[Un]Intelligent Design

Link 1
Link 1 will take you to a funny letter that explores one reason why Intelligent Design (ID) should not be taught in classrooms: any crackpot can come up with a baseless theory. Without the filter of scientific review, our 'science' classes would be full of them - who could say which are the 'least baseless' and therefore most beneficial to students?

Link 2
Link 2 will take you to Slashdot post about butterfly speciation, which of course spawned a whole crapload of comments about the strength of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Below are some of the most insightful/intelligent comments:
Occam's Razor: why evolution is actually the simpler answer.
Imperfect Design: organisms have been optimized for survival, not for design perfection.
The Mathematics of Evolution: a nice look into the probabilistic drive behind evolution.
Disproving the Stereotype: a rational, intelligent Creationist steps up to give his $.02.
Evolution Is Fact: it is Natural Selection that is a theory, not evolution.

Goodbye, old friend.

She wasn't much to look at and she wasn't too exciting, but she will always have a place in my heart. My beloved Intrepid has finally passed away - brutally murdered, in fact.



The tractor (as in tractor-trailer, not farm tractor or track-type tractor) driver was issued three citations (I'm not sure what exactly they were for). The Intrepid driver appears to be okay, but he's going through some pretty heavy diagnostics to make sure.

Rest in peace.

Katrina, part 2

I don't want this to turn into a rant, so I'll try to keep it short and sweet...

To help prevent/reduce future disasters like Katrina, and the costs associated with the aftermath, the government must forfeit its current role as the nation's flood insurer. Today's system socializes the risk^[1] of living in dangerous areas, while privatizing the benefits^[2]. IMHO, anybody should be able to see that is not the correct way to run an insurance program. There is no way to prevent natural disasters, but we should not be giving incentives to put lives and wealth in a position where devastation is relatively likely.

_________________________
[1] The government requires that any property which exceeds a certain likelihood for flooding buy federal flood insurance. The rates are set such that, in an average year, insurance premiums equal payouts. In years such as this, where payouts will clearly be far higher than premiums, the flood insurance program is authorized to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. In many areas, homes are rebuilt/repaired with insurance money, flooded again, rebuilt...ad infinitum.

[2] The same flood-prone areas, being close to water, tend to be attractive places to live and work (typical benefits include shipping, fishing, and tourism). By paying below-market rates for flood insurance, residents and enterprises do not see the full cost of existing in flood-prone areas. Large benefits + government-sponsored reduction in insurance cost = excessive development in risky locations.

I hate spammers. A lot.

Sorry folks, but I had to activate captcha for comments. I got my first comment spam today...ugh.

Cold Turkey

Today I decided that I'm going to make my first honest effort to quit. I've been somewhat addicted for a very long time. I've always known that I should stop, but it's just too dang satisfying. I mean, why worry about long-term health effects if it's fun right now?! Right?! Ummm, right? :(

With your help, this will be the start of a whole new Ben: one who doesn't crack his knuckles (or wrists, elbows, neck, back, knees, ankles, toes...) !

What, you were expecting something more exciting?