Tuesday, November 27, 2007

I Am Now A Petco Employee

And I think I have pinkeye. Fuck! test

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Of Beavers and Other Aquatic Mammals

I find the transition of animals from terrestrial to aquatic to be absolutely fascinating. At first it seems impossible - how could a land mammal evolve into a massive blue whale? Far from impossible, this has actually happened more than once - in at least 4 independent occasions! Whales evolved from hooved, wolf-like predators. Dewgongs and Manatees are most closely related to elephants. Pinnipeds(seals) are most closely related to Bears, and evolved from some carnivorous proto-bear. Lastly, otters have evolved from from proto-weasels - while remaining nearly physiologically identitcal to weasels!

Beavers, a semi-aquatic rodent, are also way sweet. They are second only to humans in the extensiveness of their terra-forming. They live in complex lodges, in ponds tailored to their liking. A lot of what they do is very instinctual - running water triggers an instinct to create dams, which can also be stimulted by the mere sound of running water - experimenters have found that they will pile sticks around speakers emitting said sounds. Man, I wish I was a beaver.

Here is an artists rendition of some proto-whales:


pakicetus.


ambulocetus.


kutchicetus.


rodhocetus.


basilosuarus(this name is a misnomer, as the fossils were originally/erroneously thought to belong to an aquatic reptile).


I think the rest of the steps can be easily imagined.

Mike Huckabee: Chuck Norris Approved.



edit: Another gem(thanks, Alan).

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Pat Condell

I Like Pat Condell.





What do you think?

Matthew Kirchner

There is a guy who writes for he 49er at my school, who is probably completely insane.

His contributions can be found here.

Read them for a laugh. The article on "god given torture" is particularly confused.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Anthem

I read Anthem, by Ayn Rand today. It was ok, but it was also sort of shite. In the words of Jim Callahan (of Phenomenon fame), I think Ayn Rand is something of "ideological bigot." I do find the individuality thing, and the self, and freedom, quite appealing - but I do think there is room there for empathy, and a sense of "We"-ness (Not to mention, self-interest tends not to be rational, and the Ego has wreaked plenty of havoc on others). I much prefer "Harrison Bergeron"(sp?), We, 1984, and Brave New World. But still, it was pretty good - and, as an added bonus, I now know exactly where one of the quotes from Arthur's profile comes from.

Anyway. I like reading, I should do it more often. I read Anthem in a few hours, while hanging out at Starbucks(fitting, I know). I also started to read the Crying of Lot 49, which I am unsure about. It seems like it might be good, but it took a while to get into the rhythm of the writing. There was a weird sex scene.

I'm not very excited to go to school tomorrow.

Being an atheist...

is boring. So, i've decided to convert to Mormonism. Soda is bad for a person anyway, and I always wanted to go to Utah.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Sentence Game

The "Sentence Game" (also known as "Eat Poop You Cat"), is like the game "Telephone," except on the internets. One person writes a sentence, and another person draws a picture of the sentence. The next person has to write a sentence based solely on the previous picture, and so on. Much fun ensues.

edit: source images are gone. Bah. But seriously, it is a fun game.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

In Rainbows review

I wrote this for the student newspaper, but it didn't get printed. I'm a fan boy.

Radiohead
In Rainbows

9.8

For many fans, waiting for a new Radiohead album is like being a seven year old on Christmas Eve, with the anticipation stretched across nearly five years. For the most obsessive fans, this interim period marks a distinct chapter in life, making the stakes high and leaving a lot of room for disappointment. Fortunately, Radiohead’s In Rainbows does not disappoint.

Rainbows starts off with a bang, as Radiohead albums do. “15 Step” is Radiohead at their most joyful, its combination of tribal beats and Jonny Greenwood’s subtle but melodious guitar line make this track infectious. Next comes “Bodysnatchers,” a relentless interplay of scathing guitars growl while Thom Yorke’s urgent, paranoid vocals struggle to assert that “he’s alive,” that he’s “seen them coming.” This song will literally push you backwards

After “Bodysnatchers,” the mood of the album changes dramatically in the direction of masterfully crafted and intimate beauty that is simultaneously sparse and lush. Yorke’s delicate vocals on “Nude” and “Arpeggi’s” slow-burning drive will trigger your endorphins and send shivers down your spine. The crescendo of “All I Need” is exceptionally strong, even for Radiohead who has made a living off of unconventional rising song structures.

There are two wholly new songs on Rainbows and both tracks stand out. “Faust Arp” is a mesmerizing two minutes reminiscent of Elliott Smith or even the Beatle’s “Julia.” “Reckoner” contains some of Yorke’s most impressive falsetto, beautiful orchestration, and a hypnotic guitar line. It is a fan favorite and one of the Radiohead’s most impressive moments.

The weakest track on Rainbows is “House of Cards,” a reggae influenced pop song which drones on for too long and drenches Yorke’s otherwise pristine vocals in heaps of reverb. But where “House of Cards” falters, “Jigsaw Falling Into Place” triumphs. This rock song, though tamer than “Bodysnatchers,” rounds out the album nicely. At the climax, Yorke’s voice and his intriguing lyrics switch from collected to clamorous, leading into the haunting funeral dirge that is “Videotape.”

“Videotape,” though different from the lauded live version, perfectly encapsulates the mood of the entire album: best likened to reconnecting with an old friend, or recalling a lost loved one. The experience doesn’t always line up with your expectations, but it is warm and pleasant with a tinge of sadness. Rainbows represents Radiohead’s strongest collection of songs since OK Computer, and their most cohesive album since Kid A.


I have an Idea...

For a science-fiction book, and I want everyones opinions. But, I don't want to publish it here, lest a more ambitious man than I beats me to it. Ask me about it, and I will tell you. Feedback = love.

this word document was titled "werwerwer!"

If I didn't BS my papers at the last minute, they could be so much better...

Sean Bernhoft

Dr. Lee Salinas

Personality and Social Behaviors

3 November 2006

Normative and Informative Social Influences are a Threat to Science and Reason

As a materialist and a soft determinist, I am of the persuasion that all aspects of both men and women are essentially a function of the physical world. Genes – replicators that dictate our height, skin color, eye color, mental predispositions, and virtually all traits besides those that rely directly on environmental factors – are chosen for us by Darwinian natural selection. Basically, everything about the human species is determined by the environment. Every choice anyone ever makes relies on the gray brain matter that makes that choice; every choice anyone ever makes is the causal result of a purely physical factor. That being true, it is no surprise that the way people behave relies heavily on example. Normative influences, which is essentially the need to “fit in” to social in groups, and Informational social influences, which is the tendency to behave like those who we believe have authority, shape much of the behavior of the human animal. Humans – through natural selection – have the genetic predisposition to seek the familial comfort of in-groups, and to give credence to authoritarian figures. These can be explained simply enough: as Richard Dawkins, naturalist and author of The Selfish Gene, put it, young children who test the hypothesis “do not swim in the crocodile infested water” do not contribute often to the gene pool, while the former can be explained through the reproductive benefit of kin reciprocity. While these traits have their uses (I concede that the human would be an entirely different animal without them), I would like to show that, through the use of personal and second hand examples of informational and normative social pressures, a different evolved capacity is more important to the survival of the human species in the modern age: Reason.

Normative social influence, as explained above, is the tendency for people to conform to the norms of their social groups. For instance, and American would tend to do American things: they wear American clothes, they eat American food, they adopt an American religion, and everyone knows that it is “American” to hate the French. This is all well and fine for benign things, like wearing certain clothes or eating certain foods, but these sorts of in-group traits provide the differences required to create xenophobia and out-group hostility. I have seen examples of this in my own life. To explain, when I was growing up, the group that I fell into was a family group. To become a Bernhoft, I had to do the things that other Bernhofts Did. I adopted the religion of my family, I spoke like my family, and I defined myself in the terms of my family. I grew up in white-bread conservative south Orange County, and to this I have an irrational aversion that I have to battle with of hardened urban folk. I say that it is irrational, because the only reasons I have for this aversion are the normative traits that define me in the social group that I was born into. When taken to its extreme, the benign aversion I feel could manifest itself as fear or even hatred of outsiders. Of course, I certainly do not hold hatred any sort of hatred for groups that are different than I am. This is because I hold reason and scientific inquiry in high esteem, and am unwilling to make jump to assumptions with insufficient evidence. In this way, it is possible to battle the tendency to assume “specialness” of the group that one happens be born in to(which leads to balkanization and hostility), and the very human tendency to stereotype.

The difference between normative influences and informational ones is subtle, but there is a difference. Informational influences are influences on human behavior by people who are assumed to know the right way to do things, in other words, it is an appeal to authority. For an example of this, I needn’t look further than the experience of dining at a fancy restaurant as a young child. Since, to the untrained eye, the etiquette of dining is at best confusing at worst absurd, the only good way to determine which fork is meant for salad is to learn by example. To solve this dining dilemma, rather than look to my sister or my cousin, I would look to the person of authority, namely, my parents. While I could rail on about not only the absurdity but the implications of “etiquette” (it really is nothing more than a haughty attempt by the privileged to separate themselves from the have-nots), the problem with informational social influences and appeal to authority is much more dire. The fact is, that people do not deserve to be emulated simply because they have an air of authority. Authority and respect ought to be earned, and the consequences of following suit just because you think someone has a authority can be grim. The common defense for war criminals of Nazi Germany is: “I was just following orders.” Ideally, every action taken should be the result deliberation and the weighing of evidence.

To conclude, normative and informational social influences had their time and place, but it is not hear and it isn’t now. As rational beings, we have a responsibility to marginalize these influences on ourselves, and to make decisions based on evidence. Otherwise, we will be easily controlled (for good or evil), and we will remain mired with hatred and divisiveness.

Intelligent Design

I wrote this a while ago, in response to a friend on the internets:

As far as Intelligent Design goes, I wouldn't be so sure about what can and cannot happen as a result of natural processes. Just because it seems like something has a low probability of happening doesn't mean there has to be a designer. It is a damn big universe, and as far as we know earth is the only planet with life on it. Creation “scientists” like to throw around figures about the vast unlikelihood of life to form at random as “evidence” for a designer. Sure our existence is unlikely, but there is a lot of room for error when a galaxy contains billions of stars, each with its own planetary systems. We're the lucky ones. To say that our unlikely existence must be the result of a designer is kin to saying that every time a man or woman is dealt a royal flush, the dealer must have stacked the deck. For every time a royal flush is dealt, there is something around 649,749 hands that aren't royal flushes. I don't know what the odds of life developing on a planet and evolving into human beings are, but it is very likely that there are enough dead planets to accommodate without the intervention of any sort of divine being. Let’s look at the facts: The Milky Way galaxy alone has 200-400 billion stars. We'll say the average number of planets around each star is nine, since that is how many there are around the Sun, which is an average sized star. That means there is something like 1.8-3.6 trillion planets. So the earth is one planet out of something like 1,800,000,000,000-3,600,000,000,000 planets all of which are part of one galaxy (and there are many, many more galaxies) that is 13.6 billion years old, and it happened to be one out of however many billion that had all the conditions necessary for life. Four some-odd billion years ago, the earliest life forms, or proto-life forms, devloped and there has been a snowballing effect ever since. Jackpot. One mustn't underestimate the power of a long time line and a whole lot of variables.

I'm no scientist, so lots of estimation. I think it gets the point across, though. I thought poker was a good analogy.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Hello, World

I started this blog because I wanted to be cool like Alan, Susan, and Roy. I would also like to tell you all a story about myself:

I think that tests and exams should be tools to gauge how much a person knows, so I am generally opposed to teacher-sanctioned "cheat sheets." Usually when a cheat sheet is allowed, I engage in silent protest by not making one. On one particular occasion, in my high school chemistry class, a teacher of mine, Mr. Camiling, attempted to force everyone to create a one page cheat sheet by allotting class time for that specific purpose.

Being a principled person, I refused to create a cheat sheet for myself and wrote myself a letter instead. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the letter. On the day we created it, we had to turn our cheat sheets in to Mr. Camiling. He passed them back out on the day of the test and collected them when we were finished. From what I recall, it was addressed to "Sean on the day of the final" and signed "Sean from two weeks ago."

I filled a page front and back explaining to myself how I thought tests should test your knowledge, not what you can copy from the book. I apologized to myself in case I had had a change of heart, and reassured myself that I would do well. I hoped for my sake that I had studied. In The end, I am pretty sure I aced the test.

At the time, I thought this was the most hilarious thing ever. I still think it is pretty damn funny.