It was "revealed" in todays Sunday mail (and I assume at least all other APP publications) that murdered multimillionaire businessman Herman Rockefeller met his killers through an internet sex site. The article continued he had "at least five (5) secret pre-paid mobile phones" and had "at least one mystery girlfriend".

The article also noted that Mr Rockefeller is a married man with 2 children before it continued to drag his name through the proverbial mud. I find it utterly appalling, that a journalist would stoop so low as to write such an article. A man has been killed, and I honestly don't see how his past transgressions are any of our business. Indeed, by making such public statements about the man when he has only recently been murdered must be causing untolled heart-ache and distress to his family.

And the worst part of the whole thing morally is that Herman Rockefeller isn't here to defend himself. At any rate I fail to see how the interworkings of anyones personal life, including their transgressions, where they don't directly effect public life, should become public knowledge. I'm sick of hearing about this or that persons sexual transgressions, it's none of my business nor is it any of yours. It only adds mountain to an already painful situation. It also cheapens the publication, reducing it to little more than a trashy tabloid magazine. I feel journalists should be legislated in such a way as to prevent them reporting on such things.

If it doesn't effect more people than a persons private family, then it honestly shouldn't be reported on.

I recently stumbled across a website for a Christian organisation calling themselves "The Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) with their main goal apparently being to harmonise Science with the Bible. One would think then any serious attempt at such would be done by a team of fully qualified science majors specialising in a selection of fields such as variants of Biology, Geology and the sciences involved in genetics amongst others.

Logically speaking, one has to be able to understand the science before they attempt to harmonise with it, or indeed as the organisation seem to often do, refute it and so the aforementioned team would be necessary for serious conclusion. However; as is often the case with Christian websites refuting science; no such team exists at the "Institute of Creation Research" with their misunderstanding of DNA sequencing and even the roles of different chromosomes easily demonstrated in their front page article "Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps" (the miscaps are theirs not mine).

The Article refers to the results of the comparison of Human Y Chromosomes with the Y Chromosomes in Chimps which were published in the biological journal "Nature". The original article in Nature speaks about how little knowledge of the Y Chromosomes evolution across species as full sequencing has only ever, until recently, been performed on Humans. The article then goes on to speak about how divergent the Y Chromosomes in Humans and Chimps are.

Showing their total and complete ignorance to genetics, the "Institute of Creation Research" then picked up the article in Nature and decided to run it's results as proof humans and chimps are unrelated and share no common ancestor. In fact the results actually prove nothing like that. In outright incomprehension they continued on to attempt to use this data to disprove the fact that Humans and Chimps hold 98% of their genome in common.

"Most of their findings do not fit well with the often-repeated erroneous statement that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, nor with the more general hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. One sequence class within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. And one whole class on the human Y chromosome “has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome].”"

They couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Beyond the use of their continual phrase "vice versa" being redundant (It's like saying X and Y are different and so is Y and X different), they've also demonstrated thorough naivety towards how genetics works, how the 98% genome comparison between humans and chimps was achieved and the role the Y Chromosome plays.

So on the off chance someone from the ICR stumbles across this blog, and to better educate people before they read such crude pseudo-scientific articles I'll explain the situation a little better. The Y chromosome exists ONLY in males, meaning that females exist entirely without it, but funnily enough are still part of the same species. Meaning the Y chromosome is more about gender difference then it is about species difference. While they haven't yet been compared, I'm quite certain you'll see equivalent differences in the Y chromosomes of birds. It doesn't mean they don't hold a common ancestor, nor that they aren't all birds.

Furthermore, if you compare the human Y chromosome with that of another human, you'll find a large amount of differences just as you will with any other part of DNA sequencing. This is because of genetic variation, and so it isn't overly surprising to find differences between humans and chimps. What the scientists involved WHERE surprised at was there were more differences than they predicted. But as previously stated little is known about the evolution of the Y chromosome, it's an area for which this comparison is only the beginning of research.

But simply misjudging the number of differences is no more proof that humans and chimps are unrelated, than the countless misjudgements and mistakes made during the evolution of IVF proves it won't produce babies. Clearly IVF does produce babies, and clearly misjudgements in differences doesn't disprove theories nor do they disprove the FACT that humans and chimps share 98% of their genes in common.

To illustrate how completely out of context the ICR have taken comments made in the original Nature article check out these 2 sequential paragraphs taken from the "Institute of Creation Research" article

"The Nature paper expressed the mismatch between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a more muted tone: “Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”1 Autosomes are the chromosomes other than the X and Y.

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp’s as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken’s. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of rapid wholesale rearrangements, and rapid generation of both new gene-containing and regulatory DNA."

The Nature article quote clearly is referring more towards the timeline difference, rather than actual similarities between humans and chickens. It's a quote that is clearly directed toward the surprise in difference between Y chromosomes and how long those changes were previously thought to have taken. But undoubtedly it's a quote that will go on to haunt science for years to come as creationists misunderstand the quote continually.

Ultimately anyone who can not conclusively see the similarities both in physical looks and behaviour modelling between humans and chimps is delusional. Evolution is a theory backed by insurmountable evidence, and while there may be surprises found during it's continued research, those surprises won't be such as to disprove the theory of evolution, which itself is still evolving as new research is preformed. If anything, all this new data about differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes proves is some timeline theories are off. To conclude anything more than that however is laughable.

Links;

ICR Article
Original Nature Article

The much anticipated apple iPad was announced yesterday as expected; and as I imagined isn't really what one would call a show stopper.

The iPad measures 9.5 x 7 inchs with basically all of that space constituting the touch screen. And while I praise apple for their continued green approach to new devices, I fear the aluminium frame may feel bulky, and the glass components make it easily broken. The first thing one notices when they look at the device is that it literally resembles a super-sized iPhone or iPod Touch, and you honestly aren't to far off.

The iPad is yet another apple device to lack a physical keyboard, with apple choosing to embed their proprietary virtual keyboard which has featured in their other touch devices instead. This indeed limits what can be done on the device as the user must type with the underwhelming virtual keyboard, causing most people to churn out numerous typos. With that said however, I suppose it's down to apples good thinking that they haven't marketed this product as a desktop replacement or office tool.

The iPad features a 1Ghz processor which, for a device of it's size leaves me entirely under-whelmed. Even my netbook which is 10.1 inch contains a 1.6Ghz atom processor. The large screen is somewhat obviously touch, allowing for the familiar navigation of the iPod Touch & iPhone. It's capable of playing ACC and mp3 music files as well as mp4 and mov video files. The iPad also contains the full safari web browser and email client, so it comes as no surprise I guess that apple are marketing it as best used for surfing the web.

While I have to credit apple with including an inbuilt microphone, I can't shake the feeling that they missed the boat completely by failing to include a web cam. With the virtual keyboard ruling out using the device for emails of great length or substance, and with the growing market for video calls I would have thought it a logical conclusion to add in a web cam.

So what CAN the iPad do? Well apart from surfing the internet, sending and receiving email, listening to music and watching videos the device is able to...wait for it...view photos! Beyond that you're able to download and use apps from the app store, and use the iPad as an ebook reader by downloading iBook and purchasing apple proprietary format ebooks. And that brings us to the extent of what the iPad can do.

To be honest I can't see a reason ANYONE would want one. With desktop and laptop computers taking care of your work/office needs and much of your home computing needs; with netbooks and laptops enabling mobile computing and smart phones taking care of the rest of your internet (including email) needs, where does the iPad fit in? That is to say, when you get down to it the iPad literally is just a giant iPod Touch. In fact, the iPod Touch is able to do some things that the iPad can't!

Can you really see yourself carrying something around the size of an A4 piece of paper in order to listen to music, watch movies and look at your photos when the smart phone in your pocket can do all that and more? And can you really honestly see yourself wondering around with an aggravating touch device trying to write emails on the go and surf the web when again, the phone in your pocket at a fraction of the size can do all that too? And lets face facts here; at $259 including free unlimited GSM data transfer to purchase and download ebooks, the amazon kindle is far better designed and priced if you're after an ebook reader.

The iPad has 3 storage choices; 16GB, 32GB and 64GB and comes in both a wifi stand alone and a 3G + wifi versions for surfing the web. And lets be real here, no one is going to want to be tied to a wifi network, so the 3G + wifi version is the only realistic option here. With the 16GB 3G+wifi model costing $629US and the 64GB model at $829 the iPad has priced itself out of the market. But I'm sure that apple will come up with some ingenious marketing ploy to suck people into buying this underdeveloped offering. Essentially however it comes to this, if you want to waste money, get no real benefit and look like a dork by all means rush out and by an iPad. However if your sensible, value your money and your self respect then give the iPad a wide berth and leave it to shrink into obscurity as another apple iFail device.

Links;

Technical Specifications
Pricing
Amazon Kindle

It's often said that if aliens ever visited earth that we would be able to communicate with them by way of mathematics. That maths is a universal language. I disagree entirely; here's why.

Mathematics; including the numbers and other symbols used in it's function; are no more than a concept. That is to say, they exist in the same way as time or language do; solely in our minds. Far from being a universal concept, mathematics is nothing more than a means to rationalise, order and attempt to predict an otherwise chaotic universe. The reality of the situation is that 1 + 1 only equals 2 because we say it does. We could have just as easily have designed the system in such a way as to make it equal 5.

The most interesting observation about mathematics is that it is a system which has been designed around the concepts we wish it to express. Or in other words, instead of mathematics being a function that the natural word obeys, it is a concept that has be designed around the natural word. How does that matter you may ask?

For mathematics to be a universal language then it would have to contain universal truths which it sadly, and contrary to some large brain thinkers belief; does not. To contain universal truth it would have to be a function to which nature obeys. Or in other words, mathematics would have to of existed prior to the creation of matter. But far from this being the case, it can be observed that mathematics uses made up concept to explain the functions of nature and the greater universe.

This explains why advanced calculations can be, and are often, off sync with reality. It explains why the unknown universe remains unknown. For instead of having rules which all matter must obey, we come up with rules that we observe matter functioning under. Leaving blank anything we have never observed and thus causing gaps and holes in the mathematical concept. If something is unknown &/or unobserved then we can attempt to apply equations from known &/or observed situations to the function, but this usually ends up rather wrong.

Again, this explains why the universe remains very much a mystery 40 years after man aledgidly landed on the moon. The understanding simply isn't there. Instead humanity functions by first observing and then theorising conceptual equations to explain what they have observed. Or in other words, far from being a marvel of technological genius; all of human technology, experience, achievement and observation is rarely anything more than a colossal fluke. Eureka has less to do with planned thought and more to do with lucky coincidence.

So, for future reference; should you ever encounter an alien being during your travels. Attempting to communicate with it through mathematics, be them simple or advanced in nature, more than likely will NOT work. It remains only a concept fixed solely in our minds.

Once again the media has attempted to state a debate about changing the Australian flag. There was once a time, when I was a teenager that I supported the idea of changing the flag. The argument that we aren't apart of England any more, so we shouldn't have the union jack on our flag, somehow used to make sense to my teenage brain. Thankfully however, age has set me straight, I no longer feel it's a good idea at all. Indeed now days I can't think of a worse idea and there is a great deal of logic to me thinking this way.

Most often the argument for keeping the flag realise entirely on our history, but while that argument is a very good one; I mean most of our grandfathers fought for the rights and freedoms that flag represented; it isn't the only argument for it not to change. I think the best reason for us not to remove the union jack is simply that contrary to what proponents of changing the flag might say, we are actually still technically part of England and the commonwealth. Now if we want to have a serious conversation about becoming a republic that is something completely different, and does not require us to change the flag at any rate. But certainly while we are still officially and technically a part of England and the Commonwealth then the union jack should remain in place without question.

Another quite major point is that Australia is only recently starting to make a name for itself and gain some respect on the international stage. Where previously we were thought of as some tiny backward country in the middle of the pacific, suddenly world powers are starting to sit up and take notice of us. We suddenly have the weight to have our say actually count for something and be included in some pretty important global discussions which we previously would have been excluded from. By changing our flag we seriously risk losing the respect of the international community.

Flags are the symbol of a nation, by changing it you risk sending a message of instability and/or the loss of national identity. If the international community were to think of us in such a way, we would lose serious political respectability and clout. It is extremely important for our nation and our region that Australia continue to have a voice on the international stage. If we lost it, then it would spell doom for our nation in a number of ways.

We would no longer have a say in the direction our country moves, instead going back to the days were we simply followed. Australia is a country of innovation and leaders, I don't think any one wants to go back to being sheep. But more than that our economy would crumble. If was became somewhat of a joke to the international community then we risk losing private, corporate investment in this country. Both from foreign companies already here and from those whom might otherwise have come in the future. Say what you will about foreign investors; but when it comes to the crunch they provide hundreds of thousands, if not millions of AUSTRALIAN jobs. Chances are that if you work for a large company then foreign investment has played a part somewhere in there. Changing the flag could threaten your job!

Another point of order is simply that there are no viable replacement designs. I find the suggestion we place the aboriginal "flag" where the union jack currently is offensive. Aboriginals had no concept of flags prior to European settlement, after which time they became incorporated under the Australian flag. The idea that aboriginals have their own flag is ludicrous and goes well to show their unwillingness to become a true part of this nation. There is no alternative to the current flag design that is viable! Without a viable alternative why is anyone even bringing up this debate in the first place? Seriously...

But mostly, the flag as we know it inspires pride by all Australians. It's a flag that celebrates our history; good and bad. It's a flag that our fathers and grandfathers have fought for; and some of them died for. It's a flag that helps define our national identity both locally and in the international community. You only need look around tomorrow (Australia day) to see the absolute pride that it helps to develop. Our flag is perfect the way it is and should NOT change. What should change however is this debate periodically being brought about by the media. I understand that they want news that will make you watch their show or read their paper, but honestly if this is the best they can come up with then it's no wonder their entire industry is in danger to bloggers, podcasters, vodcasters and amateur news distribution.

So I thought I'd start doing a weekly wrap-up by way of vodcast. We've had a bit of a problem getting the video on YouTube as it runs for 13 minutes and YouTube apparently don't want to know you if your video goes over 10 minutes. So contray to what the video says, currently you can't want this episode on YouTube. I will keep you posted as to developments on whether we decide to trim future vodcasts to fit youtube, or just give them the flick.

Black music like rap, hip hop and this new very of r'n'b are weird sure, and they suck big time. But what is even weirder and completely sad is when White people, especially young girls, try to immitate it. To bolster my case I submit the video I pulled off YouTube below. Note other then how stupid their lyrics are and how funny they look trying to be black, that they have completely messed up the chroma key.

Sarah doesn't stop with her Sarahisms. An ad for Channel Go's saturday movies came on and the scene with Sarah Jessica Parker on the boy of a dog from Mars Attacks came on. Sarah was like "yeah that suits Sarah Jessica Parker" and I was like what? And she explained "her head on a dog" in a way that she didn't recognise the movie.

I asked her if she'd seen the movie and she said no, where is it from. I told her it's from Mars Attacks. She said she's not into space movies. I was like, it's not really a space movie it's a comedy. She asked what it's about and I told her it's a piss take of the movie independance day. She asked what happens in Independance day.

So I said, "aliens come and try to take over earth" her reply;

"Oh my god! Is that what happened ON Independance Day?"

"No honey it was a movie..." lmao

"Oh.."

Sarah actually thought for a moment there that the real life American holiday Independance Day was because Aliens tried to take over the world. ROFLMAO!!! Gee I love you Sarah, no matter what happens in life you always manage to make me giggle.

I've been saying for years that they should ban those electric scooters (mopeds) on the gold coast. The people who hire them drive around in packs like a bunch of hooligans causing trouble. They're a traffic danger and a danger to pedestrians. Usually the people who hire them also have no clue how to ride the freak'in things which makes it all the more dangerous.

Not convinced? Well think about this. A 6 year old boy was travelling down the footpath on the boardwalk in front of Sea World at the weekend. He was riding his foot powered scooter while his nanny walked next to him. Some fucktard on one of those hired mopeds came flying down the footpath full throttle and went straight over the little boy.

The force knocked the boy forward where he hit his head on the brick/concrete footpath and suffered severe head injuries. Apparently the moped rider hadn't even attempted to break! And worse still he did not stop to assist the child he just decimated with his motor vehicle. The boy was rushed to the Gold Coast Hospital but due to the nature of his injuries had to be transferred to the mater hospital in Brisbane. As of yesterday the boy was still listed as being in serious condition. Police say the child has sustained a fractured skull and was dragged for 20 meters on the front of the moped before being thrown to the path.

Now if these devices, or more over the hiring of them were banned from the Gold Coast this tragedy would never have happened. But lets at least learn from this experience and make sure it doesn't happen to any other people, especially young children.

Other adults whom were walking down the same path claim to have been almost struck by the same rider. The police are seeking information in regards to the identity of the rider who was described as wearing board shorts, a singlet t-shirt and a black open faced helmet. If by chance any of you have information regarding this case please contact crime stoppers immediately on 1800 333 000. Your call is toll free and can be anonymous if you wish.

And if by even bigger coincidence you're the rider of the moped, man up and turn yourself into police. What you did was utterly atrocious and you should count yourself lucky it wasn't one of my children you hit with me walking next to them. If you had, you'd be dead now. So just take a good hard look at yourself and what you've done to this poor little boy then do the right thing idiot and turn yourself in.

Links;

Crime stoppers
ABC News article
ABC News Article

Sarah just called to me and said "You know how the dentist counts your teeth?" I was like..."ummm yeah what about it"

Sarah continued "I used to think your teeth had numbers on them". Funny in a cute way for little girl Sarah to think that. But I made this humorous mistake of asking when she realised that wasn't true. She replied "Just now when I seen the dentist on play school!".

ROFLMAO!!!! How can you not find that totally hilarious?

What is wrong with vegetarians? They're like the bible bashes of the food world. It's like they feel, quite irrationally, they've found the answer to all their problems; and so they in turn feel (I suspect to cater for their own insecurities) that they have to force everyone else they come in contact with to be the same way.

And in much the same way as my soul isn't going to be saved by some moron who took a 2000 year old story book a little to literally, nor will my health be helped by turning into a bipedal cow. Indeed I find the "logic" behind a lot of vegetarians to be just as irrational as our Christian door knockers. Christians believing against all the evidence that Humanity is somehow special and separate from all other animals to me seems linked to the rather illogical belief of vegetarians that we shouldn't eat meat because killing animals is wrong?

Well I'm sorry to burst every bodies bubble but there is nothing special about humanity. Humanity isn't smarter, cooler nor endowed with special bits that other animals aren't. Humans are simply chimps, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you get that, the better off the whole planet will be.

Now with that in mind, please take this into consideration. EVERY organism on the planet owes it's life to anothers death. Yes, even as a vegetarian you are feeding from death. Not only does the decay of an animal feed the soil and thus help plants to grow, but plants themselves are living, breathing organisms.

Plants breath Carbon Di-Oxide and exhale Oxygen only during the day. Upon night fall the process is reversed with plants breathing oxygen and exhale Carbon Di-Oxide. In addition plants move daily! Sure they can't uproot and go for a walk, but their extremities do ever so slowly move all day, every day. And the big one, plants have a nervous system. Now while there is no centralised brain, this does NOT rule out the chance plants could feel pain. There is certainly some evidence (such as reflex response; where by a plants pores close in what would be thought of as painful situations) that supports the idea plants could feel pain.

Just because you can't hear that carrot screaming as you gnaw on it doesn't mean it feels any less pain than the cow did. Indeed given the plant is often alive when it's eaten means if anything, it would be feeling far more pain. I don't know about you but I sure as heck wouldn't like to be alive when someone ate me. Face it, you aren't special. And face it, extinguishing life in order for you to live is what life is all about. It's just how it's meant to be. Deal with it

Now I'm sure there will be some vegetarians whom will point to health benefits. But fact of the matter is there are actually no proven health benefits to a vegetarian lifestyle. While there are some studies that show a longer life expectancy from vegetarianism; others clearly show a decreased one. Certainly as a vegetarian you are extremely likely to be deficient in many essential vitamins and minerals. If you're thinking multi-vitamin tablets then I should warn you that the good ones are made from killing animals and harvesting the minerals from the waste product. The synthetic made ones, well they usually just give you really expensive pee as your body can do little with them.

And while of course there are vegetable proteins available, your body has to work much harder in order to use them compared to animal proteins. Protein of course is what our body uses to regenerate cells and to create new ones. Proteins make up our RNA and DNA structures, as well as form enzymes for the processing and absorption of food. That is to say, they're incredibly importable to your diet. Not only does your body use animal proteins easier but it simply can't perform some of it's functions at 100% without them. In addition, did you know that there are some medical conditions that ONLY affect vegetarians?

Now none of this would bother me anywhere near as much if vegetarians kept their eating habits to themselves, and more over didn't feel the need to comment on mine nor anyone elses. I mean sure I think you're a bit of a brainless twit for being a vego; but I'm not about to shove my beliefs down your throat. I could, in the same way vegetarian protesters dump blood on people eating meat; dump soil or more over sap on them. But honestly other than a really funny video I wouldn't have much of a lot to show for it. Fact of the matter is what I eat is my business and not the business of anyone else.

Fact of the matter is there is no reason to turn into a vegetarian, be it morale, health related or otherwise. Fact of the matter is that as you can see from the teeth of every human, you're built to eat both plants AND meat. Fact of the matter is that the reason you started to feel better when you went on your health binge has more to do with the daily exercise and active lifestyle you now lead than how you've changed your diet. And the same being greatly responsible for all that weight you lost. Look sure, if you still want to be a vegetarian regardless of the facts that's fine, your choice. But please, give me and everyone else who isn't a vego the same respect we afford to you and spot ramming YOUR CHOICES down OUR THROAT! Make sense?

And in the same spirit, please do us all a favour and stop making stupid TV shows that attempt to make people feel bad and skew the facts in an attempt to push them into a vegetarian lifestyle. Because look, fact of the matter is, being healthy and being vegetarian have very very little to do with each other. Instead how about we make shows which encourage people to use common sense when eating and establish moderation. Because at the end of the day, moderation, linked with an active lifestyle is the true key to a healthy and happy life.

Awesome Sandwiches (White Bread)
   Butter both slices of bread. On one slice add Strawberry Jam, on the other add Vegemite. This sandwich can hold it's own and gives a great contrast between sweet and bitter. For extra depth however add Luncheon and cheese as well, giving a creamy, smooth element to the sandwich. Very tasty.

   Buttering both slices of bread, add strawberry jam to one, sprinkle with shredded cheese. I prefer tasty cheddar, but I'm sure other people would probably prefer another type of cheese. The mixture of the smooth, milky, well matured cheese with the sweet jam is brilliant. To add an extra element of contrast to the sandwich melt the cheese in the microwave on one side of the bread; and spread the other with jam that has been kept in the fridge. The cold and heat together take the sandwich to another level.

   Again spreading both slices with butter, fry off some diced bacon and sprinkle over the bread. Add ketchup and Nacho Supreme Doritos. A bit of shredded cheese over the lot and you're done. This is a great sandwich when watching big TV events.

   With two buttered slices of bread, grill a juicy thin cut piece of steak. Something like a schnitzel cut is perfect. Add 2 rashers of short cut bacon to the grill as well. In a pot of blended canola/vegetable oil deep fry some fries (chips). Do you best to time everything so they're all finished cooking at the same time. Tare the cooked steak into bite sized pieces and lay them out over a slice of bread. Add shredded cheese, the fries (chips) and cross the bacon on top. Top off with Ketchup. A perfect dinner sandwich!

Drinks

   A great non-alcoholic drink to wash it all down is to mix 2/4 glass of schweppes traditional raspberry, 1/4 glass of pepsi max and 1/4 glass of sunkist. Mmmm tasty.

I subscribe to a number of Skeptic publications; and over the last year I've seen quite a number of articles published in those publications. I consider myself to be a skeptic, but I feel that perhaps there are a few people out there whom claim to be skeptic when really they only stand to debunk anything that threatens the status quo.

To me a skeptic is someone who doesn't just take what they're told by someone and accepts it. Instead, a skeptic will investigate, research and come to their own independent conclusion. To enter a situation with an unbiased and open mind, weigh up the facts and come to the simplest, most logical conclusion. But it seems to me there are quite a lot of people whom call themselves skeptics but really should be better known as debunkers. These are the sorts of people who go out of their way to try to prove that certain phenomenon, be it UFOs, ghosts, other paranormal, spiritual or mystical events, or things like swine flu vaccine being unsafe.

They're the sorts of people whom, instead of digging for the truth, will accept official versions of events from government organisations or other persons whom are invested in the cause. Debunkers are the complete opposite of a conspiracy theist, basically doing everything in there power to convince people that the status quo is the only logical answer. It's almost as if these people were employed by some interested party in order to persuaded the general public there is "nothing to see here". Of course I'm not actually suggesting this is the case, merely using the euphemism to highly how these people operate.

Increasingly I'm finding these sorts of people being published in one skeptic publication in particular; that being Skeptic Magazine. You may have heard their ad play on TopHogg FM from time to time. I am also finding these sorts of people representing skeptics everywhere on all manner of documentaries into the paranormal. Frankly, as an intelligent, well educated person, very capable of critequing and making up my own mind about events, I find some of the things these sorts of debunkers say offensive. They give the skeptic community an unwarranted perception of close minded, illogical fools.

Sometimes for whatever plausible reason, (for example the event happening as so often it is, a surprise and thus there being no camera handy) there may be little to no physical evidence. This however doesn't mean that it never happened, it just means further investigation and research may be warranted should the anecdotal evidence suggest so. This brings me to 2 quite major points.

(1) Science is far from having all the answers, regardless of what any scientist might suggest to you there is still a great deal about ourselves, our planet, our co-inhabitants and the universe around us that we simply don't understand, nor have come anywhere close to it. While humanity has spread to much of the earths land mass, we still find somewhere around 1000 new species a DAY! Most of them being insects sure, but there is still the odd larger animal in there. There is much that happens on the planet that humanity still has no answers for.

(2) Debunkers like to ignore anecdotal evidence all together, stating that it is often fraught with unreliability and thus can't be trusted of given any weight to. But I counter that statement with this simple fact. Very often our legal system uses anecdotal evidence as either part of, or even sometimes as their entire case against crime. While I concede that there are cases in nwhich due to this evidence innocent people are convicted of crime, but this is in the grand scheme of things quite rare. So thus I submit this question to you. Courts demand a high amount of reliability from the evidence they receive on a case, there are plenty of new technologies which are inadmissible in court because they aren't proven to hold high levels of accuracy. It, for example, took over a decade for DNA evidence to become something which was looked at in a court with weight. Yet anecdotal evidence has remained weighted and relied upon. If such evidence is anywhere near as unreliable as debunkers suggest, then how is it our legal system still uses it?

The fact of the matter is that there are SOME cases which debunkers dismiss due to anecdotal evidence and the lack of much in the way of the physical which do indeed warrant additional research and investigation. There are (while fewer still) some cases which while having the same amount of evidence as the previously mentioned, in their own right suggest through the anecdotal something extraordinary happening.

I am offended when debunkers try to pass off phenomenon as mass hysteria, collective imagination or some sort of psychological disorder. All too often I hear so called skeptics using such arguments to explain away UFOs for example. Trying to pass them off as a mix of collective imagination and mass hysteria. While I'm not going to say that little green men are flying all over the planet; I do find it insulting to my intelligence to be told these so called UFO phenomena are in the same category as "monsters" and "demons" as popular fiction.

To me communities telling stories about monsters between themselves or to their children, as well as stories about demons to help explain their world and scare people into a moral life; are completely different to someone telling me they seen a UFO. Now there might be a million other explanations for it beyond alien beings, but to rule it out as ever happening simply because it's only anecdotal in nature is very very wrong. A true skeptic would listen, look at how believable the story sounds and then, if believable perhaps investigate further, setting up equipment, tests or whatever is appropriate to document some form of physical evidence. I would suggest to you, never accept someone as a self professed skeptic if their mind is not open to possibilities.

As I'm sure you're aware by now, I'm by no means a Christian nor do I in any way believe in creationism. I did however come up with an argument that creationists could use if they for example didn't want to continue to look like the irrational idiots they currently do. Evolution might be a theory but it is certainly the most likely way of things happening. There is plenty of evidence, and none for creationism (I don't count the bible as evidence of anything).

Without creationism the Christian faith has some pretty gigantic holes in it. I mean if "god" didn't create it all then that undermines everything Christians believe. So my thought was, if creationists wanted to remain relevant have they ever thought of looking at it from another angel. We get the ideas of creationism from the bible, which at best is a pretty contencious reference. Even if you did take the thing as truth, you'd surely have to conceed that there is a lot of it which is metophorical.

So perhaps when the bible states that "god" made the trees and animals and blah blah blah, perhaps it was a metaphor. Perhaps, did you ever think, "god" could have created the single celled organisms which then turned into the trees and animals and what have you. An argument like that would perhaps still be plausible (I'm not sure if it would still be plausible in the writings of the bible), and would allow evolution; a well accepted theory, with plenty of evidence to back it up, run in parallel with creationism. I mean looking at it that way evolution would be evidence in the existence of god.

Not that of course it has me convinced, but I'm sure an argument like that would convince plenty of others. At the very least it would end this argument between creationists and evolutionists.

So, you're a smoker and you've realised it's a bad idea. "Therapeutic" nicotine manufacturers such as nicobate would have you believe their products will help you achieve your goal of quitting. Thing is however, their products will do nothing to aid the quitting process and indeed in most people will actually hinder it.

These are products which claim they can help you "step down" by slowly lowering the dose of nicotine. The problem with this idea is smoking is an addiction, no different to being addicted to alcohol, heroin or any other drug. As a result you need to look at quitting smoking from this realistic point of view. Would you seriously suggest to an alcoholic that they should start the process if giving up by drinking a little less each month? Of course not, nor would you suggest a heroin addict should shoot up a little less each month, or a gamblaholic should enter casinos a little less each month... you get the idea.

In the same way this wouldn't work with those addictions because it continues the addiction and chemical dependency, drastically greatening the chances of "falling off the wagon". But above and beyond the chemical dependency, it continues the mental imagining which is most important to chance in order to shed an addiction. That is to say, while you continue to see yourself as a smoker, then you will continue to have cravings and thus will never be free.

Nicabate have recently brought out a new product called "pre-quit", the therapeutic nicotine to take while you're still smoking. Products like these clearly have an interest in keeping you addicted to smoking. There is of course a finite amount of smokers in the world and with levels of new smokers dropping, if companies like nicobate actually helped you stop smoking then they'd collapse as a company. They'd eventually simply run out of customers and no company, especially publicly floated companies are interested in such things.

Quitting smoking is surely a must, but products like nicobate aren't going to aid you in any way. Instead, the only true way to get over your addiction is to go cold turkey. Yes, it will suck, but no where near as much as if you continue smoking. Cold turkey will work, especially if you do it in such a way as to develop a view of yourself as a non-smoker. That is key! Without changing your view of yourself you'll never be free of the smoking bug and will eventually start again, even if you manage to stop for a period of time.

I found this video on Youtube and thought it was very good at highlighting a few good points in the creationist/evolution debate. Clearly it pushs towards evolution, but you didn't really think it might push toward creationism did you? lol.

My Agora Netbook came by courier today. The first noticible thing when opening the box is the lack of any manuals, fliers, special offers, discs or other such things. The box simply contains the Agora netbook, a Australian mains power adaptor and the battery. Upon lifting the netbook out of the box and fitting it with it's battery I was very impressed with it's weight; or perhaps I should say, lack there of.

Weighing in at just 1.4Kg the Agora netbook is quite well suited to travel. The 10.1 inch screen is large enough to comfortable do most tasks on a computer (I'm writing this blog entry on the netbook). I have the standard Agora which comes with 1Gb of 667mhz DDR2 RAM, but the Pro comes standard with 2Gb. Upgrading my netbook to 2Gb of RAM will be a simple enough process however, as I've seen brand new 1GB suitable modules for $19.95 on ebay.

The 160Gb hard drive is MUCH appreciated, and while it's not a SSD unless the netbook really starts cooking then you still get completely silent operation. The Hard drive itself makes no noise, the only noise you do get is a very quiet buzz from the system fan. The fan also does extremely well, as even pushing the netbook to it's limits it remains at a temperature comfortable to sit on my lap.

The inbuilt webcam and mic are extremely handly, not just for video chat, but vodcasting in a mobile environment becomes very simple. The inbuilt wifi is very responsive and gives me a great signal anywhere in my house. I haven't tried it out back, but I'm pretty sure I could travel anywhere in my garden as well. The inbuilt speakers give amazing sound for their size. There is NO distortion, even when they're at their highest setting. With the aide of the Realtek HD Audio manager they do a great job of giving virtual 3D sound.

All in all with an intel atom 1.6Ghz cpu, 2Gb of RAM (in the pro version) and a 160Gb hard disc it's a netbook well ahead of the curve. And at a price of $450 it's hard to find something better at a similar price. But it's not all good news, this netbook won't appeal to everyone. It comes with gOS preinstalled, which to me is not only a pretty annoying OS, but relies far to much on Google apps for my liking. Personally, due to googles privacy policies, I tend to keep as far away from google apps being on my hard drive as I possibly can.

Being a Linux distro as well it means none of your windows apps will run natively on the system. You can get some to run through wine, but it's always a bit of a hit and miss deal. For most users it's going to be a learning curve that really isn't worth the hassle. For this reason I formatted the drive and installed Windows XP. The process of installing Windows from a USB stick (there is no optical drive) is surprisingly easy, you simply get a tool like win2usb to format you usb stick, transfer the windows cd to it and make it bootable. After that it's pretty much the normal way of installing windows except you plug in the usb instead of slipping in a CD.

I chose Windows XP because;

• I have a copy of Windows XP
• I don't really see anything in Windows 7 that makes upgrading worth while
• Windows 7 requires a minimum of 1Gb RAM to run, and as my netbook has only 1Gb of RAM, I didn't want to chance it running slow.

The drivers are a bit of a hike to find, and there are a few tricks to get the wifi and webcam to work. For example to get the webcam to work you have to go into system --> device manager --> click on the webcam and click to upgrade the driver. You have to let it search the internet to find the drivers and then it's all set up. Kogan don't actually provide the drivers in their download which is disappointing. Also I only seem to be getting 2 hrs max out of the netbook in battery mode, but I'm not sure if I only have a 3 cell battery so that may be the problem. I'm going to buy a 6 cell battery ($65) from the kogan website and see if that fixes the issue.

Also the space between the keyboard and touch pad is very compact causing accidental touchs of the pad while typing. By default the touch pad has touch clicking enabled which means accidental touchs result in some pretty odd things happening. You need to manually go through and turn this setting off. These however are all quite minor problems, and still leaves the Agora ahead of the pack. Kogan is also an Australian brand which is always a big plus in my book.

In sumary it's definitely not a netbook that will suite everyone, but if you're looking for a styish netbook that gives you leading features at a budget price it's certainly worth at least a look at.

Ok so after hearing that Avatar is meant to be the best movie ever now I mistakenly seen it. Boy was I disappointed. Far from being the greatest movie ever; avatar presents us with a jumble of story lines from previous movies. Think Braveheart, but set on another planet with people who are actually blue instead of having to paint themselves that way. Add to that a splash of the movies alien and aliens, a dab of surrogates and sprinkle the lot with a cliche love story and you've got avatar. I'm not saying it's a bad story line; although it isn't exactly great; but what I am saying is that it isn't a very original story.

I'm not going to argue that it wasn't a visually stunning movie, because it was. I didn't see it in 3D but it isn't hard to see that it was purposely shot to be seen that way. The imagination doesn't have to stretch in the slightest to be able to know where scenes were created just to have things jump out of the screen. But there have been plenty of other visually stunning movies in the past, some of which with far better story lines.

We shouldn't judge a movie based on how cool it's visual effects or special effects are. That isn't what movies should be about, you only need to watch some great old school black and white films to know that! It all comes down to story line, and this film just didn't have what it takes to become the greatest film ever made. Sure it's made lots of money, but it's one of those gimick films where they give you a different technology.

On an acting side, the characters aren't believable at all. Most notably is sigorny weaver who does an absolutely woeful job of her performance. But the bulk of the film is made up of CGI enhanced actors, which leave you wanting for some sort of connection. This is a movie that tries to do and be far to much and loses it's heart along the way.

I'm not saying don't go see the film, sure go see it, I'm sure you will be entertained. But what I am saying is don't go to see Avatar thinking it's some great movie, because it's not. Instead go for a visual experience, to experience 3D CGI mixed with the real world in High Definition. That to me is the only reason to see this film, I mean it is definitely lacking in every other department.

Since when do technophiles start putting down others because of products they own? "ha ha you own a such and such brand" it's the sort of statement you expect to come out of the mouths of primary school children, NOT from grown adults. But it seems an increasing trend online with adults putting other adults down for no good reason. It's a trend who has eaten its way into places like the whirlpool consumer forums and even facebook!

Recently I was looking at purchasing an Agora Netbook by Australian manufacture and importer Kogan. As a result I was looking around online for information about the device and reviews from people whom have purchased one. Now from all the reviews I've read they're brilliant little netbooks with owners extremely happy with what they're capable of. But I found that there were a few instances on the whirlpool forums where people had asked for input about the pro version (which costs $439) from people who owned one, or had asked questions about how to do something on the netbook. In return they'd had some loserish nerds teasing them that they owned an Agora netbook.

This is a device which has gotten incredible reviews from both industry professionals and average users alike. But yet for some reason these idiots decided it's a bad thing to own one? They made out that it has basically the same specs as an MSI Wind U100 and people should buy one of those instead. Now I'm sorry but unless you work for MSI why would you say such a thing? Also while the CPU is the same in the 2 netbooks the Agora Pro has double the amount of RAM as the Wind U100 and costs more than $100 less. I'm sorry but seriously, what exactly is the go with that?

Is it that some people are so sucked in by brand that they feel it should reign supreme over quality and value? MSI is a lame brand as it is, so after reading so many positive reviews I have purchased the netbook from Kogan and it should arrive Monday.

Another example is on facebook. I had a friend on facebook today making fun of everyone who has what he feels are really old specs in their computers. Now honestly, what is up with that? If a PC does what it's meant to do, if everything the user wants to do is catered for, what is the problem? I challenged him over it and he said "he likes performance". Performance is all good and well, but you'd hardly buy an F1 race car to commute to and from work now would you? Nor would you buy an industrial oven capable of going from room temp to 450c in under 10 seconds. It'd be a waste of money and a waste of performance.

I mean lets face it, at the end of the day a computer, regardless of it's brand, it's system specs or what OS it's running, is just an appliance for the home or office. It should be no more important to your personal identity than what brand or type of Kettle or toaster you own. What's next, people are going to start criticize each others light fixtures? Perhaps someone wants to tease me about the colour of the walls in my house, which incidentally are all white.

Surely these people have better things to do with their time and lives then attempt to belittle others over what amounts to a trivial device in the grand scheme of things.

Links;

MSI Wind U100 Specs
Kogan Agora Netbook Pro