Holiday Cheer

December 29, 2012

One of the most hilarious things on the blogs recently is, as Isis the Scientist put it, PhysioProf vs. iPad.

It took an Apple product to do it but I do believe PhysioProffe is breaking down at last.

Advertisements

Confession

December 24, 2012

I much prefer, in these multi-victim random shooter events, when the perpetrator ends up dead by his own hand.

First, let’s all enjoy the bliss of, count ’em, EIGHT authors who….

1D.S., A.B., M. Maroteaux, T.J., C.P.M., R.S., J.-A.G., and G.S. contributed equally to this work.

To make it extra hilarious please note that the first four are listed first authors and the last four are…listed last authors.

This is ridiculous. Going by the affiliations of the first four and the last four (and knowing a little something about the careers status of several of the last four) it looks very much like typical trainee-PI pairings in a multi-group collaboration. Consequently it would make considerably more sense to identify the four trainees and the four PIs as contributing equally compared with each other…but not across the trainee/PI divide.

But really, the discussion of the day is raised by a troll communication to the blog.

As you know there are style guides for journals as to how previous studies are to be cited and how they are to be referred to in the text. One typical style guide might suggest that you use “As shown by Gun et al (2009), the PhysioWhimple nucleus is critical in…“. You might also resort to the more conversational “Gun and colleagues demonstrated…“.

Very good, right?

Now what about when the paper in question indicates co-equal contribution, eh? Then you should say “Genedog, Tideliar and colleagues showed….“. Right? You should absolutely insist on including the name of the co-equal authors, should you not?

Especially if you are one of those who insists that this designation is meaningful…

h/t: a certain troll

I get it. I do.

You think the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution lets you own guns in the event of a need for armed insurrection against a tyrannical government. Frankly, given what happened under Dubya Bush, I’m kinda surprised more of my libbie-leftie friends didn’t join me in this understanding. But whatever.

Most of you, even on the rightwing, tend to reject my argument for equal force- nobody seems to be fond of Michigan Militia wingnuts getting their hands on tanks and F16s and Stinger missiles…so we’re stuck with lack of parity. I mean, I don’t get it…if you think this is what the 2nd means (and I do) then why you are not trying to pick up one of these modest multi-billion dollar weapons systems on the blackmarket is a mystery to me. but….ok. something less than parity with the US armed forces. That’s a first principle.

Second, hunting. Now true, the 2nd Amendment does not seem to guarantee your right to blast small woodland creatures into oblivion but what the heck. Sure. By all means let us justify the sort of weapon that is necessary to bring down a deer or something. And leaves it….well, edible. As opposed to, say, riddled with heavy metal projectiles of a 0.223 calibre.

Third, you seem to think that the solution to gun violence is that we have more guns. More people with more access to guns at any moment in the event we need to put down a mad dog, I mean, defend a movie theatre against a disgruntled neuroscience graduate student, er, nutter. Fine. I agree. If someone is actively shooting up the place, if we could have some calm, cool, collected return fire….well it looks fine on paper to me.

So how can we have more guns, available for hunting, best for accurate shooting and with some inherent features that exert a calming effect on the rate of fire?

The bolt-action rifle. Preferably with the magazine limited to 3 or 5 cartridges.

So here’s what I propose. We ban, and I mean BAN, these stupid penile replacement firearms. Period. No handguns, no AR15 military bullshit. No magazine/clips bigger than 5 in capacity. No goddamn cammo stocks. No. Muppet. Hugging. Grandfather. Clause.

And in exchange you nutjobs can have as many bolt-action rifles as you want and as many long barrel shotguns as you want. You can hunt, grab them out of the rack on your pick ’em up truck in case you happen by a Sikh temple when some shit is going down from a white supremicist and have them under your bed come the armed insurrection.

Good?

From this transcript of his remarks:

Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

And there we have it. The full reveal.

For the slower members of the audience, or those reading after too many eggnogs…an explainer from Comradde Physioproffe.

all these delusional right-wing microdicke Republican gun fetishists … we all know that their real goal has nothing to with preventing the slaughter of kindergartners, and everything to do with delusional phallic power fantasies to compensate for their real-world angry white d00d ineffectual dicklessness.

So yeah, LaPierre was talking about videogame fans…but dude. Fruedian slip much? Who the hell would compare GrandTheftAuto to porn unless he was popping a chubbie thinking about blowing people away in a hail of semiautomatic fire from his M-16 imitating AR-15 “sporting rifle”? And you know who those people are?

for Sporting Purposes only.


Honestly. Tell me there isn’t something wrong with these folks.

in this case it is the gmailz suggesting I add a couple of more email addresses to my group message… Read the rest of this entry »

This is from a bit by David Frum:

20121221-074922.jpg