![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 12th, 2010
Saving the Arctic
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:40 amOne would think, after the ghastly disaster in the Gulf, that people would learn not to drill for oil like that. It's too dangerous. Alas, they're still pursuing deepwater drilling. Please do what you can to discourage this.
Beaufort SeaLast month a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity
and our allies stopped a flawed and illegal Bush-era plan to drill in the
Chukchi Sea. But no matter how much evidence piles up against drilling
in the Arctic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar keeps pushing ahead. Given
the disaster we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, there's no reason to run
those same terrible risks in the Arctic. The stakes are simply too high.
( Read more... )
Saving the Arctic
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:40 amOne would think, after the ghastly disaster in the Gulf, that people would learn not to drill for oil like that. It's too dangerous. Alas, they're still pursuing deepwater drilling. Please do what you can to discourage this.
Beaufort SeaLast month a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity
and our allies stopped a flawed and illegal Bush-era plan to drill in the
Chukchi Sea. But no matter how much evidence piles up against drilling
in the Arctic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar keeps pushing ahead. Given
the disaster we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, there's no reason to run
those same terrible risks in the Arctic. The stakes are simply too high.
( Read more... )
Saving the Arctic
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:40 amOne would think, after the ghastly disaster in the Gulf, that people would learn not to drill for oil like that. It's too dangerous. Alas, they're still pursuing deepwater drilling. Please do what you can to discourage this.
Beaufort SeaLast month a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity
and our allies stopped a flawed and illegal Bush-era plan to drill in the
Chukchi Sea. But no matter how much evidence piles up against drilling
in the Arctic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar keeps pushing ahead. Given
the disaster we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, there's no reason to run
those same terrible risks in the Arctic. The stakes are simply too high.
( Read more... )
Saving the Arctic
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:40 amOne would think, after the ghastly disaster in the Gulf, that people would learn not to drill for oil like that. It's too dangerous. Alas, they're still pursuing deepwater drilling. Please do what you can to discourage this.
Beaufort SeaLast month a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity
and our allies stopped a flawed and illegal Bush-era plan to drill in the
Chukchi Sea. But no matter how much evidence piles up against drilling
in the Arctic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar keeps pushing ahead. Given
the disaster we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, there's no reason to run
those same terrible risks in the Arctic. The stakes are simply too high.
( Read more... )
Blogs vs. E-newsletters
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:28 pmThis interesting article discusses writers who switch from blogs to email newsletters.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
Blogs vs. E-newsletters
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:28 pmThis interesting article discusses writers who switch from blogs to email newsletters.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
Blogs vs. E-newsletters
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:28 pmThis interesting article discusses writers who switch from blogs to email newsletters.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
Blogs vs. E-newsletters
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:28 pmThis interesting article discusses writers who switch from blogs to email newsletters.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
I actually have both. I use blogging for my quick updates on projects, crowdfunding, newslinking, and anchor discussions. I use my email newsletter as a monthly summary of my writing/editing work and a few personal tidbits. If you want to know what I'm up to regularly, read my writing, and interact with me -- watch the blogs. If you just want to keep tabs on me occasionally and not be pestered, sign up for the newsletter. If you want to know everything I would conceivably mention in public, read both; the overlap is substantial but not complete.
If you want to subscribe to my e-newsletter, just contact me through LJ message or email and let me know.
Lucy in the Grass with Stone Knives
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:56 pmI was fascinated by this article about a new archaeology discovery, implying that Australopithecus afarensis used stone tools to butcher animals. This hominid species is best known for the skeleton of "Lucy," but had not previously been considered either tool-using or meat-eating. The fossilized bones show marks from stone tools used to cut and scrape meat, as well as percussion to break bone and expose the marrow.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Lucy in the Grass with Stone Knives
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:56 pmI was fascinated by this article about a new archaeology discovery, implying that Australopithecus afarensis used stone tools to butcher animals. This hominid species is best known for the skeleton of "Lucy," but had not previously been considered either tool-using or meat-eating. The fossilized bones show marks from stone tools used to cut and scrape meat, as well as percussion to break bone and expose the marrow.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Lucy in the Grass with Stone Knives
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:56 pmI was fascinated by this article about a new archaeology discovery, implying that Australopithecus afarensis used stone tools to butcher animals. This hominid species is best known for the skeleton of "Lucy," but had not previously been considered either tool-using or meat-eating. The fossilized bones show marks from stone tools used to cut and scrape meat, as well as percussion to break bone and expose the marrow.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Lucy in the Grass with Stone Knives
Aug. 12th, 2010 12:56 pmI was fascinated by this article about a new archaeology discovery, implying that Australopithecus afarensis used stone tools to butcher animals. This hominid species is best known for the skeleton of "Lucy," but had not previously been considered either tool-using or meat-eating. The fossilized bones show marks from stone tools used to cut and scrape meat, as well as percussion to break bone and expose the marrow.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
Not everyone agrees with this startling evidence -- they're scientists, they're supposed to argue -- but there's a big clear photo of one fossil above the article. Those look like tool marks to me. I'm no expert, but I'm a decent hobby-scientist with an interest in ancient tools, so I've looked at this sort of thing before. If I'd found it at a dig, I'd have been dancing with excitement. Look at the little V-shapes on the bottom, near the middle. Those are usually indicative of tool use because a person will often make similar crossing cuts to dislodge a piece of meat. The big squarish notch above them could be one of the percussion points or a result of repetitive sawing motions. Under a microscope, it's possible for an expert to distinguish tool marks -- and even the type of tool -- from tooth marks (and the type of animal). Different materials leave differently shaped marks. Marks left by tools are more methodical than those left by random natural violence, such as a body flung against river rocks during a flood.
Anyhow, I think this is exciting news. I got stuck on Lucy (with the nonfiction book of the same name) back when I was in junior high or thereabouts. I still love reading about our hominid ancestors.
My friend and colleague Isaac Bonewits passed away this morning. I have written an elegy for him, pasted below.
His wife Phaedra reports from Facebook:
"This morning, August 12, 2010 at approximately 8 AM ET, Isaac Bonewits passed away peacefully in his sleep. All his brothers and sisters arrived at his side last night. His family and friends surround him now."
( Obituary )
( Elegy )
My friend and colleague Isaac Bonewits passed away this morning. I have written an elegy for him, pasted below.
His wife Phaedra reports from Facebook:
"This morning, August 12, 2010 at approximately 8 AM ET, Isaac Bonewits passed away peacefully in his sleep. All his brothers and sisters arrived at his side last night. His family and friends surround him now."
( Obituary )
( Elegy )
My friend and colleague Isaac Bonewits passed away this morning. I have written an elegy for him, pasted below.
His wife Phaedra reports from Facebook:
"This morning, August 12, 2010 at approximately 8 AM ET, Isaac Bonewits passed away peacefully in his sleep. All his brothers and sisters arrived at his side last night. His family and friends surround him now."
( Obituary )
( Elegy )
My friend and colleague Isaac Bonewits passed away this morning. I have written an elegy for him, pasted below.
His wife Phaedra reports from Facebook:
"This morning, August 12, 2010 at approximately 8 AM ET, Isaac Bonewits passed away peacefully in his sleep. All his brothers and sisters arrived at his side last night. His family and friends surround him now."
( Obituary )
( Elegy )