Below are 15 journal entries, after skipping by the 60 most recent ones recorded in arturs' LiveJournal:

[ Next 20 >> ]

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011
8:43 pm	(1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, November 20th, 2011
4:15 am	http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Comment on this)
3:32 am	Were YU55 to have struck land, it might have caused a magnitude seven earthquake and left a city-sized crater. A perhaps larger danger would have occurred were YU55 to have struck the ocean and raised a large tsunami. (Comment on this)
Thursday, November 10th, 2011
5:21 pm	We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. (Comment on this)
Monday, February 28th, 2011
11:36 pm	All technology, the chimp's termite-fishing spear and the human's fishing spear, the beaver's dam and the human's dam, the warbler's hang-ing basket and the human's hanging basket, the leaf-cutter ant's garden and the human's garden, are all fundamentally natural. We tend to iso-late manufactured technology from nature, even to the point of thinking of it as antinature, only because it has grown to rival the impact and power of its home. But in its origins and fundamentals, a tool is as natu-ral as our life. Humans are animals—no argument. But humans are also not-animals—no argument. This contradictory nature is at the core of our identity. Likewise, technology is unnatural—by definition. And technology is natural—by a wider definition. This contradiction is also core to human identity. (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 10th, 2011
1:42 am	wew nepareizais determinisms (Comment on this)
Sunday, February 6th, 2011
3:00 pm	Mating between different groups is not enough to deem them conspecific: those matings have to produce viable and fertile hybrids. And “viable and fertile” means not only that the hybrids can have offspring, but that they do have offspring in the wild. Some interspecific hybrids in birds, for example, are viable and fertile, but are not recognized as proper mates by members of either parental species because those hybrids look weird or have strange mating behaviors. That is a form of reproductive isolation, too: it’s analogous to sterility, but sterility on the grounds of not being attractive as a mate. (Comment on this)
12:36 pm	Reiner and Gearhart’s idea was this: if gender is “constructed” by socialization at birth, newborns who are raised as members of the opposite sex from birth should show behaviors characteristic of their “socialized” sex rather than their biological sex. Cloacal exstrophy gave them a chance to do this, because males born with the syndrome sometimes have their penises and testes removed, a vulva constructed instead, and are raised as girls. If the “socialization” hypothesis is correct, these males should show female-typical behaviors when older; if the biological hypothesis is correct, they should lean towards male behaviors. The authors had a sample of fourteen newborn males with cloacal exstrophy whose parents agreed to participate in the study. The babies were surgically constructed to have female genitalia, and parents agreed to raise the boys as girls, never telling the children of their biological gender. (Two other males with the syndrome were raised as males even though they had the surgery.) Several of the parents were raising “normal” girls at the same time. At ages ranging from 5 to 16, the female-raised males were given psychological tests that explored their interests in toys, dolls, and clothes, the time spent playing various games, athleticism, aggressive behavior, career and sexual interests, sex of friends, etc. They were also asked to declare their gender. The parents were also given questionnaires on their child’s behavior and relationships with other children. The upshot: all 16 subjects, including those with female genitals raised as males, “revealed moderate-to-marked male-typical behaviors” compared to the scores of children raised according to their biological sex at birth. (The paper reports the scores for each child on a number of scales.) As for the parents, here’s what the authors report: The parents of all 14 subjects assigned to female sex stated that they had reared their child as a female. Twelve of these subjects have sisters: parents described equivalent child-rearing approaches and attitudes toward the subjects and their sisters. However, parents described a moderate-to-pronounced unfolding of male-typical behaviors and attitudes over time in these subjects — but not in their sisters. Parents reported that the subjects typically resisted attempts to encourage play with female-typical toys or with female playmates or to behave as parents thought typical girls might behave. These 14 subjects expressed difficulties fitting in with girls. All but one played primarily or exclusively with male-typical toys. Only one played with dolls; the others did so almost never or never. Only one ever played house. Each of the three exceptions represents a different subject. Parents noted substantial difficulty attempting to dress the subjects — but not their sisters — in clearly feminine attire after about four years of age. And, tellingly, of the 14 subjects, four of them declared themselves as “males” even though they had female-type genitalia, had been raised as girls, and had never been told of their birth sex. Four more were actually told of their birth sex by parents who abrogated the agreement, and all four of them declared themselves males. At the last follow-up, two more of the children were “unclear” about their sex, and another one refused to discuss it. (I believe, but am not sure, that the initial assessment of self-declared sex, and the children’s psychological tests, were performed before those four had been told that they were born male.) At the end of the study, all eight of the male-declarers used male names and male restrooms, and all eight wanted surgical reconstruction of a penis. The other six still living as females all reported difficulty fitting in with female peers, a result not seen at all in cases of genetic females with cloacal exstrophy). (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
6:48 pm	nine parts moses (Comment on this)
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011
1:25 am	Even ordinary language is full of military or at least weapons language. We shoot photos. We casually talk about an unpredictable person being a “loose cannon.” We debate a “scattershot” or a “double-barreled” approach while we are “under the gun” to submit a grant proposal asking for our “target population.” After a shooting catastrophe, we learn that the perpetrator “went ballistic,” or was a “ticking time bomb” all along. We are a nation of gun-toters, and we speak gun language, whether we realize it or not. (Comment on this)
Sunday, January 30th, 2011
4:36 am	it must be the face (Comment on this)
4:22 am	dibens kvantu stulbums (Comment on this)
Saturday, January 29th, 2011
10:17 pm	s tas ir tik vienkārši, viena lieta izraisa citas, un nē, kvantu nenoteiktība to nemaina, tā varētu mainīt to, ka nevaram paredzēt nākotni, bet tas, ka pašreizējam stāvoklim ir līdz pirmsākumam izsekojami cēloņi, paliek nemainīgs. (Comment on this)
10:06 pm	haha, nē I have always had this notion that I completely made up, or it was in the atmosphere and I picked it up, but I have this notion that we have like 25% control over our fate. Yet with that 25% we can change 100% of our fate by simply taking control of this small portion that is ours. We own our fate and can change it, we can't change how we were nurtured but we may be able to change our very nature. I don't know if this made any sense. (Comment on this)
Monday, January 24th, 2011
8:17 pm	netīšām ieliku telefonu sēņu marinādē (Comment on this)