I came across a rather surprising article related to climate change today.
Apparantly MacDonalds have been training new management using a game environment - the winner being the player who accumulates the most profits. Fine until they introduced a global climate module into the game, at which point it started crashing at anywhere between 15 and 150 years into the future.
I've always been very skeptical of all fast food companies and try and avoid them as much as possible. While I realise they're not actually "evil" and just trying to show a profit the consequences of their actions can be extremely damaging.
I would love it if this story is 100% true and they really are stating to change their ways, but until I see proof on a daily basis I'll remain skeptical.
Categories: MacDonalds, Environment
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
A helping hand
As I was paying for the dinner provisions yesterday I handed over a 500 SEK note (about 40 GBP). They cost 250 but the automated till only spat back 150 SEK for me.
The till girl just looked confused, bashed the till a bit, and then called for help. Help, when it arrived, asked her if she'd tried bashing the till, then help bashed the till. Then the till girl and help stood around looking confused.
During all this neither of them spoke to me. I wasn't in a hurry but it would have been nice to get an apology, or even for one of them to look like they planned on doing something - like maybe getting my 100 SEK from another till so I could be on my way.
Meanwhile a queue was building up.
So a big "Thank you" to the couple behind me that handed me 100 SEK note and told me not to worry about it - they knew the till girl and would sort it out with her later.
It's always nice to have something give you a little bit of faith in human nature. I owe you a beer guys if I see you out around Stockholm.
Categories: Samaritan
The till girl just looked confused, bashed the till a bit, and then called for help. Help, when it arrived, asked her if she'd tried bashing the till, then help bashed the till. Then the till girl and help stood around looking confused.
During all this neither of them spoke to me. I wasn't in a hurry but it would have been nice to get an apology, or even for one of them to look like they planned on doing something - like maybe getting my 100 SEK from another till so I could be on my way.
Meanwhile a queue was building up.
So a big "Thank you" to the couple behind me that handed me 100 SEK note and told me not to worry about it - they knew the till girl and would sort it out with her later.
It's always nice to have something give you a little bit of faith in human nature. I owe you a beer guys if I see you out around Stockholm.
Categories: Samaritan
To clone or not to clone
The Telegraph reports today that Prof. Ian Wilmut, a leading voice in the field of genetics and cloning, has abandoned his position of being "implacably opposed" to human cloning and argues, in is upcoming book, that there are occasions when it should be considered.
Cloning has been a hot topic for a long time but since Dolly the sheep appeared on the scene it seems that everbody has an opinion, usually against it.
Should we oppose it though?
Let us first assume that before any type of gene manipulation is allowed in humans there will be a lot of research and testing behind it. We do this for new drugs, food additives, cosmetics (touchy subject) and any number of other things to it is no great stretch to imagine that before you're allowed to tweak somebody's DNA you should have to prove that the process is safe.
So, we have a process which is safe (or as safe as most medical procedures or pharmaceuticals) and offers two immdiately obvious benefits:
- Screening for hereditory disease (both in parents and in the foetus) and the opportunity to do something about it prior to birth.
- Genetic manipulation to produce smarter, stronger and generally "better" children.
Now, as far as I can see, the only objection to the first benefit is that it "goes against God". After all, what parent wouldn't want to reduce the risk of their child getting Parkinsons, Alzheimers or any number of other hereditary diseases. The argument that it is against God god implies a rather unpleasant divinity when you consider some of the diseases involved that could potentially be eradicated.
The second benefit is more likely to generate opposition, both from the "against god" lobby and from many people that would be in favour of screening for hereditary problems. After all we are now out of the realms of preventative medicine; we are now making improvements.
But why shouldn't we make improvements? Absolutely no reason as far as I can see, as long as they are genuine improvements. Why, given a choice, would you like your child to have an IQ of 120 when they could have an IQ of 220. Why would you want them to be physically weak when their bone density and musculature could be improved? Why would you want them to have to wear glasses when you could give them 20:20 vision? Why would you want them to endure unnecessary dental procedures?
The answer is that you shouldn't; of course this will make your child "superior" to you. Perhaps this is what is really holding us back. We all desire to be the best - stronger, cleverer, faster. Why would we deliberately create somebody who could outshine us in all respects?
The answer? We've been doing it for millennia. By choosing the strongest alpha-male or the partner with the most attractive qualities we are endeavouring to create the best of all possible offspring. All it should really take is a shift in perspective (I hesitate to use the somewhat tired phrase "paradigm shift") for us to see that making our children smarter can only be good for the species as a whole.
Of course there is one fly in the ointment - where do we draw the line? Should the parents that want a child with blonde hair and blue eyes be allowed to do so? Will "less desirable" traits (as current fashions dictate) die out or won't it matter because when they become fashionable again they can be turned back on.
At what point does genetics become genocide?
Categories: Cloning, Genetics, Morality
Cloning has been a hot topic for a long time but since Dolly the sheep appeared on the scene it seems that everbody has an opinion, usually against it.
Should we oppose it though?
Let us first assume that before any type of gene manipulation is allowed in humans there will be a lot of research and testing behind it. We do this for new drugs, food additives, cosmetics (touchy subject) and any number of other things to it is no great stretch to imagine that before you're allowed to tweak somebody's DNA you should have to prove that the process is safe.
So, we have a process which is safe (or as safe as most medical procedures or pharmaceuticals) and offers two immdiately obvious benefits:
- Screening for hereditory disease (both in parents and in the foetus) and the opportunity to do something about it prior to birth.
- Genetic manipulation to produce smarter, stronger and generally "better" children.
Now, as far as I can see, the only objection to the first benefit is that it "goes against God". After all, what parent wouldn't want to reduce the risk of their child getting Parkinsons, Alzheimers or any number of other hereditary diseases. The argument that it is against God god implies a rather unpleasant divinity when you consider some of the diseases involved that could potentially be eradicated.
The second benefit is more likely to generate opposition, both from the "against god" lobby and from many people that would be in favour of screening for hereditary problems. After all we are now out of the realms of preventative medicine; we are now making improvements.
But why shouldn't we make improvements? Absolutely no reason as far as I can see, as long as they are genuine improvements. Why, given a choice, would you like your child to have an IQ of 120 when they could have an IQ of 220. Why would you want them to be physically weak when their bone density and musculature could be improved? Why would you want them to have to wear glasses when you could give them 20:20 vision? Why would you want them to endure unnecessary dental procedures?
The answer is that you shouldn't; of course this will make your child "superior" to you. Perhaps this is what is really holding us back. We all desire to be the best - stronger, cleverer, faster. Why would we deliberately create somebody who could outshine us in all respects?
The answer? We've been doing it for millennia. By choosing the strongest alpha-male or the partner with the most attractive qualities we are endeavouring to create the best of all possible offspring. All it should really take is a shift in perspective (I hesitate to use the somewhat tired phrase "paradigm shift") for us to see that making our children smarter can only be good for the species as a whole.
Of course there is one fly in the ointment - where do we draw the line? Should the parents that want a child with blonde hair and blue eyes be allowed to do so? Will "less desirable" traits (as current fashions dictate) die out or won't it matter because when they become fashionable again they can be turned back on.
At what point does genetics become genocide?
Categories: Cloning, Genetics, Morality
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Da Vinci Code
*** WARNING - SPOILERS ***
Got around to seeing the Da Vinci Code the other day. Now before giving my opinion I should make a couple of things clear:
1. I quite enjoyed the book, although didn't find it a particularly stimulating read and was done with it in under 2 hours. I'd say it was beach reading material.
2. I'm not religious and actually think a lot of Vatican policies are downright evil.
So, on with the review. The film is basically a scene for scene version of the book in a different medium. They've cut a few bits and pieces here and there to keep the running time down but nothing you're likely to miss very much. In short, if you liked the book you'll probably enjoy the film.
Tom Hanks is distinctly average as Robert Langdon, although he fills the roll adequately he is really only there as a narrator to fill in the grail story for the viewers. Jean Reno, as usual, puts in a strong performance and is probably the most credible of all the characters. It is Ian McKellan, however, that steals the show as the quintessential eccentric member of the English peerage.
The film itself is visually very well put together, complemented by a decent, but not overly intrusive, soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
The one thing I don't understand (and maybe it's my recollection of the book that's hazy) is that I thought Sophie was reunited with her brother at the end; they had been seperated at birth to protect the lineage. It just seems a little odd to drop that here and I can't help feeling it would have brought more of a feeling of resolution for me as they stood outside Roslyn than Sophie making a joke about walking on water.
Categories: Da Vinci Code, Film, Review
Got around to seeing the Da Vinci Code the other day. Now before giving my opinion I should make a couple of things clear:
1. I quite enjoyed the book, although didn't find it a particularly stimulating read and was done with it in under 2 hours. I'd say it was beach reading material.
2. I'm not religious and actually think a lot of Vatican policies are downright evil.
So, on with the review. The film is basically a scene for scene version of the book in a different medium. They've cut a few bits and pieces here and there to keep the running time down but nothing you're likely to miss very much. In short, if you liked the book you'll probably enjoy the film.
Tom Hanks is distinctly average as Robert Langdon, although he fills the roll adequately he is really only there as a narrator to fill in the grail story for the viewers. Jean Reno, as usual, puts in a strong performance and is probably the most credible of all the characters. It is Ian McKellan, however, that steals the show as the quintessential eccentric member of the English peerage.
The film itself is visually very well put together, complemented by a decent, but not overly intrusive, soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
The one thing I don't understand (and maybe it's my recollection of the book that's hazy) is that I thought Sophie was reunited with her brother at the end; they had been seperated at birth to protect the lineage. It just seems a little odd to drop that here and I can't help feeling it would have brought more of a feeling of resolution for me as they stood outside Roslyn than Sophie making a joke about walking on water.
Categories: Da Vinci Code, Film, Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
