boingboing assortment from the last few days
Illustrated guide to HTML tags. Cute and incredibly nerdy.
The "What does Marsellus Wallace look like?" dialogue illustrated using animated typography. I like the second one better.
"Conservapedia, a wiki encyclopedia that aims to eliminate the left-wing bias in Wikipedia, is a gold-mine of unintentional hilarity." Who knew cactuses could be such a politically polarizing topic?
Several species of cactus are now endangered in the west due to "poaching" by collectors and invasive species. But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline.
Speaking of media bias, I've been meaning to mention -- in the letters to the editor of the current Scientific American are two communiques from readers concerning the same article in a prior issue. I only vaguely recall reading the article, but it had something to do with the difficulties of mapping a rugged, mountainous terrain such as Afghanistan and the problem of tracking down Osama bin Laden.
One reader complained about the blatantly pro-Bush-administration slant to the article, saying something like "If you're to going to be so conservatively biased as to make excuses for the administration's failure to find OBL etc. I'm going to cancel my subscription." The other reader complained "If you're going to be so liberally biased as to take potshots and make fun of the administration, I'm going to cancel my subscription."
Remember, they're complaining about the same article. How much of media bias is projection?
The "What does Marsellus Wallace look like?" dialogue illustrated using animated typography. I like the second one better.
"Conservapedia, a wiki encyclopedia that aims to eliminate the left-wing bias in Wikipedia, is a gold-mine of unintentional hilarity." Who knew cactuses could be such a politically polarizing topic?
Several species of cactus are now endangered in the west due to "poaching" by collectors and invasive species. But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline.
Speaking of media bias, I've been meaning to mention -- in the letters to the editor of the current Scientific American are two communiques from readers concerning the same article in a prior issue. I only vaguely recall reading the article, but it had something to do with the difficulties of mapping a rugged, mountainous terrain such as Afghanistan and the problem of tracking down Osama bin Laden.
One reader complained about the blatantly pro-Bush-administration slant to the article, saying something like "If you're to going to be so conservatively biased as to make excuses for the administration's failure to find OBL etc. I'm going to cancel my subscription." The other reader complained "If you're going to be so liberally biased as to take potshots and make fun of the administration, I'm going to cancel my subscription."
Remember, they're complaining about the same article. How much of media bias is projection?