tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post7544676019778036099..comments2024-02-26T21:27:17.091+13:00Comments on The Fundy Post: After browsing at BordersPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08024440694895271805noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-8443365757100696062007-12-18T15:12:00.000+13:002007-12-18T15:12:00.000+13:00To think that acres of innocent trees died to prod...To think that acres of innocent trees died to produce that travesty of journalism.<BR/><BR/>Damn you, Wishfart!!!<BR/><BR/>Craig YAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-29740479427564526262007-12-16T22:00:00.000+13:002007-12-16T22:00:00.000+13:00I've been to Borders and Paper Plus recently - but...I've been to Borders and Paper Plus recently - but ended up in Dymocks where there were plenty of copies of "The Divinity Code" by Ian Wishart. I saw a guy checking books over and pointed out a copy that was damaged. Dymocks gave a nice discount - sounds like THIS copy will be sent on to Richard Dawkins. Richard will have much Xmas laughter, seeing how the great Wishart has slam dunked him over and over again. The book was still too expensive with the discount.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-45449810751336745512007-12-12T11:02:00.000+13:002007-12-12T11:02:00.000+13:00Good Philip K Dick selection though insofar as the...Good Philip K Dick selection though insofar as the one in Wellington goes. You can get <BR/>most of his books from there-<BR/>from masterpieces like Man in<BR/>the High Castle, Ubik and <BR/>The Three Stigmata of Palmer <BR/>Eldritch to crap like Vulcan's<BR/>Hammer, Dr Futurity and Friends<BR/>from Frolix 8.<BR/><BR/>Craig Y.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-43112854149837781462007-12-11T15:53:00.000+13:002007-12-11T15:53:00.000+13:00Ok, before someone out pendants me I'll do it mysl...Ok, before someone out pendants me I'll do it myslef. The cover story above should be "Was Darwin Wrong?... " (you opened the cover to find another cover that provided the answer "No") The editorial was by David Quammen who wrote <I>The Song of the Dodo</I> - one of the best books on natural history I've ever read. <BR/><BR/>That is all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-74193192791619362422007-12-11T15:26:00.000+13:002007-12-11T15:26:00.000+13:00My sole trip to Borders in Auckland terrified me. ...My sole trip to Borders in Auckland terrified me. Not because of shelves devoted to the exploitation of charismatic-megafauna or news that observing the universe might collapse it in a more literal sense that most interpretations of quantum mechanics. I got utterly lost, nothing in my experience as simple provincial-lad-cum-scarfie had prepared for a shop that could exist in multiple layers underlying multiple blocks of a city. A swear I came out two blocks and several hours away from where I entered. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and in bout of pedantry, it was National Geographic that ran the "Was Darwin Right?.. Yes!" cover. There is an interesting (for certain values of interesting) article <A HREF="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/we-shorten-univ.html" REL="nofollow"> here </A> about the misinterpretation of the paper that lead to the end of the world story. The amending of the paper was presumably the result of the criticism of noted physicist <A HREF="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/11/29/professor_says_world_not_ending/1438/" REL="nofollow"> Rush Limbaugh</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-17948008045188505462007-12-09T13:51:00.000+13:002007-12-09T13:51:00.000+13:00You can however find something you like in borders...You can however find something you like in borders in the range of say 100 - 200 pages and treat the place as a library since its so cavernous the staff won't notice if you've been there reading for hours on end. <BR/><BR/>Radiohead's new album is quite nice actually, brilliant release strategy.Forensic morselshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978821372097561683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-58411150253951016682007-12-08T00:00:00.000+13:002007-12-08T00:00:00.000+13:00Sorry, that should be the argument from incredulit...Sorry, that should be the argument from incredulity. And my letter is in this week's issue. The one where the physicists are trying to use 'magic' quantum effects to create the first life. Ignoring all the biological reality in the process, of course. I despair.<BR/><BR/>Peter in DundeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-23073534869464665032007-12-07T23:51:00.000+13:002007-12-07T23:51:00.000+13:00I have asked numerous physics types over the years...I have asked numerous physics types over the years exactly how, in a mechanistic way, consciousness impacts on the universe. Beyond 'observation' they have no idea. It is as though something exits our eyes from the conscious parts of our brains (which are?) and does nefarious things to the universe. This something obviously travels faster than light since we have only been 'conscious' for less than a million years. Though elephants, having been demonstrated to be self aware, might have been doing it for longer.<BR/><BR/>I think it is bad enough that peer reviewed journals exist which publish this claptrap but New Scientist does seem disturbingly susceptible to publish them of late.<BR/><BR/>It all seems to smack of the argument from ignorance to me. 'We can't think of another explanation, so this one with no experimental or mechanistic basis must be the explanation'.<BR/><BR/>I have a letter in this week's issue in fact on that very fallacy. That was in relation to shrimp having 'feelings'.<BR/><BR/>Peter in DundeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-5961749044621365612007-12-07T21:32:00.000+13:002007-12-07T21:32:00.000+13:00It was Scientific American who had that cover stor...It was Scientific American who had that cover story. Scientific American has gone way, way downhill in the last 20 years, all soft and fluffy and vapid, but I actually thought "good on them", because they ran that story in the middle of last bout of "Intelligent Design" brouhaha.stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04486889878636801969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-73375324320973369232007-12-07T19:36:00.000+13:002007-12-07T19:36:00.000+13:00Feh. Not enough Bataille for me.Craig Y.Feh. Not enough Bataille for me.<BR/><BR/>Craig Y.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36994129.post-17418287819287320252007-12-07T17:29:00.000+13:002007-12-07T17:29:00.000+13:00To unify your magazines, I believe it was New Scie...To unify your magazines, I believe it was New Scientist once had a cover story: 'Was Darwin Wrong?'. I glanced at the editorial; it appeared the answer was 'no'.<BR/><BR/>I believe the end-of-the-universe chap has added a paragraph to the paper to the effect of, 'that's not what we meant at all'.Lyndonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05622953598107216261noreply@blogger.com