Dubiosity | Yet another incomprehensible blog written by a semi-employed graphic designer, skeptic, and pseudo-liberal atheist jackass.

What I do in my spare time (to prove to myself how huge of a nerd I am)

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Bevans

Ever get a problem in your head that you obsess over for days, or even weeks (or longer)? This is the one I’ve been working on for a while.

At some point, I started to wonder about dice rolling. Specifically, I wondered about the difference between rolling a single 12-sided die and two 6-sided dice. How do the two compare? Obviously, with a 12-sided die (which I will refer to as d12, in grand D&D tradition) every number on the die has an equal chance of being rolled (8.33%), ignoring variations in dice shape, weight, texture, etc.

But what about when you use a pair of six-sided die (d6)? Like a d12 (or any properly made dice) each number has the same chance of being rolled (16.67%). But when using them in a game, you add them up. How does that affect your odds of getting certain numbers?

Continue reading →

What’s so bad about living forever?

Posted on June 23, 2009 by Bevans

I just read a very interesting article about a girl who hasn’t aged in 16 years (which isn’t exactly an accurate statement, but fits well enough). The story briefly talks about how studying the girl’s bizarre condition could potentially teach us a lot about human aging, and perhaps even how to prevent it.

But I was a bit troubled when I read this:

In the long term, the idea that the aging process might somehow be manipulated raises serious questions about what human beings might do with that knowledge.

“Clearly, that’s the science fiction aspect of it,” said Walker, describing the social and ethical dilemmas that would arise. “We can’t have continued reproduction and people who don’t age.”

This confuses me, and makes me wonder why a doctor would say such a thing. Surely he has no problem with treating people medically to prolong their lives. Aging is a natural process, but so are cancer and seizures and disease. Thanks to medical science, the average human lifespan has doubled over the past 2000 years or so (I didn’t bother to look up that number, by the way). In a way, aging is just another problem with our bodies for scientists to fix.

Continue reading →

Conflicted feelings about Star Trek

Posted on May 13, 2009 by Bevans

Spock would be cool in a 70's-style cop drama

I’m going to talk about the new Star Trek movie. I will be using spoilers throughout. So go see it if you haven’t already, then come back and read this.

I saw the new Star Trek movie last night, and I thought it was pretty good. It was great to see so many familiar people and places, and I didn’t realize how much I missed seeing new adventures in this amazing future that Roddenberry created. However, despite how much I enjoyed it, I’m still conflicted.

First, let’s look back a couple years. When I first heard that they were going to do another Star Trek movie I was happy but wary. I assumed that it probably wouldn’t be another Next Gen movie, since everyone was aging too much, and they killed my favorite character in the previous one (and it was pretty ridiculous that they kept having to toss Worf in there somehow when he should’ve been on DS9 or Qo’noS). Probably wouldn’t be about the DS9 or VOY crews either, since both of those shows had pretty definite endings that split up the crews…and making a movie of either would probably be a bad move from a business standpoint anyway.

I was hoping that the new movie would have a new ship and a new crew, and take place after all the other movies and shows, and maybe have a new villain or some other big threat to deal with, since the Federation didn’t have too many big threats to deal with anymore: the Klingons were allies, the Cardassians were crushed in the Dominion war, the Dominion was crushed in the Dominion war, the Borg were…just not a threat anymore…hell, even the Romulans were much less angry than they were before (and are destroyed just moments before this new movie starts). At that point, they needed an interesting new challenge to face, and an interesting new bunch of characters to face it.

Continue reading →

Is PETA really euthanizing most of its shelter animals? Yes.

Posted on March 30, 2009 by Bevans

This image doesn’t really have anything to do with this story, but I made it a while ago and I think it’s funny.

Here’s one I heard about a few months ago, but didn’t think about much until it popped up again today on Digg, as most things do.

As the story goes, PETA (the animal rights group) euthanized 95% of all the animals it took in during 2008. Wow. But, is it true?

While researching, I quickly found my way to a site called “PETA Kills Animals”, which seems to be the source of this claim. They have the data they used all wrapped up in a nice PDF file and a table of data showing the exact numbers, from 1998 to 2008. And yes, the data shows, without a doubt, that PETA is euthanizing huge numbers of animals. Case closed, I’ll share the site on Facebook to make myself feel good. Right?

However, someone on Digg doubted the numbers, and claimed the numbers were much lower. Another poster chimed in with links to the data directly from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (PETA’s headquarters are in Virginia.) That site has PETA’s data from 2004-2007, so that’s the date range I’ll be sticking with for the rest of this article.

I looked at the exact numbers, and at first glance something seemed wrong. In 2007, PETA took in 8362 animals, and euthanized 1815 of them. That’s definitely not 95%; it’s 22%. Huh?

Continue reading →

Energize your mind with new-age bullshit

Posted on March 21, 2009 by Bevans

When I started this blog, I thought I’d be writing primarily about cool science news items, and shedding light on the latest scams, and maybe even writing about politics and religion if I had time. Well, as you can see by the Categories box to the right, I had that completely backwards. The problem is that I really don’t have much to contribute to a scientific news item, besides “this is cool”.

However, I think I’ve gotten pretty good at identifying pseudoscientific claptrap when I see it, and this certainly qualifies for that description:

If you watched that video, you’re probably either thinking “that’s obvious nonsense” or “wow, maybe I should start doing that”. Actually, you’re probably also thinking “that’s the worst reporting I’ve ever seen” and I agree with you there.

A classic joke among us skeptics goes something like this:

Q: “What do you call alternative medicine that actually works?” A: “Medicine.”

A lot of people are inclined to believe in alternative medicine, because they see it as a viable alternative to modern medicine. What many people don’t realize is that there’s really no such thing as “alternative medicine”. There’s medicine, and then there’s unproven and disproven treatments. This “Superbrain Yoga®” seems to be a mixture of both unproven and disproven treatments. Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2 3

Who’s to blame for the National Debt?

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Bevans

As a Graphic Designer by trade, an artist in general, and a scatterbrain in particular, I like to see data in graphs and charts. To me, it’s just much more useful to see information graphically represented (see my previous post for a good example) than to examine tables of raw data. So when I see a good chart, it makes a big impression on me.

This chart (or others like it) isn’t exactly new. It’s been floating around the net for a few years, and it clearly shows that the National Debt increases at a significantly greater rate when we have a Republican president. I’ve seen this chart pop up on Digg and in message board comments all over the place. There are apparently a lot of people who have it bookmarked and are ready to post a link to it at the first sign of praise of Republican fiscal policy or criticism of Democrat fiscal policy.

However, one of the first criticisms this chart gets is always something along the lines of “the President doesn’t really have much control over the economy” or that it’s really a problem caused in the Senate, since they’re the ones who come up with the bills. The inevitable response to that is “yes, but the President can veto those bills”. Who’s really to blame?

Continue reading →

Something I’ll never be capable of understanding

Posted on February 3, 2009 by Bevans

I was in Barnes & Noble just now, browsing through the science section. I came upon a book called “String Theory Demystified” by David McMahon. I’ve been meaning to find a good book that lays out String Theory and Quantum Physics in a way that even a Graphic Designer can understand, and this book looked perfect. Just 306 pages, well organized, seems well-written.

Here’s what I see on page 5:

That’s from the friggin’ Introduction. The rest of the book is filled with even more complex equations.

I’m sure the book is great, but it’s clear to me now that this is WAY over my head.

I’m not ignoring you

Posted on January 27, 2009 by Bevans

First off, I’ve gotta point out how awesome it is that people are actually reading this blog, and caring enough to respond to my posts, even though right now my traffic is rather low. I know it takes a long time to build a blog, and it’s even harder when one of your primary foci is a topic that most people don’t agree with.

One of the reasons I blog in the first place is to foster discussion, and to get new (and old) ideas out into the light. I’ve tried to respond when people disagree (or agree) with something I’ve written, but I haven’t been doing a very good job.

Whenever someone posts a comment to this blog, I get an e-mail telling me I have a new comment. Normally. However, it doesn’t always work, as has become obvious to me by how many comments I’ve found that I haven’t read yet. So, as a solution, I found out that Blogger (the site software I use) is set up to allow you to see every comment to your blog in an RSS feed. (Here it is, if you want to track it too.)

In the future, I’ll (hopefully) be much quicker with my responses. If I feel the need to make them, of course.

Also, I’ve added a link to the right so people can contact me directly, in case you want to suggest something or say something private or tell me how much Jesus loves me, or whatever else you want to say.

Dexter: Moral ambiguity and cognitive dissonance in television (and why I love it)

Posted on November 9, 2008 by Bevans

Ok, let’s take a break from all the politics and talk about TV.

One of my favorite shows right now is a Showtime series called Dexter. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who’s familiar with it, which is a shame, because it’s one of the most interesting and gutsy shows on TV right now.

On its surface, Dexter seems like yet another crime show. It takes place is perpetually-sunny Miami, it has a cast of interesting characters, and it focuses on Dexter (shockingly enough) who is an easy-to-like blood-spatter analyst working for the Miami police department. But the thing that sets this show apart is that Dexter is also a serial killer.

The story is told primarily from Dexter’s perspective, and you hear his inner monologue. On the outside, he’s the quirky guy who brings a box of doughnuts to work every day to share with his co-workers. But he’s driven to murder people, and does so quite frequently. He makes sure that his victims are criminals, but he’s not doing it to get bad guys off the streets. He does it because he enjoys killing; because he has a need for it. He even collects a drop of blood from each victim on a microscope slide, which helps him (and the audience) keep track of exactly how long he’s been doing it, and how often. Beyond that, he’s pretty much a normal person who deals with normal problems, who has a normal life, and a pretty normal job.

The thing I find most fascinating about the show is that it’s not trying to tell you what to think about what Dexter does. It’s a constant festival of cognitive dissonance, with your mind and morality constantly flipping between what you perceive as good and evil, and usually coming up with something in between. It raises far more questions than it answers. Is it ok for Dexter to kill a serial rapist? How are you supposed to feel when that same rapist begs for his life before Dexter plunges a knife into his chest? Is Dexter any better than the people he’s killing? Does Dexter’s difficult past make what he’s doing understandable?

Dexter isn’t the one-dimensional serial killer character you typically see opposite the “good guys” on the standard procedural cop show. He’s a very likeable character. You want to see him succeed in life. You don’t want to see him caught and sent to jail, even though it seems like he deserves it.

Dexter isn’t a show for people who view the world in black & white. This isn’t about the good guys catching the bad guys. It’s about a good guy who’s also a bad guy, and it’s not telling you how to think. It’s showing you that the real world is shades of gray, and that you have to weigh each situation as it comes.

I need Halloween costume ideas

Posted on September 25, 2008 by Bevans

Halloween is about a month away, and I need a good idea for a costume.

Last year, I went as a Bridge Inspector. I actually won the "best costume" award at the Halloween party, but I only won for the idea, because my costume was pretty lousy. I wore what I was wearing that day, but mis-buttoned my shirt. Then I put a hard hat on, backwards. Then I made a nametag labelled "Brige Inspectar" and wore it upside-down. And I went out and spent a whopping $1.49 on a clipboard. Yes, it was a VERY distasteful costume. My aunt actually gave me the idea.

The year before, I went as a birdwatcher. I wore what I was wearing that day, put on a straw hat and binoculars, and that was it. I wore them for about half an hour before I got tired of them and put them away.

The two or three years before THAT, I didn’t have a costume at all. And before that, I went as "Darth Maui", which was just a hawaiian shirt (which I happened to be wearing that day…noticing a pattern?) and a toy lightsaber.

So yea. I need something better.

Some restrictions:

Has to be cheap. Preferably free.
Has to work with my goatee. I’m not shaving.
No makeup. No makeup. No makeup.
I’m a tall/large person. I don’t think I need to say more.

Ok people, think for me. Find me a costume idea!

Health care debate

Posted on September 21, 2008 by Bevans

I had a hell of a time finding this. MPR really needs a better search engine.

Last Thursday, as I was riding home from class, I turned on NPR to listen to the news. I don’t do this very often, because I normally have my MP3 player with me, so I listen to podcasts. But, I’ve gotta replace its hard drive, so I was forced to listen to whatever happened to be on the radio at the time. On-demand media has spoiled me.

I’m glad I did though, because NPR was broadcasting a debate on health care between E. Richard Brown and Daniel Kessler, advisors to Obama and McCain (respectively) on issues relating to health care (possibly other issues too; the beginning of the audio is cut off).

Sounds really boring, but it was actually pretty fascinating. Brown calls out Kessler repeatedly on his distortions, and generally flogs him. The audience even began to turn on Kessler too – when he says that nobody actually wants single-payer health care, the audience actually boos him. This is the type of audience who would go and watch a health care debate, and they booed someone.

Needless to say, I think Obama has the superior health plan. I firmly support universal health care (not just because I’m broke and healthcareless), and he’s planning to take steps in that direction.

Dubiosity via RSS and Facebook

Posted on September 14, 2008 by Bevans

I just wanted to point out that I’ve set up a page for Dubiosity on Facebook, if anybody is interested in adding it to their profile. It should inform you when I make a new post (which can be turned off if you want) which is handy if you don’t do RSS.

Speaking of RSS, if you like that sort of thing, the Dubiosity feed is right here. Most browsers will show that there’s an RSS feed associated with this blog automatically, but in case yours doesn’t, there you go. (You should probably get an update or a different browser if it doesn’t.)

Funding for what?

Posted on September 3, 2008 by Bevans

I was just reading the newspaper (it’s like a web site without links) and there was a story about McCain’s insane new VP choice, Sarah Palin. The story mentioned something about how Palin thinks that abstinence-only education needs more funding.

FOR WHAT? What could they possibly be spending the existing abstinence-only budget on? Books? Here, let me write you an abstinence textbook:

Abstinence is Fun! (No, Really)
by Bevans

Chapter 1:
Don’t have sex until you’re married, because God says so.

The End.

Maybe they’re spending all the money on little action figures with extremely well-articulated hands, so they can teach kids how to hold hands instead of doing what every single other source of information in the world (including their own bodies) is telling them they should do. The high cost could come from the fact that the figures are rigged to explode if two of the same gender get too close to each other.