00.000Z

Fellow American Citizen:

Do you agree with the immediate termination of Bush's Theocracy and its substitution by a Soviet-like regime, with significant improvements and, inherently, change our country designation to 'Soviet Union of America', our anthem to an adaptation of 'The National Anthem of The Soviet Union' and our flag to one of the following projects:

1) Yes, I do agree.
2) No, I do not agree

Press Conference with God

2007-01-13T03:10:00.000Z

Hallelujah

2007-01-13T02:14:00.000Z

'Er...go away!'

Uh-oh...didn't he?

2007-01-12T19:15:00.000Z

Luther posting a flyer for a rock concert called
"95 Theses"

It sure rocked Christian Europe.

Drugs (ergotism), Sex and Rock n' Roll.

Martin Luther

2007-01-12T18:59:00.000Z

"I have no use for cranks who despise music, because it is a gift of God. Music drives away the Devil and makes people gay; they forget thereby all wrath, unchastity, arrogance, and the like. Next after theology, I give to music the highest place and the greatest honor."

Wikipedia: Martin Luther

Because.

2007-01-12T18:02:00.000Z

What if God really isn't an anthropomorphic being with a mind, reason, rational, etc., but instead he/it/she can only be observed through the physical manifestations we call life, physics, biology, chemestry, universe?

So, you could never meet God - no heaven, no hell, or speak to him - because his concept of language isn't ours, and he is not omnipotent in the sense that we attibute to a potential God, or omniscient, etc., and he really doesn't give a damn about humanity specifically.

What I'm saying is, what if God isn't really God the way we expect God to be, but is instead the answer to the most asked question in the world; Why?

Yes, we know that when you throw something into the air it will fall, because of Gravity. But when asked "but why is there Gravity, and not an 'Anti-Gravitational' force to which we give the same name instead?" (despite the fact that without gravity there would be no concept of "us" to ask that question). The answer could be "God".

So I propose we change God's name, and start calling him "Because".

Why is that so? Just Because.

Addition: That also implies God does not love you. I'm sorry ._. I'm sure someone out there does though.

1st Objection: On Sociopolitical devices and Metaphysics

2007-01-12T16:14:00.000Z

"Psychogenesis of Religion

I would like you to set up the following scenario: Imagine a man. Alone, in the dusk, hiking through a vast field. Suddenly, a lightning bolt crosses the sky, hitting a nearby tree. The tree is instantly set aflame. The sudden bolt. The fearful roaring. The tree, set aflame.

Witnessing this immense power, he falls on his knees, obviously terrorized. This man, living in the Holocene/Paleolithic, has not the knowledge, nor the abstract thinking to harness the required knowledge, in order to understand the natural world that surrounds him.

He reaches the conclusion that some powerful, higher being, must be behind those displays of unspeakable power. Those beliefs rang equally true when humans started organizing themselves into more complex social structures, and adopted an agrary way of life, forcing them to settle. That's when natural disasters became a major - vital - worry in human life. Coincidentally, religion started developing prominently from this period on: human beings sought the protection of those supposed higher entities. They also sought their favor.
Hence, we can infer that religion is a projection of our fears, anxieties. We seek a way to cope with our insecurities: we fear death. Some fear the pain that death can bring about, and some fear the lack of meaning provenient from an eternal death. Let us analyze this question fairly and broadly:

- Human beings naturally fear death. They fear death on the grounds of losing the significance of life.
- Afterlife is common to every major religion (if not common to every religion). The doctrine of the soul that is also common to, at least, the three Abrahamic religions state that the seat of counsciousness is the soul. Therefore, there is no loss of identity, which allows the individual to retain his/her identity after his/her death, which allows for the continuity of significance.
- Religion offers eternal life, taking the fear of death from us.

This drawing to religion is not a conscious action. It is clearly an
inconscious action, encouraged by our deepest fears and anxieties."

Flávio Santos, A Counterargument to 'My Belief in God' by Arif, 6/17/06

The explanation of God that Feynmen offered in the previous post is quite clear, and rings true when we consider and analyze the human nature. Ever since the Paleolithic, human beings started developing and providing them with the powers and explanations of the natural world around them. How could they understand the complex world surrounding them, resorting to the little knowledge they held? It seemed natural to explain certain events as "the work of God(s)", a (minimally) antropomorphic being that held the power to make it rain, to raise the sun from its slumber, to allow the growth of crops, to make life of (apparently) nothing.

Several points must be conceded to Feynmen. Divinities are indeed a simple explanation for everything that remains unexplained. Supposedly, God created the world, so, like a watchman knows every intricacy inherent to the fine art of creating a clock, so does God possess analogous skills regarding the Universe.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -- Richard Dawkins

And indeed, believers do not cease to believe in God as soon as they discover that, after all, the Sun is not lifted by the hand of God. They progress to a even broader set of explanations, that ultimately seem logical: Certainly, God lifting the Sun, or making Earth spin like a spin top sounds and strikes us as totally illogical. We now possess a fair grasp of the basic laws that direct the Universe, at least at a local level.
Yuri Gagarin is attributed with the following quote, while he orbited Earth:

"I don't see any God up here."

And we didn't spot a God, in the sky, where most religions placed their Gods. Certainly, the soviet spacecraft Vostok 1 didn't spot a God up there, while orbiting the blue orb, being witnessed by the first time by a human being.

God has indeed served the purpose of filling holes in science. Consciousness? Believers would tell you that your brain is unable to give rise to conscious processes by itself. René Descartes, a 17th century philosopher, proposed a dualism: the body would interact with the distinctly mental (the soul) through the pineal gland, which is a small endocrine gland in the brain. The Universe? The Roman Catholic Church accepted the Big Bang theory. It came as a surprise, since the Church is known to resist to scientific breakthroughs. But this one had something special to it; something that entranced the Pope Pius XII. The Universe had a beginning. And, to possess a beginning, it needs a first cause. The theory seemed to confirm the first verses written in the Book of Genesis.

Certainly, God is not present in microscopic cells. At least, we didn't notice him. Yuri Gagarin, aboard his Vostok, didn't see any God. And it looks like God doesn't dwell in the Moon, or in any spot of our Visible Universe. The Hubble Space Telescope would have shown us the Paradise long ago, if such thing existed in our Universe, and I'm sure such would have a huge impact in our cosmology (not for the existence of God, mind you, but due to a paradise out of nowhere. The Muslim paradise is specially unsettling, presenting men with 70 virgins.).

Certainly, God is much more than a possible metaphysical entity. It is also a symbol. As a symbol, it is subject to manipulation by the human reason. And, independently of its metaphysical proprieties, it has certainly been manipulated before, as it is now. Seneca the Younger, a Roman philosopher, said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)

Whatever is the use we may attribute to God, it doesn't prove it; as it also does not disprove it. So, we remain in a metaphysical ignorance about the proprieties of God. Such ignorance can be brought to the spotlight, if we allow ourselves a moment to quickly analyze the argument for the belief in God, brought forth by the french philosopher Blaise Pascal. This argument, known as Pascal's Wager, presents in the following form:

It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is to disbelieve in the Christian God.
If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational to disbelieve in the Christian God.

A powerful argument, in the eyes of the believer. But, if you allow some thought about it, you'll ultimately find a logical fallacy. The fallacy, known as false dichotomy, is present in the argumentation, since Pascal relies on the assumption that either God exists as described by Christian Theology, or God doesn't exist. But are those the only possibilities?

Why would God behave as stated in Christian theology? God could even favor atheists instead of believers, for some reason that is unknown to us. And why a Christian God? Certainly, there could be more than one god. The Wager fails in the way it incurs in a false dichotomy. It relies on the assumptions that only God does exist as described by Christian Theology or God does not exist.

So, we conclude that only because people attribute mysteries to God, that does not mean that such is the nature of God, if he does exist. Certainly, one may look at a watch and discover the way it works, even being able to reconstruct a similar watch, with more or less precision. But he doesn't see the creator of the watch there. He may describe the creator as skillful, resourceful, etc. But, ultimately, he cannot discover the fundamental proprieties of the creator. Just as God may exist ex-nihilo, and assuming such possibility, all we can do is speculate about is existence or non-existence. Let me remind the reader that being unable to prove X does not prove that X does not exist.

My point is not to prove God. Alas, I'm an atheist. But one cannot discard the possibility on purely psychological and social grounds.

Ready, Set, Debate!

2007-01-12T15:54:00.000Z

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

- Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist)

I am quite a Richard Feynman fan.
I will now treat you to pearls of wisdom by this fantastic theoretical physicist.

_{We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"}

And I dedicate this to my old physics teacher Mr. Atkinson:
_{For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy.}

Google, google.

2007-01-11T04:39:00.001Z

(Here's a brief contribution to the lovely visitors of this site (and the less lovely too! This is a public service in the true economic sense). )

Google is mostly doing things that have been done before, by others.

Search engine? Ever heard of Altavista? Jeeves? Dogpile?
Email? Hotmail? Yahoo? AOL?
Google Video? Youtube- so they bought it!
Google Pages? Blogger - so they bought it!
Google Talk? IRC, MSN, Yahoo Messenger, AOL...

However, despite this, don't get me wrong; I love Google. I dream of one day learning some sort of piece of information that I can use in my favour to one day be a google employee. And I mean something more than the google doodle maker (however much of a mindless dream job that would be)

Google do make amazing and original things, and buy out other amazing original things, to make better original things. I am still waiting for the Google-Wiki buyout.

But this entry really isn't about Google and the wonderful, sleek, stylish, minimal, user-friendly, competent Google and it's many fun, non-daily-life intrusive beauty of all their products. And this is a list of their products.

www.google.com/reader

Now, in all honesty, Fláv deserves credit for showing me this, and I deserve a bonk on the head for having seen it at Google Labs so many times and never having cared.

Google reader allows you to bookmark all your favourite blog-style updating webpages with an RSS or Atom feed. And then lets you flick through them all at your own pace, telling you which are new and which you've read. It's gorgeous. And so time saving. And every time you find something new you want to follow; you can get a button on your google toolbar and add it with no delay.

Wow. I love having my life totally controlled by a monopolizing stock-holding group with a colourful logo and sweet, sweet tempting tools.

The Soviet Union Anthem, Rock Version

2007-01-10T20:25:00.000Z

Rock Version of the National Anthem of the Soviet Union, containing both 1944 and 1977 lyrics. Produced circa 1991, probably after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's quite weird, funny and beautiful, actually!

Warning

2007-01-10T03:07:00.000Z

Diálogos com um Comunista - Parte III

2007-01-09T21:55:00.000Z

(22:07) 'Nietzsche is de: vais pedir a Odete em casamento ;|
(22:07) Brigatum Comunae: não
(22:07) 'Nietzsche is de: sim
(22:07) Brigatum Comunae: não xD
(22:07) 'Nietzsche is de: é a tua mulher de sonho e come batatas fritas capitalistas.
(22:08) Brigatum Comunae: mas não era um mau casamento, okay, a camarada rula
(22:08) 'Nietzsche is de: LOL.
(22:08) Brigatum Comunae: mas já é um bocado velha

Diálogos com um Comunista - Parte II

2007-01-09T21:47:00.000Z

22:25) Brigatum Comunae: filho da puta do soares
(22:25) Brigatum Comunae: odeio-o tanto
(22:25) 'Nietzsche is de: lol, seu commie.
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: é verdade
(22:26) 'Nietzsche is de: tu odeias tudo quanto não seja comunista, calou : p
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: cabrao de merda
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: não
(22:26) 'Nietzsche is de: LOL
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: não exageremos
(22:26) 'Nietzsche is de: :x
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: mas ele mete-me muito nojo
(22:26) 'Nietzsche is de: eu também não gosto dele
(22:26) 'Nietzsche is de: ^^'
(22:26) Brigatum Comunae: ele e o antoniop barreto

Diálogos com um Comunista - Parte I

2007-01-09T21:43:00.000Z

22:38) Brigatum Comunae: partiya patina
(22:38) Brigatum Comunae: comi um arroz de pato memo bom
(22:38) 'Nietzsche is de: lol, foste ao patão.
(22:39) Brigatum Comunae: oui oui lol
(22:39) 'Nietzsche is de: Grande Purga do Pato.
(22:40) Brigatum Comunae: pato á bulhão pato
(22:40) 'Nietzsche is de: bulhon pato.
(22:40) 'Nietzsche is de: comida revolucionária.
(22:40) 'Nietzsche is de: ftp://ftp.ua.pt/incoming/lenine
(22:40) 'Nietzsche is de: enjoy
(22:40) 'Nietzsche is de: comida e música revolucionária.
(22:41) 'Nietzsche is de: comes uma mousse de chocolate ou pudim flan revolucionário.
(22:41) 'Nietzsche is de: e pegas na pressão de ar, vais fazer a revolução.
(22:41) Brigatum Comunae: LOL
(22:41) 'Nietzsche is de: dás um tiro no Socrates.
(22:41) 'Nietzsche is de: Socratistão.
(22:42) Brigatum Comunae: yuo bet

Dramatização do Cretáceo

2007-01-08T22:07:00.000Z

God (the thing) works in mysterious ways.

Margarida: Queres uma goma?
Margarida: São teh cute.
Flávio: Beijinhos e goma, claro está!
Margarida: Têm a forma de dinossauro.
Flávio: Eu também tenho gomas...
Flávio: Têm a forma de meteoro.

Polyushko Pole

2007-01-07T00:41:00.000Z

Polyushko-pole, polyushko, shiroko pole,
edut po polyu geroi,
eh, da krasnoj armii geroi.

Devushki plachut,
devushkam sevodnya grustno,
milyj nadolgo uehal,
eh, da milyj v armiyu uehal.

Field, my field, my wide field,
The heroes ride over the field,
hey, the heroes of the red army.

The girls are crying,
the girls are sorrowful today,
their sweethearts went away for a long time,
hey, their sweethearts went away to the army.

Quantum Girls

2007-01-06T23:09:00.000Z

1. All Quantum Girls exist intermittently
2. Margarida exists intermittently

Therefore:

3. Margarida is a Quantum Girl.

Coming up, a poor attempt at explaining Quantum Girls rationally.

Question is...do all quantum girls exist intermittently? Did we observe EVERY quantum girl in existence? Maybe there is a quantum girl that does NOT exist intermittently, but still retains the proprieties of a quantum girl. Or maybe not, because if we attribute 'quantum girl' exclusively to a being that exists intermittently, then such is needed to be a quantum girl. So, it's deductive, not inductive. Damned logic!

I'm pretty sure Maguida is a quantum girl. No, she is. Really.

(Socrates just agreed with me. Pity I don't really understand ancient greek, but hey, that's a detail.)

Welcoming, pt. II

2007-01-05T02:55:00.000Z

So, it is my turn, one of your humble peers, to welcome you to our tiny garden where we dabble in the process of trying to make sense of the world around us. To achieve such a feat, that we think unachievable for the time being (we love paradoxes. we really do.), we'll try to harness the power of critical thinking, armed with philosophy and inquisitive minds, walking the way paved by science. And if the need arises, we'll analyze our own epistemological means, and ask what can we really know?

If you're ready to put your beliefs and vision of the world through the uncomfortable test of critical analysis, then be welcome to our small meeting place in the vast forest of knowledge and doubt. If you aren't ready, we welcome you as well!

After all, contrary to what most academic philosophers, from the top of their arrogance think, we can all be philosophers. You just need to wonder and ask questions about the world that surrounds you. Seek answers. And more importantly, seek questions!

So, those are our fundamental goals: to think critically, and to provoke thought. And to have fun!

"My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher." -- Socrates

Really, Socrates?

The Welcoming

2007-01-05T02:40:00.000Z

It is not frequent that the 3rd post in a sequence is the one that welcomes the casual on looker to the humble abode of other's though, however, given the friendly nature of this emerging blog, we have chosen to keep the previous 2 posts as a sign that one should not attempt to tamper with history and erase precious records.

Consider this post the VIP red cordon standing between you and the lively party within the bouncer-protected building.
Consider this next line the knife that slices through all those boundaries and that welcomes you into a world of... well... random indulgence in speculation, reflection, contemplation and such.

Come in, grab a drink, get comfy.

News just in

2007-01-05T02:11:00.000Z

Schrödinger's cat just died. My cat, a reliable source, full of epistemological abilities, has received this odd news from a mob that gathered around the strange box. Some say that it was faulty design of the box, since none should have known about the poor cat being alive or dead. Others say that the box, being fully isolated, would have killed the cat due to lack of oxygen (long before whatever-it-is decayed).

The Animal Protective Society has filled a lawsuit against Mr. Schrodinger for abusive behaviour towards animals, and agressive experimenting in living animals. The court ruling is expected to be made public anytime soon.

An inquiry has been set in motion by the Royal Court. Mr Schrodinger is still missing and is a wanted criminal. Philosophers that kept a position against the thought experiment uttered a "HA!" in unison. Albert Einstein has already reacted to the shocking news, saying "HA!", even though his brain is scattered through several labs around the world.

Einstein then reiterated his earlier affirmation; ""I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.""

To this, Mr. Bohr said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do" but now, with Einstein's triumph's hovering over his head, he said that playing dice with god would be unfair, since the thing (as he referred to God [some others called God a Dragon inside a Garage, but such is irrelevant to this news piece]) is omniscient. So, if the thing is omniscient, he knows every true outcome, regardless of possibility. So, he contradicted himself and mumbled a shy 'Oh shi-'

Schrodinger, once admired for his formulation of such a though experiment, is now regarded as a ruthless, pet slayer. Miss Maguida reacted saying 'He could, at least, have used a Zebra'. Mr Schrodinger sms'ed her telling that such an animal would require a bigger box, and he lacked the funds.

Placeholder

2007-01-05T01:29:00.000Z

So, is this teh blog? Because if it is, we'll have to remove this "posta" fairly soon, namely, as soon as we find a name for this blogging project. Meanwhile, this post serves placeholding purposes. 'kay, Marge?