Hey look what I made! It’s a (very short) hyperlapse of Wausau’s Dudley Tower. It’s a little rough, but for a first try I don’t think it’s too bad.
Via The Telegraph:
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.
The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed…
…The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.
Over at Slate, Phil Plait explains:
In other [non-science] subjects, it’s possible for honest people with different values to come down on different sides of a debate. But when it comes to science, especially firmly established and consensually agreed-upon science, putting on some crackpot who disagrees is not “fair and balanced.”
News shows don’t put on a flat-earther whenever they show a map. They don’t get an opposing opinion from a young-Earth creationist when a new dinosaur fossil is found. They don’t interview an astrologer when a new exoplanet is discovered. So why put on a climate change denier when we’re talking about our planet heating up?
Does two make a trend?
No, but last fall, the Los Angeles Times told its readers that it would no longer publish letters that deny — or argue against — human activity as a contributor to climate change.
In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Be confident: When you slam into a coast, do it like you mean it. Don’t end your sentences with question marks — if you tell your boss you’re going to erode a coastline, say, “I’m going to erode this coastline, PERIOD.
Since Steven Moffat took over as Doctor Who showrunner in 2009, he has never hired a single female writer. Only once has he brought on a female director, back in season five. Needless to say, this track record only adds fuel to the ever-growing number of fans who say Moffat is taking Doctor Who in a more conservative and sexist direction.
Historically, Doctor Who has been a socially progressive show. That’s surely why so many viewers have singled out Steven Moffat for hiring such a vast number of white, male writers while female characters kept turning into flirty sidekicks and the number of non-white characters plummeted. The most popular explanation is that the vast majority of British science fiction TV writers are white men, and only the cream of that crop can be hired to work for the BBC’s flagship show.
This explanation doesn’t hold up when you consider the number of unavoidably bad episodes that were written by the show’s existing (male) writers. And besides, other successful British sci-fi/fantasy shows like Being Human, Torchwood and Merlin have all hired women to write multiple episodes in the past, and that never seemed to do them any harm.
Yes to all of this. This season in particular, I found myself enjoying Elementary far more than Sherlock. And that’s on CBS!