So, just how will Santa deliver all those presents tonight?
1. No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.
2. There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn’t (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that’s 91.8 million homes. One presumes there’s at least one good child in each.
3. Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.
This means that Santa’s sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.
4. The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set(2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that “flying reindeer” (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.
5. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth’s atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he’s dead now.
December 24th, 2005
An article from today’s Times:
It assaulted viewers with rape, nudity and animal sacrifice in the opening episode. Yet the BBC series Rome is not pornographic but an accurate representation of the ancient world, the broadcasting watchdog has ruled.
Good good…
December 21st, 2005
Today’s Latin Proverb of the Day:
Io Saturnalia!
(Greeting at the Roman festival of Saturnalia)
Hail the Rites of Saturn!
The post provides some interesting parallels between the Roman festival of Saturnalia and modern-day Christianity and Christmas:
The festival centered on three divine beings who are among some of the oldest deities honored in Italy: Saturnus, the father of the sky who looked favorably on the land. He was often portrayed as an old man with long white hair and beard. Ops was the goddess of the fertile fields; and Consus was the god of the grain-bin loaded with the harvest. You do hear this don’t you: father, mother and child in a grain bin? The three celebrated as one? The three that came from the two that are the one? Part of the ritual included a song chanted: hail Sun Unconquered, born for us this day.
December 20th, 2005
Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Escolios a un Texto Implicito (1977), I, 153:
The major triumph of science seems to consist in the increasing speed with which the fool can transmit his foolishness from one spot to another.
El mayor triunfo de la ciencia parece estar en la velocidad creciente con que el bobo puede trasladar su bobería de un sitio a otro sitio.
[From Laudator Temporis Acti]
December 18th, 2005
Banished Scholar
You scored 24 privilegedbirth, 65 scholarliness, 10 ruthlessness, and 40 outspokenness! |
You’re lucky to be banished! Most guys like you end up with their
entrails on the front steps. You rose from your lowly birth with
learning, but you forgot to keep your mouth shut. Nobody likes a party
pooper, and pointing out the foibles of Roman society did not earn you
that nice cushy position tutoring the Senator’s feeble-minded
offspring. It is suggested that you never set foot in Rome again, but I
hear things are much milder and more tolerant down in Judea, so maybe
make your way over there. Cheers! |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
|
You scored higher than 34% on privilegedbirth |
|
|
You scored higher than 99% on scholarliness |
|
|
You scored higher than 4% on ruthlessness |
|
|
You scored higher than 90% on outspokenness |
|
December 11th, 2005
Article by Boris Johnson today:
[Labour] are using every opportunity to boss [the working class] and make them conform to their middle-class mores. They tell them not to smoke. They tell them not to be so fat. They tell them not to drink so much. They tell them they may no longer go out with the hunt. They are so full of revulsion when they see a chav belting her kids in the supermarket that they seriously contemplate banning smacking.
It makes for an interesting read. Be sure to read the comments below it, though.
December 8th, 2005
A memorable quote from his acceptance speech:
There is such a thing as society. But it is not the same as the state.
Good for him.
December 6th, 2005
Excellent Guardian piece by Polly Toynbee about the upcoming Narnia movie, “Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion“. Here’s a snippet, but I recommend reading the whole thing:
Narnia is a strange blend of magic, myth and Christianity, some of it brilliantly fantastical and richly imaginative, some (the clunking allegory) toe-curlingly, cringingly awful… US born-agains are using the movie. The Mission America Coalition is “inviting church leaders around the country to consider the fantastic ministry opportunity presented by the release of this film”. The president’s brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, is organising a scheme for every child in his state to read the book… here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right… adults who wince at the worst elements of Christian belief may need a sickbag handy for the most religiose scenes… Children are supposed to fall in love with the hypnotic Aslan, though he is not a character: he is pure, raw, awesome power. He is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on earth, where no one is watching, no one is guiding, no one is judging and there is no other place yet to come. Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can. We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass…
Thoughts, anyone?
December 5th, 2005
Came across this poem on my internet rounds today, and thought some of you might like it. It’s a poem called Fragen by the German poet Heinrich Heine.
By the sea, by the desolate midnight sea,
A young fellow stands,
His breast full of sadness, his head full of doubt,
And with mournful lips he questions the waters:
“Oh, solve me the riddle of life,
The tormenting, primordial riddle
That so many heads before me have pondered -
Heads in hieroglyph miters,
Heads in turbans and black birettas,
Periwigged heads, and thousands of other
Poor, perspiring heads of humans:
Tell me, what is the meaning of Man?
Where has he come from? Where is he going?
Who dwells up there on the golden stars?
The waters murmur their eternal murmur,
The winds are blowing, the clouds are fleeting,
The stars are gleaming indifferent and cold,
And a fool waits for an answer.
Here’s the original German:
Am Meer, am wüsten, nächtlichen Meer
Steht ein Jüngling-Mann,
Die Brust voll Wehmut, das Haupt voll Zweifel,
Und mit düstern Lippen fragt er die Wogen:
“O löst mir das Rätsel,
Das qualvoll uralte Rätsel,
Worüber schon manche Häupter gegrübelt,
Häupter in Hieroglyphenmützen,
Häupter in Turban und schwarzem Barett,
Perückenhäupter und tausend andere
Arme schwitzende Menschenhäupter -
Sagt mir, was bedeutet der Mensch?
Woher ist er gekommen? Wo geht er hin?
Wer wohnt dort oben auf goldenen Sternen?”
Es murmeln die Wogen ihr ewges Gemurmel,
Es wehet der Wind, es fliehen die Wolken,
Es blinken die Sterne, gleichgültig und kalt,
Und ein Narr wartet auf Antwort.
[From Laudator Temporis Acti]
December 4th, 2005
News just in - the new Beta version of Skype features video conferencing. As always, Skype to Skype computer calls are free (fantastic savings for international calling) and video conferencing is free too. To video conference all you’ll need is Windows XP with a camera attached to your computer. Integration with Outlook enables one-click conferencing as well. The beta is a free download.
Downloading Skype.
NB Dad!
[From Lifehacker]
December 1st, 2005
Let us see if this sounds familiar: Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Athenians and their allies started invading a number of Aegean states under the pretext of destroying tyranny to bestow a democracy. They thought people would accept them with open arms but nothing of the sort happened. Rings a bell?
In the middle of the fifth century BC, Athens was the undisputed power in the eastern Mediterranean. Before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, this is how the Corinthians described the Athenians: “To describe their character in one word one might say that they were born into the world to take no rest themselves and give none to
others!” Athenians were indeed busybodies and had a finger in many commercial enterprises from as far away as the Po basin in northern Italy to the Ukrainian wheat fields in the east. Their coinage, the famous attic owl drachma, was international currency and their fleet patrolled the Mediterranean as if it was their sea. Democratic Athens was a new shining light in a sea of barbarism and despotism. Philosophers and thinkers sang its praises while people all over the Aegean imitated and recreated its revolutionary institutions.
Yet for all the love and euphoria it managed to polarise, Athens became the most hated and feared of the Greek city-states. It was not just her enemies but her own allies who eventually turned against her. The reasons were various but the underlying bone of contention was then only too obvious: Athens was simply using democracy as a front to spread her empire. Many democratic parties all over the Aegean slowly and painfully came to realise that their initial honeymoon with Athenian-style radical democracy had degenerated into a unilateral submission to the whims and wishes of the Athenian Assembly.
Many allies perceived Athenian foreign policy as nothing but an excuse for furthering Athenian commercial interests at their expense and, in fact, when Sparta and Athens went to war, the democratic alliance started to crack and crumble. Athenians woke up to find that they were hated beyond their wildest nightmare and that their old friends were turning traitors.
Can we somehow draw a parallel between classical Athens and the United States of today? To read the speeches of Pericles in front of the Assembly, during the early phases of the Peloponnesian War, when the Athenian Empire was already tottering under the onslaught of a Spartan-led offensive, one easily recalls those of George W. Bush after 9/11: the empire is under threat because Athenians and their allies (what was left of them) are the only peoples who practice and enjoy freedom, whose revolutionary institutions are a guarantee against tyranny and this is exactly what their enemies want to bring back: servitude, the rule of kings, the end of freedom. The Gods bless Athens. One faintly catches the echo through the centuries: God bless America!
If one ignores the evident hype and rhetoric, Pericles was right in a way: the war was a struggle between two radically different concepts of human organisation: Sparta, his main enemy, was the embodiment of everything that the Athenians hated: it was autocratic, rigidly hierarchical, economically static (it had no currency!!) and culturally backward-looking whereas the Athenians had recently invented the democratic regime, reformed their laws and ready to trade as far as their ships could take them.
Athens was so convinced of the goodness and equity of her constitution, her laws and her institutions that
she went on to export them wherever her commercial interests lay. Her political instinct told her rightly that democracy is a regime fit for equals and that such equity is best found in aggressive, commercially minded city states like her and not in static and conservative land-based oligarchies like the Spartan model. Eventually she built up her influence and patronage most easily among the myriad islands of the Aegean. These were to be her trade partners, her newfound empire.
Then, unexpectedly, the war came. Reading Thucydides, one frequently gets the uncanny feeling that one has already read the same story, heard the same justifications for aggression, seen the same mistakes being made, the same tragic consequences follow. Athens, like the United States, suddenly discovered that her imperialistic meddling in the affairs of other nations, euphemistically cloaked as “the necessary politics of liberal economic expansion” was creating social and political upheavals that started to backfire seriously on her.
It is extremely revealing, comparing the prime concern of those who vigorously opposed Athens then and America now – that trying to impose democracy by force of arms, is a sort of tyranny in itself. The internal consistency in the logic of such an argument is so evident yet Athenians (and Americans today) ignored it with an alarming candour bordering on the naïve.
So how does one solve this quintessential paradox: that the self proclaimed champion of democracy in a world of despotism and entrenched oligarchy finds itself branded as an aggressor, a meddler in other nations’ business and hated beyond imagination? How does one explain to Americans today that the American dream does not automatically transform every nation on earth into their ally and friend?
This summer I happened to read a very revealing book by a Chinese-American, Prof-essor Amy Chua’s World on Fire. In fact it was the subtitle that first caught my attention: How exporting Free Market Democracy breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. The book was written after 9/11 and Chua’s essay can easily be seen as a painful soul searching exercise to find the answer to the question that everyone was asking then: But why?
Chua’s merit however is that she does not fall for easy apologetics or for the usual rhetoric of self-justification. With a clear and self-critical mind she manages to make a dispassionate analysis of how and why the globalising formula – free markets plus democracy – so wildly acclaimed as the modern panacea to the world’s ills, does not always equal prosperity and peace. On the contrary, in many cases, the equation works out diametrically different.
The crux of Chua’s argument is that this sudden post-cold war Euro-American infatuation with bestowing democracy as if it were some magic formula on all and sundry, without a profound understanding of the local context, has been a major cause of the many social and political upheavals that we have witnessed all over the third world in the last 15 years.
[Robert Cachia writing in the Malta Independent.]
November 24th, 2005
I went to a lecture tonight entitled “A Degree Course in the USA”. Here is what the speaker, Jon Tabbert, said:
1. (a) Is a degree course in the USA right for everyone?
No, definitely not. The USA has a very different educational philosophy - it is much more broad, and based around the Liberal Arts.
(b) Is it worth the investment?
Yes. Firstly, the US invests in education in a big way (for example, Harvard has an endowment of $23bn). Secondly, the US is consumer-oriented: it recognises that students have options, so universities invest to provide the ‘best’ opportunities for their students.
2. Where do we start?
There are over 4,000 US universities to choose from.
You should make the decision, not anybody else. What do you want from your higher education?
3. Admissions processes
Universities want their students to thrive. They know the sort of person they want.
They are very competitive. Estimating generously, there are 25 places/yr at Harvard for European males.
4. How are decisions made?
This boils down to:
a. Quality of academic performance. Crucially, this includes GCSEs and AS-levels (though not A2 so much).
b. SATs. Type 1: compulsory for all. 3hr45 exam. Three sections: 1-critical reading, 2-maths, 3-essay. You’re given a composite score at the end. This is hard for international students. Type 2: subject-specific. Usually 3 subjects.
c. Academic letters of reference.
d. Extra-curricular profile. You must do well in extra-curricular activities as well as academic work. Leadership positions are also important.
e. Application essays (similar to personal statements). 3 x 500 words per university.
5. Cost
US education is expensive. But there is a lot of help available for international students.
6. Timings
The Lower 6th is the most important year.
You must get good AS-levels.
You must do lots of research.
Most important of all, you must prepare for the SAT test.
A good site for university rankings is www.usnews.com.
November 23rd, 2005
Notes from a lecture given by Michael Palmer on “The Logic of Atheism”:
N.B. I am aware that these notes make no sense. I shall be fleshing them out in the near future!
What is atheism?
- Ayer: The concept of God is meaningless
- Bradlow: Atheism is “without God”
- Bolbach: Children have no concept of God (so concept introduced by culture)
Logic/psychology alternatives
Freud: Religion suffered 3 blows:
1. The Cosmological blow
- The Copernican revolution
- Secular Humanism (knowledge is not sole domain of theologians)
- → Kant. Demolished: ontological/causation/design argument. Only moral argument left.
2. The Biological blow
- Darwin.
- Different model of the world.
- Fleshed out Hume’s argument.
- Paley/Hume – different causes for same effect.
- Suffering/morality of watchmaker?
- Suffering is educational. But table manners/shoot sister.
3. The Psychological blow
- Feeling.
-
“Can’t invalidate what I feel.” (Example of love).
- Tillick: feeling can guarantee historicity of past events.
- Freud: [Future of an allusion] Illusion vs. error. Aristotle’s rats; Columbus’ sea routes.
- What fuels feeling is a desire to fulfil it. Religion is:
- Narcissism. Humans are incapable of accepting that death is the end.
- Massive ego trip. Kill fly/kill human.
- Religion is infantile obsession with own significance.
- → Freud: with these constrictions, without religion, make most of limited life on earth.
Albert Camus – The Myth of Sisyphus
- Pushes rock up hill.
- But Sisyphus is happy. Atheism is the happiness of knowing that this is all there is. No judgement.
November 21st, 2005
Take a look at this classics-related ad for Bud Light.
November 20th, 2005
From Dickens’ Martin Chuzzlewit:
She touched his organ, and from that bright epoch even it, the old companion of his happiest hours, incapable as he had thought of elevation, began a new and deified existence.
(By “organ” Dickens means the musical instrument…)
Now tell me that isn’t the best unintended double entendre you’ve ever seen!
November 19th, 2005
Holbrook Jackson, On Cheerful Books, from Occasions:
I am an unabashed reader of books: all kinds of books — good books and bad books, well-written and ill-written; books with a purpose, and books whose existence only the nicest sophistry could justify; books created by genius, and books built by talent standing on its head to attract attention; I even read books made to sell. I can and do read at all times and in all places — standing up, and sitting or lying down; in chair or bed; on trains and ‘buses or boats; in houses, gardens, theatres (when the play is dull); at concerts (reading to music is a discovery and not nearly so offensive to the musicians as talking to music); at meals (this is a delight which deserves an essay to itself) — in short it would not be easy to name time or place inappropriate to the indulgence of this habit; and yet with all its catholicity and its complete indifference to the feelings of others, I can say with that self-satisfaction which comes only to those who admit being addicted to at least one habit which is no use to anyone but themselves that I could never bring myself to anything approaching enjoyment of an intentionally cheerful book. Cheerful books, or shall I say “cheery” books, make me sad: professional optimism reduces me to ashes.
November 19th, 2005
From The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes:
This drama, this immense scenario in which humanity has been performing on this planet over the last 4000 years, is clear when we take the large view of the central intellectual tendency of world history. In the second millennium B.C., we stopped hearing the voices of gods. In the first millennium B.C., those of us who still heard the voices, our oracles and prophets, they too died away. In the first millennium A.D., it is their sayings and hearings preserved in sacred texts through which we obeyed our lost divinities. And in the second millennium A.D., these writings lose their authority. The Scientific Revolution turns us away from the older sayings to discover the lost authorization in Nature. What we have been through in these last four millennia is the slow inexorable profaning of our species. And in the last part of the second millennium A.D., that process is apparently becoming complete. It is the Great Human Irony of our noblest and greatest endeavor on this planet that in the quest for authorization, in our reading of the language of God in Nature, we should read there so clearly that we have been so mistaken.
November 19th, 2005
If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, you will only see one color, pink. If you stare at the black + in the center, the moving dot turns to green. Now, concentrate on the black + in the center of the picture. After a short period of time, all the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you will only see a green dot rotating if you’re lucky! It’s amazing how our brain works. There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don’t disappear. This should be proof enough: we don’t always see what we think we see.
November 18th, 2005
Interesting article:
…About 10% of their vocabulary was “like…” Not as in “I like it” or “it was like my mother used to make.” “Like…” as in, “He is, like, really dumb - like, yeah…like, really…”
For a while I’ve been wondering why the word used that way has become so ubiquitous in the vocabulary of the under-30 set. Here’s my theory: the kids are chicken. They want to express themselves with freedom and style, but are unwilling to own what they mean. If you think someone is dumb, how about saying, “I think they’re really dumb.” Or even better, “They’re really dumb.” (It’s obvious that you think so.)
By adding the “like,” as they do, it somehow makes it more of a caricature or a cartoon of what they think. I don’t have to be held really accountable for what I think, as long as I express it with the caveat that it’s “like”… so in case it’s not really what I think, I’m off the hook.
Maybe kids have always been insecure about expressing themselves, and this new spin on the language allows them to stretch into new levels of freedom and at least pseudo-honesty. I just think it’s a culturally supported cop-out. Like, really…
[From David Allen]
November 18th, 2005
Teacher
To get to the other side.
Plato
For the greater good.
Aristotle
It is in the nature of chickens to cross roads.
Karl Marx
It was a historical inevitability.
Timothy Leary
Because that’s the only trip the establishment would let it take.
Saddam Hussein
This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.
Ronald Reagan
I forget.
Captain James T. Kirk
To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
Anderson Consulting
Deregulation of the chicken’s side of the road was threatening its dominant market position. The chicken was faced with significant challenges to create and develop the competencies required for the newly competitive market. Anderson Consulting, in a partnering relationship with the client, helped the chicken by rethinking it’s physical distribution strategy and implementation process. Using the Poultry Integration Model (PIM), Anderson helped the chicken use its skills, methodologies, knowledge capital and experiences to align the chickens people, processes and technology in support of it’s overall strategy within a Program Management framework. Anderson Consulting convened a diverse cross-spectrum of road analysts and best chickens along with Anderson consultants with deep skills in the transportation industry to engage in a two day itinerary of meetings in order to leverage their personal knowledge capital, both tacit and explicit, and to enable them to synergize with each other in order to achieve the implicit goals of delivering and successfully architecting and implementing an enterprise-wide value framework across the continuum of poultry cross-median processes. The meeting was held in a park-like setting, enabling and creating an impactful environment which was strategically based, industry-focused, and built upon a consistent, clear and unified market message and aligned with the chicken’s mission, vision and core values. This was conducive towards the creation of a total business integration solution. Anderson Consulting helped the chicken change to become more successful.
Louis Farrakhan
The road, you see, represents the black man. The chicken ‘crossed’ the black man in order to trample him and keep him down.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.
Moses
And God came down from the Heavens, and he said unto the chicken, “Thou shalt cross the road.” And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.
Fox Mulder
You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens have to cross the road for you to believe it?
Richard M. Nixon
The chicken did not cross the road. I repeat, the chicken DID NOT cross the road.
Machiavelli
The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares why? The end of crossing the road justifies whatever motive there was.
Jerry Seinfeld
Why does anyone cross the road? I mean, why doesn’t anyone ever think to ask, “What the heck was the chicken doing wandering around all over the place anyway?”
Freud
The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.
Bill Gates
I have just released the new Chicken Office 2000 (with integrated Internet Seed Explorer), which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook.
Oliver Stone
The question is not, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Rather, it is, “Who is crossing the road at the same time, whom we overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?
Darwin
Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are genetically disposed to cross roads.
Einstein
Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
Buddha
Asking the question denies your own chicken nature.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The chicken did not cross the road… it transcended it.
Ernest Hemingway
To die. In the rain.
Colonel Sanders
I missed one?
Rob Wilmot
Who cares as long as it lays me a hard boiled egg.
November 18th, 2005
Previous Posts
