SoylentNews

For the last nine years I have been unable to resolve the ip address of Soylent news. I don't where or what or why things prevented the resoultion of the soylentnews.org address. After having been away so long I'll pretty much stay in "stealth mode" to see where you've gone from the days of throwing off the yoke of the corporate masters at slashdot.

I received and article rejection from the SoylentNews Editorial Staff with the following letter:

***********************
Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that we did reject your submission:

http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=1081

The reason is that this is pseudoscience in the vein of bigfoot, lochness monster, etc. It's the scientific community's consensus that the chubacabras are simply a K9 (usually coyotee) with some sort of parasite (like severe mange).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra "Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been verified ascanids afflicted bymange .^[2] Biologists and wildlife management officials view the chupacabra as acontemporary legend "

http://www.livescience.com/24036-chupacabra-facts.html

Have a good one.

****************************
The Editor's name was withheld to protect the editorial failings [unlike some people I don't do public "Name and Shame" like some of the other SoyGoys around here].

Note that I had been expecting the rejection [when something stays in the queue for 10 days its pretty evident that someone does not like the content].

There is only two problems with this rejection- The item I submitted was a "News" item not as a "Science" item. The fact is that someone found something that does not look like a dog nor act like one... The above editorial note above FAILS as a legitimate rejection because all of the sources listed are either:

A) Non-peer-reviewed -- Wikipedia is widely known to be not a vetted source of science or scientific research. -- Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica... and citing Wikipedia as a source of verified "science" should make any real scientist or News editor squirm.

B) LiveScience posts non-science / pseudo-science / religion as "factual science" for example see: Easter Science, Jesus Christ the Man, and Who is the Antichrist? All of these LiveScience articles are presented as "science" but when examined as Science they all fail as Science. They are feel good Christianity passed off as science. Science is not Christianity...

So why do I have a problem with the rejection? Simple if you are going to reject on the basis of "Pseudo-Science" then the links used to reject the article should in no way be attached to information sources which are not either peer reviewed or carry other pseudo-science as science stories.

One more thing Live Science did carry as story about Texas 'Chupacabra' Turns Out to Be Imposter with a byline by Benjamin Radford. Please note that Mr Radford has a Bachelor's in Psychology and a Master's in Education. Somehow his expert opinion seems to be missing a qualifying degree in biology or related biological science.

He is obviously not talking Science but Skeptical Pseudo-Science especially when he says "So, is this animal the elusive chupacabra? It's clear that it's not, because video of the creature broadcast on KAVU clearly shows the Ratcliffe chupacabra doesn't have the anatomical mouth features that would allow it to suck blood, from goats or anything else. Like several other "chupacabras" found in Texas and elsewhere in recent years, a simple look at the mouth demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the animals to suck blood. The mouth and jaw structures of raccoons, dogs and coyotes prevent them from creating a seal around their victims, and, therefore, physically prevents them from sucking the blood out of goats or anything else." So it isn't a chupacabras because it isn't a vampire???? This piece of crap opinion is presented as SCIENCE???? Some one might want to let Mr. Radford know that real Science does not need to do Satire [and do it so poorly as he does] to accomplish its purpose. In fact it is people like Mr. Radford that spout trash science who stand in the way of Real Science.

The Skeptical Mr. Radford goes on "The most likely answer is that it's a raccoon. Animals that have lost most or all of their hair can be very difficult to identify correctly, for the simple reason that people are not used to seeing the animals without hair."

Um... "most likely answer"??? What? He does not know what it is? First you say it can't be a Cupacabra because it does not suck blood and then cannot identify the animal? THAT is science?????? If Mr. Radford was actually going to do "science" one would think that DNA evidence would be the best way to prove what the animal's species is. Or is DNA too scientific? Apparently "denial is science."

I'm sorry but Dear editorial staff you suck at Science and your sources of "plausible denial" suck even more. It appears you have fallen for the Pseudo-Religion called "Skepticism". Skepticism is not Science and should not be used. One can only wonder what the SoylentNews Editors would make of any kind of articles related to climate change.

..are some of the weirdest.
In the early days of Journalism folks like Mark Twain and Lyin' Jim Towsend told some woppers to get newspapers sold in the Boom towns of California and Nevada but they never felt the need to get down and dirty.

I happened to stumble across this one: The Pubic Hair Preferences of the American Woman.

My first thought was "really???" Then... "Gross.".... then "Really????" The only rational explanation I can think of is that "538" is trying to get momentum for their shiny new web site.

Is this kind of "journalism" needed? Is there some kind of journalistic "ecological niche" this kind of story fills? What is even more astounding is that the study which provided the data for the article was done at the University of Texas and "Federal support for this study was provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development". Is this kind of science needed? Did we really need to know?

One last quirkish thing. The official title of the study was: "Prevalence and correlates of pubic hair grooming among low-income Hispanic, Black, and White women". Now a number questions come to mind: Why were *only* low income woman in this study? Was it because no high income women were available? Is their some kind of unspoken "moralistic" statement here or just a couple of Gynecologists getting cheap 'jollies'? Was there an actual scientific value in the study or was it just a way to spend some money?

Portions of this were originally posted HERE I did not re insert the links so go read the original for the reference links here on soylent.org

T am reposting this because My words as a "minority" seems to have gotten lost in the noise in the original comment post.

I am Jewish. I chose to be Jewish. When I was asked why I wanted to be Jewish[1] I explained it:

"When I was small I was kicked and beat, and spit on, sworn at and picked last for kick-ball. I spent my whole life being a loner and being hated or disliked for good or bad reasons... most of the reasons I was bullied was because I was an easy target. So why do I want to be Jewish?" I replied. "I won't be alone any more."

So I'm Jewish right? No according to some of the Orthodox Jews. I'm not Jewish enough for them but I certainly am Jewish enough to feel the wrong end of other people's intolerance... or other people's ignorance.

There has been a long ongoing debate about where to draw the line on "intolerance", "hate speech", "bigotry", or "denial of history". My simple line is this: "Hate Speech is still free speech. The trouble comes when people begin to act on their hate speech. If they act on their words then they should be considered anathema..." Saying "I hate you" with words is one thing. Saying hate with a burning cross or a loaded gun or a rope is another. The speech might be incitement but are war games incitement?

The poster who was "singled out" by this post [that's a kind of hate speech too] had some "informed" words to about Jews. I clarified his error. 'Nuf said and no remarks flew back and forth... Later when I posted a journal saying maybe I should not comment on "political" stuff here any more this poser singled out was the first to step forward and say he didn't want me to be silent.

I've had words from others here like "Hey Jew Boy...!" [soylentnews.org] which were much closer to the Good All Amerikan Skin Headed Boy". I didn't piss my pants and run for the wings. I told a joke instead... which got up-modded. Hate speech from ACs is more to be feared than from someone who is willing to use their own identity to say unpopular things.

So from my experience I would rather have Ethanol Fueled say what he feels than someone play the anonymous coward with true and ominous hate speech.

Now as for the original poser-- I DO NOT like what you have done here. Who appointed you the judge and jury? You have made "Front Page" hate speech without actually saying "So and So is a immoral and evil scum sucking friend of all of the bastards that don't believe like "we" do so let's put him in the public square, shame him, mark him as an EVIL ONE..."

Uh, guess what? That is they way ALL hateful pogroms begin-- singling out someone's because of some alleged moral or ethical superiority. One can easily see this in the words of a recent American President, no, not Obama, George W. Bush [wikipedia.org]. Does he happen to be one of your friends? Has Bush's words made the world a better place to live. Sure. The Iraqi's are good friends and customers of the Iranians. The Afghans and the Pakistanis hate the U.S.

If we are going to paint people with scarlet letters , are we truly morally superior? The empirical answer is-- no.

America is a country built in many ways upon Puritan values... you know the values that gave us the Salem Witch Trials and Nathaniel Hawthorn's "The Scarlet Letter". We are still pushing the Puritan agenda. So we paint people with labels rather than addressing the issues they raise or the ignorance they display. We allow Religion to teach hate and narrow non-accepting moral values and allow morally ambiguous actions by Corporations and the Government... and then call anyone we disagree with a hate-monger or intolerant. Would you become one of these people you hate if you became the victim of some petty criminal regardless of color who takes a liking to your possessions or your body and acts on their desire?

Understand something criminal behavior is criminal behavior regardless of race, creed, color, or political affiliation... I'm sorry but painting labels and scarlet letters do not resolve the issues that create the criminal behavior.

One man's intolerance is another man's daily norm and another's belly laugh.

The person in question has a right to his opinions how ever disagreeable they seem.

[1] Unlike some other religions there are specific rules about Jewish converts. One of the rules outlined in the Talmud is the requirement to ask the proposed convert: "Do you not know we are a people that has been brutalized and downtrodden and unpopular, and our ways are very different from the ways of the rest of the world?"

This morning I was thumbing through my copy of "The Writer's Guide to Building a Science Fiction Universe" and I happened upon the star system building chapter. As I read through the chapter they described the nearest binary star system, Alpha Centauri. It struck me as odd [after having played around with star system generation programs [based on Stephen Dole's Accrete] for something like 20 years that binary's with different types of stars exist. I'm not an astronomer just a curious generalist.

Take Alpha Centauri for example a G2V [something like our Sol] and a K2V is much smaller than Sol but will live 1.5 to 3.0 times longer than Sol. I thought this odd. so I did some Google search... and found that there is no good reasonable explanation that I can find for two different classes of stars being in the same system.

Apparently how binary star formation occurs is debatable. The most favored explanation seems to be that binaries systems form from a common stellar nebula.

So I got to thinking about the Alpha Centauri System as an example of the curious nature of binaries.

Alpha Centauri A is much larger than Alpha Centauri B.
Alpha Centauri B has a much longer life time than Alpha Centauri A since K2V stars burn much slower than G2V.
Orbital separation varies from 11 AU to 36 AU
The assumption is that they both formed at the same time and are ~6B years old.

And yet...

Some how it just does not seem right that you would have separate two stars of different masses that would form from a single stellar nebula. How can can their formation have occurred? One would think the larger of the two, A, would have sucked up, B. How can the relative motion of B around A occurred? How could the orbital mechanics of a gaseous cloud allow for one part to eventually orbit another?

A study from the NRAO VLA Antena at Pie Town, NM suggests that the formation of binaries occurs because the main stellar nebula fragments.... but no mention is made as to how this might occur.

In a "Matrix Moment" it occurs to me that the simplest answer is that we live in a simulation with a subprogram that randomly cranks out stellar systems with random features and elements much like a chart in a table top RPG...

One wonders if there is a rabbit hole with the stuff of arguments here or just a curiosity...

I discovered this morning that we are missing moderation options that I think we should have: Mod points should be available for Journal posts. Why? because some of you write some good stuff but don't really get the credit or recognition you deserve.

There is a downside in that it might be used by some to suppress some views... the easy way to deal with this is only allow "up mods". Goodliness should be rewarded. Take a visit to Ethanol-Fueled's Journal and read about his Arduino Code or Fliptop's Journal for his five part series on Perl and IP cameras.

The best I can do is post this journal entry and hopw you go and give these fellows your comments.

After some of the comment exchanges this morning on topics such as Pollard and SCOTUS deciding money == speech, I think I'm going to swear off commenting on "political talk".

It does nothing to make the needed legal changes and does nothing to expand social discourse. Instead it becomes clear there is willful misunderstanding and a unwillingness to compromise by those who support the politics of selfishness and moral corruption. I don't have a problem with people if they want to live in hell and do despicable acts... that's their choice... but when they want to drag everybody else along that's a whole 'nother story.

It only makes me sad that people can be so gullible and believe in things which are not in their own best interest... but as I have learned from my mistakes I can only hope they learn before it is too late.

So go ahead and party boys while the country's morality burns to the ground, and the U.S. becomes just another corrupt rapacious Evil Empire... and our standing as a beacon to the rest of the world becomes the light of the on-coming train of our destruction... we all know how that story line ends.

No I'm not talking "religious morals"-- I'm talking humanist values and obligations to be kind to your family and community. To build and give rather than to destroy and take. I'm sorry but I do not find Libertarian or Tea Party philosophy has any moral value nor any grounds to stand on. It is selfish, destructive, short sighted, and anarchistic pack of twaddle which is being sold to the gullible as a real viable thing... except it ain't...

But I can't teach the willfully ignorant... and the only way they will learn is by letting themselves become an example of what not to do when trying to live a good life. Alas... some smart people can be really, really stupid.

So I'm swearing off political commentary... it serves me no good purpose and I'm sure those with whom I have disagreed will be grateful.

You're welcome... ;)

A Soylent News story posted last Saturday got me to thinking about the potential for a Markov chain based music "toy" application. Understand that at this moment I don't quite have the skill to write this app but it is an interesting thought experiment... so I'm writing it down here.

Yes I realize that you can do a lot of things with Max [$400!] but that is outside my budget [$0]... OTOH CSound is free but is a primarily sound design software suite rather than a composition application... tho' I have found some interesting things that I might investigate...

Most of the Pi based music I have seen / heard is based upon using the numbers 0 through 9 in the Pi sequence to correspond to a single note in a key. An example is the pi10k flash app.

The Markov Sliced Pi idea is to take a file with n number of digits of Pi and run a n-gram analysis where n=2. The result gives you the probability of two digit sequences of 00 to 99.

With this one can then do a number of interesting experimental musical things:

1) Using these digits as midi note numbers, and then picking a note at random, a note sequence of arbitrary length can be generated in a note rage of C0 to D#8 [greater than the range of a piano]. This will probably sound chaotic.

2) Add a "key Filter" which will drop notes that are not in the "key" of the starting note. For example if the starting not is C3= midi not number 36 then any note that does not fall in the Key of C [C D E F G A B] would be dropped from musical playback.

3) Add a "Shift filter" to shift discarded notes to be played in the relative minor or other key related shift [i.e. the idea is to force the output stream to sound "musical". While this might sound like twisting the input stream one might use pi or tau as a means to shift the note

3a) Modify the shift filter to work on notes which fall off of the circle of fifths for the key the song is played. this would prevent "non-harmonic notes"

4) Add additional midi note channels and assign octave ranges to specific instruments. Assuming that you had 4 instrument channels the first billion digits of Pi played at 1 second per note, the composition should last at least 3.96 years at 24 x 7 x 365.25. Generally normal performances are not this long. but once one had the software script written it would be the ultimate in elevator music as it would be an ever changing tune

5) Add a filter which forces the note stream into an 8 or 16 note Sequencer of notes. This causes "patterned musicality". This is done by taking the next 8 or 16 notes of a instrument and playing them until the next 8 or 16 notes are captured. The process could then be repeated until you run out of notes.

6) Add a Chord construction algorithm / filter / sequencer that builds chords much in the same way that the filter / sequencer operates. Take 3 notes, construct a chord, play it until the buffer files again. Variation between single notes and the chord may be based upon how far apart in the note sequence they are.

7) Run the Markov filter again and this time use n=4. this will give two note [or chord] sequences

7a) Run the Markov filter again and this time use n=6. this will give three note [or chord] sequences

8) use 7) and 7a) to build a Markov chain based Chord patterns using the circle of fifths.

Of course this is all a written out thought experiment on some of the things which might be done by crossing Markov Chains and Pi... since I am the lazy guy I am [and get easily distracted] it remains to be seen if I will get around to doing them.

The last part of my fable for I.T. workers has been posted on my blog.