And I never got around to buying their Office Space Kit

Part one of a five-part series explaining the money system the world uses today. This scares the crap out of me.

Today’s xkcd comic seems to sum up rather well, the attitude many developers seem to have regarding the user experience. Moral: just because the user didn’t thoroughly familiarize perself with the documentation, it does not mean the program is excused from Doing The Right Thing.

Did you know that Coca-Cola has less caffeine than either Pepsi or Diet Pepsi, but that Diet Coke has more caffeine than any of those (by at least 8 mg/12 oz)? As does Dr Pepper, which has a few mg less than Diet Coke; and as commonly known, Mountain Dew has all those beat. As might be expected, generic brands tend to have really sucky caffeine content (12.7 mg/12 oz for Sam’s Cola). The Journal of Food Science has a comparison of caffeine content from a variety of sodas; unfortunately, the article is available online only to subscribers; but the abstract (I found from Digg) at least is somewhat informative. I’d like to get my hands on the full article, but don’t feel like subscribing just to get at it.

On a related note: what do you think the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero? My initial assumption, when Coke Zero first came out, was that they had replaced the asphartame (“NutraSweet” brand) with sucralose (“Splenda” brand), but a quick inspection of the ingredients on the bottle proved this to be wrong. So I spent some time wondering: what’s different, then? They both use asphartame, they both have zero carbs, zero calories: what makes Zero, Zero, and not Diet? (There is, BTW, a completely Splenda-sweetened Diet Coke; it’s still not as good as regular Coke, perhaps due to what I’m about to explain about the Diet Coke formula, but IMO it’s better than NutraSweet.)

Well, according to Wikipedia (Coke Zero, Diet Coke), the answer is that Diet Coke is not based on the same formula as regular Coca-Cola, but instead uses the same formula that the ill-favored and short-lived “New Coke” was based on. It’s not Coca-Cola with all the corn syrup replaced by asphartame, but rather New Coke before all the asphartame was replaced with corn syrup! So, the answer is that Coke Zero fills the “Coca-Cola with all the corn syrup replaced by asphartame” gap.

Of course, if you’re like me, you’d prefer a variety of Coke that fills the “Coca-Cola with all the corn syrup replaced with actual cane sugar once again” gap. For now, I’ll just have to continue to make do with the occasional bottle import from Mexico, when I’m out at a Mexican restaurant that offers these.

(Click to see larger version.) Seen on Bruce Schneier’s blog, where he discusses some problems with it, and compares it with e-mail spam, discussing briefly why this approach wouldn’t work with e-mail spam prevention.

I saw this from digg. A comment led me to the original source at Grand Illusions, where I found I could download and print a PDF file, to cut out and create my own paper dragon illusion.

The effect is absolutely, uncannily real. You just close one eye, and sway back and forth, or bow or stretch your neck, while looking at the dragon. The dragon, in turn, magically follows you around: not with his eyes, but by (apparently) turning his entire head to look at you! I’ve got one on my desk right now (the PDF seems to have a blue dragon, though, not green). It kinda creeps me out every time I try it.

Increasing the risk that I’m moving closer to this site becoming little more than a mindless portal to DagoodS‘s excellent article posts, I simply can’t help but post about yet another very excellent article of his.

In Prove It!, DagoodS argues insightfully that theists and atheists will often walk away from debating, each feeling secure in the knowledge that their argument was won—and both being correct—because of a fundamental difference in their concepts of what the Standard of Proof is:

A good example of this is the[…] debate on inerrancy. What is it that we often see? A person proposes a contradiction.[…]

And what does the inerrantist do? Proposes a solution that, while technically possible, stretches one’s credibility. Then the person proposing the contradiction points out more details within the account that appear contradictory. The inerrantist proposes a solution that is logically possible.

Back and forth, each making essentially the same point over and over. Never moving. Why? Because they are using two completely different standards of proof!

The person proposing a contradiction is using the “more plausible” standard. Whereas the inerrantist is using the “any logical possibility” standard.

So the skeptic keeps talking in terms of how this claim is not plausible, or how this does not plausibly fall into line with the other account. And, frankly, is prevailing under their standard of proof. The inerrantist talks in what could possibly have happened, or how it is possible that Judas suffered three mortal injuries, none of which was fatal. And, frankly, the inerrantist is prevailing under their standard of proof.

Each walks away, thinking, “Gee, I won, because the other person failed under my standard of proof,” neither realizing what a waste of time it was.

So, ThinkGeek‘s selling this Office Space Kit. Contents:

• Red Stapler (a mini version, not an actual Swingline [may jam])
• Initech Mug
• “Is this Good for the Company?” Sign
• Starter “Flair” (“Sounds like somebady has a case of THE MONDAYS”)
• “PC Load Letter” Copy Machine Sticker
• Your Very Own “Jump To Conclusions” Mat
• A Humorous 32-Page Book
• TPS Report Coversheets (5 included)

And, at the time of this writing, it’s just $12.99! (I’m so getting one…)

Best freakin’ snowglobes ever. These guys do works of art that happen to be detailed and very interesting snowglobes. (Found via Penny Arcade.) At the precise moment I’m posting this, their servers are having issues; my guess is that a Penny Arcade reader submitted it to Digg.

The ones pictured here aren’t even the best ones (by far). They just made the handiest example to include in this post. Be sure to check out their non-snowglobe art as well.