Good Scientist Cartoon. 41st set of five
When you came up with your meme meme in 1972, did you call it a meme?
Did Dawkins come up with the same name independently, or did he steal it from you?
Is it too late to sue him?
The Rev Dodgson said:
When you came up with your meme meme in 1972, did you call it a meme?Did Dawkins come up with the same name independently, or did he steal it from you?
Is it too late to sue him?
I could have stolen it from him, but I don’t think I did. A few years later I read his Selfish Gene book, published 1976, but skipped the later chapters including the chapter about the meme because they were too boring. I didn’t come across the word “meme” until Susan Blackmore published “the meme machine” in 1999.
I didn’t dare tell anyone about what I was thinking because I was frightened of the consequences of making the parasitic lifeform self-aware. Dawkins definitely didn’t swipe it from me.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 42nd set of five
Good Scientist Cartoon. 43rd set of five
No. 215:
Surely it needs two.
:)
213
Michael V said:
:)213
I reckon he’s getting pretty good at this.
The Rev Dodgson said:
No. 215:Surely it needs two.
Wait for the next set. I devote the next three or four cartoons to proving that 1 gram suffices for worse case scenario. 80% of that mass is plants. This result astounded me, when I looked into this some ten or so years ago I thought it would be a few kilograms, not grams. As a practical proposition even a few tons would not be an impossible lift.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 44th set of five
Good Scientist Cartoon, 45th set of five
224: Surely a “personal helicopter” is a “flying car”.
225: Greatest good for the greatest number is OK as far as it goes, but it all depends on the algorithm used for assessing “greatest good”:
1. How do you balance extreme harm to very small groups against small individual benefit to huge groups?
2. How do you asses risk of things not going to plan, especially very low probability events with very great consequences?
The Rev Dodgson said:
225: Greatest good for the greatest number is OK as far as it goes, but it all depends on the algorithm used for assessing “greatest good”:1. How do you balance extreme harm to very small groups against small individual benefit to huge groups?
2. How do you asses risk of things not going to plan, especially very low probability events with very great consequences?
1. There is a famous example of whether we allow an innocent man to be killed in order to avoid an outbreak of mob violence. But I can’t think of a case where what you’ve asked could apply.
2. If you can measure the probability then you can calculate it. If not, then just do the best you can.
3. How does prevention of cruelty to animals fit into this? Do we assess the “greatest good” including animals as well as humans?
Good Scientist Cartoon. 46th set of five
227 very good :)
Thinking about the morality ones:
Recent “safety in design” legislation requires that all “hazards” over the life of a building must be removed or reduced “so far as is reasonably practicable”.
What is “reasonably practicable” is not defined, but I’m sure that all lawyers and judges (whose powers of hindsight are quite unsurpassed) will recognise it when they see it.
Perhaps a Good Scientist might help us engineers, who have to do the recognition in advance.
227: Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
:)
227 is very, very old. Rowan Atkinson performed it in some of his shows, including one in Belfast that was released in 1980 as Live In Belfast.
btm said:
227 is very, very old. Rowan Atkinson performed it in some of his shows, including one in Belfast that was released in 1980 as Live In Belfast.
Other versions of 227 have already made their way into wikipedia. The original version may be due to Charles Darwin, it was certainly around by the 1890s. See
mollwollfumble said:
btm said:
227 is very, very old. Rowan Atkinson performed it in some of his shows, including one in Belfast that was released in 1980 as Live In Belfast.
Other versions of 227 have already made their way into wikipedia. The original version may be due to Charles Darwin, it was certainly around by the 1890s. See
For the last panel you could modify it for Freud, trip over an imaginary black cat in a dark room and blame your mother
The Rev Dodgson said:
227 very good :)Thinking about the morality ones:
Recent “safety in design” legislation requires that all “hazards” over the life of a building must be removed or reduced “so far as is reasonably practicable”.What is “reasonably practicable” is not defined, but I’m sure that all lawyers and judges (whose powers of hindsight are quite unsurpassed) will recognise it when they see it.
Perhaps a Good Scientist might help us engineers, who have to do the recognition in advance.
That’s a thought. Various hazards are already minimised in engineering design. Some that immediately come to mind are:
Wind hazard, fire hazard, earthquake hazard, collapse hazard, asbestos hazard, elevator-related hazards, sharp corners, trip/fall hazards, glass cut hazard, mould growth hazard, flood hazard.
Let’s take sharp corners for example. Just sitting here I can already see hazard reduction in the form of deliberate rounding of corners on my: lamps, printer, keyboard, computer desk, desktop case, monitor, speaker, heater, fireplace surrounds, piano, doorframe, kitchen table, kitchen chairs, floor tiles, wall tiles, cupboard surrounds, breakfast bar, range hood.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
227 very good :)Thinking about the morality ones:
Recent “safety in design” legislation requires that all “hazards” over the life of a building must be removed or reduced “so far as is reasonably practicable”.What is “reasonably practicable” is not defined, but I’m sure that all lawyers and judges (whose powers of hindsight are quite unsurpassed) will recognise it when they see it.
Perhaps a Good Scientist might help us engineers, who have to do the recognition in advance.
That’s a thought. Various hazards are already minimised in engineering design. Some that immediately come to mind are:
Wind hazard, fire hazard, earthquake hazard, collapse hazard, asbestos hazard, elevator-related hazards, sharp corners, trip/fall hazards, glass cut hazard, mould growth hazard, flood hazard.Let’s take sharp corners for example. Just sitting here I can already see hazard reduction in the form of deliberate rounding of corners on my: lamps, printer, keyboard, computer desk, desktop case, monitor, speaker, heater, fireplace surrounds, piano, doorframe, kitchen table, kitchen chairs, floor tiles, wall tiles, cupboard surrounds, breakfast bar, range hood.
Rounding errors…………..everywhere.
What PWM will be having is fresh French bread dunked in black tea, then at 2pm precisely I’ll be lying flat looking up at a big mother dentists light pretending to be cool, relaxed with hardly a quiver in his voice.
Peak Warming Man said:
rofl
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
227 very good :)Thinking about the morality ones:
Recent “safety in design” legislation requires that all “hazards” over the life of a building must be removed or reduced “so far as is reasonably practicable”.What is “reasonably practicable” is not defined, but I’m sure that all lawyers and judges (whose powers of hindsight are quite unsurpassed) will recognise it when they see it.
Perhaps a Good Scientist might help us engineers, who have to do the recognition in advance.
That’s a thought. Various hazards are already minimised in engineering design. Some that immediately come to mind are:
Wind hazard, fire hazard, earthquake hazard, collapse hazard, asbestos hazard, elevator-related hazards, sharp corners, trip/fall hazards, glass cut hazard, mould growth hazard, flood hazard.Let’s take sharp corners for example. Just sitting here I can already see hazard reduction in the form of deliberate rounding of corners on my: lamps, printer, keyboard, computer desk, desktop case, monitor, speaker, heater, fireplace surrounds, piano, doorframe, kitchen table, kitchen chairs, floor tiles, wall tiles, cupboard surrounds, breakfast bar, range hood.
Rounding errors…………..everywhere.
:)
mollwollfumble said:
That’s a thought. Various hazards are already minimised in engineering design. Some that immediately come to mind are:
Wind hazard, fire hazard, earthquake hazard, collapse hazard, asbestos hazard, elevator-related hazards, sharp corners, trip/fall hazards, glass cut hazard, mould growth hazard, flood hazard.
There are two problems though:
1) The hazards are not minimised, they are reduced to a low level, such that the best estimate of the additional risk reduction per $ spent is minimised. The problem with this is that the best estimate of the remaining risk is not very good, and there remain very low probability but high consequence hazards that would be reasonably practicable to reduce. It is therefore possible to completely comply with the applicable codes of practice and standards, but not comply with the legal requirements.
2) Compliance checks are poor and getting worse, to such an extent that companies that fully comply with all codes and standards (never mind the legal hazard reduction requirement) are at a significant commercial disadvantage to those that cut corners at every opportunity.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
That’s a thought. Various hazards are already minimised in engineering design. Some that immediately come to mind are:
Wind hazard, fire hazard, earthquake hazard, collapse hazard, asbestos hazard, elevator-related hazards, sharp corners, trip/fall hazards, glass cut hazard, mould growth hazard, flood hazard.
There are two problems though:
1) The hazards are not minimised, they are reduced to a low level, such that the best estimate of the additional risk reduction per $ spent is minimised. The problem with this is that the best estimate of the remaining risk is not very good, and there remain very low probability but high consequence hazards that would be reasonably practicable to reduce. It is therefore possible to completely comply with the applicable codes of practice and standards, but not comply with the legal requirements.2) Compliance checks are poor and getting worse, to such an extent that companies that fully comply with all codes and standards (never mind the legal hazard reduction requirement) are at a significant commercial disadvantage to those that cut corners at every opportunity.
Do engineers factor in the apparent stupidness increase in the general population when designing safety features
Cymek said:
Do engineers factor in the apparent stupidness increase in the general population when designing safety features
I don’t know that stupidness is increasing, I’d say it is decreasing if anything, but yes, engineers are required to allow for stupid behaviour, and do, “so far as is reasonably practicable”.
With regard to the first one…
I think Scott’s methodology must have been frightfully flawed. There are more than 1300 native bird species alive in China today, much more than in Australia, perhaps more than in any other country.
On a related topic, I was surprised to learn that there are fewer than two dozen native species of mammal still alive in Ireland.
dv said:
On a related topic, I was surprised to learn that there are fewer than two dozen native species of mammal still alive in Ireland.
That’s rather gob shite
Yes. Engineers do have to allow for stupid behaviour. Stupid behaviour like running at full speed into a pane of glass.
Yes. Stupidity is a constant, or decreasing. Stupidity is less in times of peace than in times of war.
dv said:
With regard to the first one…I think Scott’s methodology must have been frightfully flawed. There are more than 1300 native bird species alive in China today, much more than in Australia, perhaps more than in any other country.
On a related topic, I was surprised to learn that there are fewer than two dozen native species of mammal still alive in Ireland.
Scott didn’t have a methodology. He simply recorded in his diary every species of bird he saw in those two months. Both when travelling on train and when visiting local parks. For instance, around the Great Wall of China west of Beijing there were no birds at all. Not even any bird calls. The lack of bird species on his visits was just a puzzle to him, it drives me to tears.
His visits didn’t cover all of China of course. Hong Kong to Guangdong. Beijing to the Great Wall, Beijing to Mongolia, Shenyang to Korea.
Interesting about Ireland.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 47th set of five.
Good Scientist Cartoon. 48th set of five
Good Scientist Cartoon. 49th set of five
Good Scientist Cartoon. 50th set of five
250:
There are methods for synthesizing hydrocarbons from carbohydrates, even long chain carbohydrates (cellulose).
Whether they will ever be commercially useful, I don’t know.
dv said:
250:There are methods for synthesizing hydrocarbons from carbohydrates, even long chain carbohydrates (cellulose).
Whether they will ever be commercially useful, I don’t know.
Apart from which, surely graphite is a pretty useful output.
As for 249, I’d need some explaining of that to get the point.
