This post is for my organic buddies and their recent adventure with colorful things.
Behold, the formation of green shit upon the introduction of UV light[1]:
Photochromism for the win!
[1] I am not clever enough to have come up with the name of this compound. Instead, I derived it from the YouTube page.
[Hat tip: The Sceptical Chymist]
Monday, June 30, 2008
Time for a Proposal
A summer without school and intense studying or research has given me loads of extra time to pursue other avenues. Baton Rouge is a small city, and New Orleans isn't that much bigger to justify the gas expenditure. So, I've run out of museums and parks to visit. What now should I do to pass the time?
Other than pining over my lack of a sexy PlayStation 3, I offer a proposal. In my capacity as caretaker of this web log, I hereby declare the month of July science month. Every day I shall write about science. You know, what I am supposed to be using this outlet for.
Oh, and I'm trying to convince my friend to join my blog as a collaborator. That way, I can justify my lack of updating. "It's her turn!!!" and all other such excuses.
If I succeed in this goal, I expect cookies to be delivered to me promptly on August 1, 2008. Do not deny me my right to those delictables!!!
Other than pining over my lack of a sexy PlayStation 3, I offer a proposal. In my capacity as caretaker of this web log, I hereby declare the month of July science month. Every day I shall write about science. You know, what I am supposed to be using this outlet for.
Oh, and I'm trying to convince my friend to join my blog as a collaborator. That way, I can justify my lack of updating. "It's her turn!!!" and all other such excuses.
If I succeed in this goal, I expect cookies to be delivered to me promptly on August 1, 2008. Do not deny me my right to those delictables!!!
Choose Your Words Carefully
Yet again, I'm the last person to discover the day's internet humor. No biggie, since it's still very funny.
The American Family Association's news outlet, OneNewsNow, has a nifty auto-replacement script that changes the word "gay" found in Associated Press streams to "homosexual". I guess it's all part of the delusion of believing sexual orientation and attraction to be directed only toward the opposite sex and believing it is the individual's behavior and choice to participate in same-sex relationships.
Whatever the reason, what happens when someone's name is Gay? Well, this is what happens:
The American Family Association's news outlet, OneNewsNow, has a nifty auto-replacement script that changes the word "gay" found in Associated Press streams to "homosexual". I guess it's all part of the delusion of believing sexual orientation and attraction to be directed only toward the opposite sex and believing it is the individual's behavior and choice to participate in same-sex relationships.
Whatever the reason, what happens when someone's name is Gay? Well, this is what happens:
If you read the original AP article and imagine the word 'homosexual' being replaced with 'gay' (or if you lack imagination, copy and paste into word and run find/replace), you'll find some very humorous and nearly scandalous phrases. Go on and search for 'Tyson Homosexual' on the site, and be entertained during your mid-afternoon break.
Chemistry Research Areas in a Few Words
The parents of a friend of mine challenged me to reduce the fields of chemistry into a few words. This was mostly to give them the idea of the difference between the organic chemistry which my friend studies and (the far superior) physical chemistry which I study. So, here's my shot in the dark for the (anymore, just academic) fields of chemistry:
- Analytical Chemistry - The art of finding and measuring chemical species.
- Organic Chemistry - The art of making carbon-based chemical species.
- Inorganic Chemistry - The art of making non-carbon-based chemical species.
- Physical Chemistry - The art of studying the physical properties of chemical species.
- Biochemistry - The art of frustrating pre-meds with chemical species.
Am I missing any others, or do I have the basics down?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Compare and Contrast
Time to dust off the blog with a politically charged post. Yes, indeed.
This will be an excercise for the reader. Compare and contrast the following two videos. Both are on religion's role for the country. One is McCain's view, and the other is obama's view. My comments follow.
Though I've always been a Mike Gravel fan myself for the true Democratic nomination, when forced back to reality about the majority of Americans being moderate to right-leaning moderate, I was always more partial to Obama's nomination. If he maintains his position in the video of this speech, then he is perhaps the better of the two major-party candidates.
Why? It is quite clear that a government built from a background of reason and not the authoritarian eddicts of religion would desire to remain as seperate as possible from religion. The typical religion represents a sort of anti-thetical thinking of our government model. That is, a central figure or figures are in charge of developing the rules and way. This figure was not typically elected or chosen as leader according to the generalized mythology, but was born into or simply present at the beginning of the process. This figure or figures are thus simply tyrrants: a monarchy sitting upon the throne of the universe dictating its whims.
It is precisely the whims of the monarch compounded by the malice of Parliament which drove the colonists to rebel against their motherland. Thus, a new government, built from the idea of proper representation and arguing for the interests of the State over the interests of the Individual emerged. This new system did away with a unitary rule in favor of the bicameral legislature with judicial and executive counterparts for a complete picture. Our government represents our ability to choose whom we wish to represent us, and thus we have the ability to elect or remove representatives and other elected officials as we please. And in the spirit of choice, of freedom, we are able to decide for ourselves whom we wish to govern our spirituality, if we even believe it to exist or be important.
But if you don't agree with my perspective and odd analogy, the driving point of Obama's position is clear and more correct than the disaster of McCain's pseudo-history. It isn't fair for those of faith to have their religion used as a tool to obtian means, and it isn't fair to those who lack faith to be subjected to abide by a foreign morality. Matters of state ought to be framed within the perspective of the people, and as such must address the concerns and consequences developed in that frame. Adding religion spins the perspective into a frame particular to a specific individual's preferance and ultimately not the desire of the people.
I like Obama. Not as much as Gravel, but Obama is leagues ahead of McCain in understanding the role of religion in polticis, it seems.
This will be an excercise for the reader. Compare and contrast the following two videos. Both are on religion's role for the country. One is McCain's view, and the other is obama's view. My comments follow.
Though I've always been a Mike Gravel fan myself for the true Democratic nomination, when forced back to reality about the majority of Americans being moderate to right-leaning moderate, I was always more partial to Obama's nomination. If he maintains his position in the video of this speech, then he is perhaps the better of the two major-party candidates.
Why? It is quite clear that a government built from a background of reason and not the authoritarian eddicts of religion would desire to remain as seperate as possible from religion. The typical religion represents a sort of anti-thetical thinking of our government model. That is, a central figure or figures are in charge of developing the rules and way. This figure was not typically elected or chosen as leader according to the generalized mythology, but was born into or simply present at the beginning of the process. This figure or figures are thus simply tyrrants: a monarchy sitting upon the throne of the universe dictating its whims.
It is precisely the whims of the monarch compounded by the malice of Parliament which drove the colonists to rebel against their motherland. Thus, a new government, built from the idea of proper representation and arguing for the interests of the State over the interests of the Individual emerged. This new system did away with a unitary rule in favor of the bicameral legislature with judicial and executive counterparts for a complete picture. Our government represents our ability to choose whom we wish to represent us, and thus we have the ability to elect or remove representatives and other elected officials as we please. And in the spirit of choice, of freedom, we are able to decide for ourselves whom we wish to govern our spirituality, if we even believe it to exist or be important.
But if you don't agree with my perspective and odd analogy, the driving point of Obama's position is clear and more correct than the disaster of McCain's pseudo-history. It isn't fair for those of faith to have their religion used as a tool to obtian means, and it isn't fair to those who lack faith to be subjected to abide by a foreign morality. Matters of state ought to be framed within the perspective of the people, and as such must address the concerns and consequences developed in that frame. Adding religion spins the perspective into a frame particular to a specific individual's preferance and ultimately not the desire of the people.
I like Obama. Not as much as Gravel, but Obama is leagues ahead of McCain in understanding the role of religion in polticis, it seems.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
