
And if you need a geography refresher, check out the Animaniacs geography song.
.

As you may already be aware, Jon Stewart is combating Glenn Beck's recent sensationalist, hate-inducing, fear-mongering rally with a Rally to Restore Sanity to the political discourse in our country. It's about time!
When it comes to the intellectual battle between atheism and religion, the group with the imaginary friends ain't gonna win. But what about the intellectual tension between atheism and agnosticism? One could argue that atheism is an arrogant position, since it claims the non-existence of God, but one could also argue agnosticism is a bleeding-heart fence-sitting position held by people afraid to have some conviction.
You've seen Carl Sagan meditate on the significance of looking at Earth, our pale blue dot, from the distance of outer space and in the context of the rest of the universe.
If you're familiar with Steven Johnson's books, you've probably noticed his view that place and social networks have historically played an important role in our understanding of social and intellectual innovation. In his latest book (to be released soon), he finally tackles the question of the origin of good ideas head on, trying to understand the sorts of conditions that are common to periods of disproportionate innovation.
Despite our romantic view of the quirky mathematician who has a spontaneous eureka moment while taking a bath, or the apocryphal story of the lonely genius who figures out the law of gravity after being hit on the head by a falling apple, good ideas are seldom the result of solitary genius let loose. Instead of Archimedes or Newton, Johnson uses Darwin's "slow hunch" as a more realistic model of the emergence of great ideas.
When presented with the problem of evil (the logical inconsistency between an omnipotent and benevolent god and the existence of needless suffering), religious believers usually argue that human suffering is a necessary cost we pay for the greater benefit of having free will (I know.... justify one imaginary concept with another).
In the mathematical realm, perhaps there's nothing sadder and lonelier than being zero, but with imaginary, irrational, transcendental and odd numbers, there's plenty of romantic misery to go around.
When we think about how our lives have turned out, we have a tendency to blame circumstances for our misfortunes and talent for our success. As you may already begin to suspect, there's something missing with this convenient explanation.
You've probably heard already that almost as soon as he got off the plane in England, the Pope started his usual rant blaming secularism and atheism for the rise of Nazism and other such evils.
There are many things about the so-called 'Tea Party' that just drive me bat shit crazy and make me want to go on a killing spree. For one (and ignoring for the moment the overt scape-goating, twisted rhetoric, self-righteous fear mongering, complete lack of historical understanding of our founding principles, and a lack of basic common sense), they are so arrogant and self-deluding as to compare themselves to Shakespeare (>_<)
Many of the things that really interest and trouble us humans are exactly the same kinds of things that interest and trouble most other species. We are concerned with our status within the social group, for instance, and seek ways of posturing and making it known to others that our territory is ours and shouldn't be trespassed.
After having explored the intellectual roots of atheism in A Brief History of Disbelief, Jonathan Miller continues his series of thought-provoking conversations with leading intellectuals.
After having explored the early history of chemistry, from its birth in the mysticism of alchemy to its more scientific and systematic formulation, as well as the subsequent theoretical understanding of the relationship of the chemical elements, Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the history of the inquiry into the various ways in which different elements interact with one another.
In philosophy, the study of the relationship between parts and wholes is known as mereology, and chemical interactions present fascinating ways of testing some such theories. In chemistry, it turns out, wholes are much more than the mere sum of their parts. Take a bunch of carbon, for instance, and depending on how its molecules are configured, you could end up having two fundamentally different substances, even though they are made of exactly the same single ingredient.
You could end up with a diamond, which is clear and hard as hell, but is a crappy electrical conductor... or you could end up with graphite, which is opaque and weak as shit, but has great conductivity. Of course, if you subject a diamond to sufficient heat, as Antoine Lavoissier did in 1772, you would be able to scientifically prove that (despite the mind-numbing marketing campaign with which so many women have been brainwashed in America) diamonds are NOT forever :)
I recently posted an entry featuring author Mary Roach talking about the science and logistics of manned space exploration. As you will remember (and as it applies to the rest of her awesome books), her focus is primarily on the interesting circumstances in which the human body can find itself, and how such circumstances create opportunities for curious scientists to learn a bit more about how we operate.
Would it be possible for humans to land on Venus, when its atmospheric pressure alone (92 times stronger than that on Earth) is strong enough to make carbon dioxide a kind of liquid? And let's not even get started with its heat, which is enough to melt lead, and makes Venus the hottest planet in the solar system. What about approaching and escaping Jupiter's gravitational field, or visiting any of its moons? What about flying through Saturn's rings? Or landing on a comet?!? Clear your schedule, grab a bite, sit back and enjoy the show.
Living in an age full of ever-improving technology and scientific understanding, we may sometimes be inclined to think that observation and measurement constitute the only way to get a hold of reality, but there is a long history in philosophy of great thinkers questioning what it means exactly for something to count as evidence, and this, as you may already suspect, is a question that lies beyond the scope of science.
Heraclitus argued that the basic nature of the universe was change (or becoming), and that experience and observation were the methods to acquire knowledge.
One of the most useful tools Darwin bequeathed to us is the phylogenetic tree of life. Part of the reason this is a great tool is that it can help us visualize virtually any genealogical relationship in which some version of the mechanism of natural selection applies, regardless of whether this takes the form of animal or plant speciation, the historical development of languages, family genealogies, the rise and fall of civilizations, the emergence of scientific paradigms, or the history and evolution of cultural memes.
Continuing with a second season of the fascinating documentary series Inside Nature's Giants, the team sets out to dissect and understand the inner workings of the most feared predator of the ocean: the great white shark.
From its ability to smell minute traces of blood from miles away to the power to propel itself into the air, or from its ever-rotating factory of teeth to its chain-mail skin or its launchable jaws, every cut in this dissection presents new and truly astonishing facts about this predator's highly evolved anatomy and physiology.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the three little pigs managed to escape from the big bad wolf by finding refuge in increasingly stronger buildings. But what if instead of the wolf, they had to escape from Wile E. Coyote?