Of course, The World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade comes out on Tuesday (or, if you pre-ordered it, can be picked up late Monday night at your local video game store), which is definitely exciting. Get ready for a week (let's hope that's all) of last-minute patches, unbelievable lag, and random disconnects :)
For those of you who couldn't care less about the goings-on of a virtual world, two other upcoming events have caught my attention. First, on January 18th, Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert will swap appearances on each other's shows. Now, I'm beginning to think I'm really slow, because the mention of this meeting was the first time that it occurred to me that Colbert's show is spoofing O'Reilly's. In my defense, I don't watch either show all that often--I actually run screaming from the room whenever I see Bill O'Reilly on TV. That said, however, I'm interested to see how Colbert handles O'Reilly's barbs, and if Colbert will stay in character throughout the two exchanges. I'm also really glad that this meeting is taking place, because hopefully, it will highlight that what Bill O'Reilly does is NOT the news. Just like Stephen Colbert's show is "fake news," so is what O'Reilly does.
The other interesting thing happening this week is the turning forward of the Doomsday Clock. Again, this was something I hadn't heard of, and so I was interested to learn that the clock
originated in 1947, is kept updated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and was originally set at "7 minutes to midnight." It is moved closer or further from midnight, based on how close these scientists think the world is to nuclear disaster, as determined by international events. Right now, the clock is once again at 7 minutes to midnight, and will be moved closer sometime this week. Additionally, a Wikipedia article on the Doomsday Clock lists a bunch of interesting pop-culture references to this clock. What I find particularly strange about this clock is that it's completely arbitrary. This group of noteworthy scientists, including Stephen Hawking, is responsible for moving the clock forward. When I think of a scientist, I expect someone who deals with measurable data and completely objective standards for measurement. This clock, however, is something that is primarily symbolic. As an English literature scholar, I'm fascinated to see that the scientific community has a use for symbolism as well as objective measurements. Then again, this just might be "crap science" without any actual value. I'd be interested in hearing from readers who are science people about two things: 1) is there any actual scientific weight to this clock and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists? and 2) are there other examples you know of where something scientific is done mostly for its symbolic value?Oh, and one final exciting event this week: my brother turns the big 21! Happy birthday, dude :)
No comments:
Post a Comment