The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Ken Burnside:

I make a good chunk of my income as a writer doing the following:

"Simple Simon" summaries of patents so patent holders can market them to financiers.

Science popularizations for a couple of regional papers.

Reviews of technologies for online sources (mostly cell phones, sometimes astronomy gear).

...and I also write games for a living, where I sell rocket science as something cool and fun to do when channeling your inner 14-year old hunter-gatherer who wants to kill things.

I have never been impressed with the NYT's science coverage.

A few too many incidents like this:

"Well, if we plug in all the variables and dial them up to their maximum values in the model, based off of temperature rises from weather stations and ignoring remote proxy data, the Earth will experience a climate change of 104 degrees C by 2100. Among other things, this would boil the seas. Fortunately there are data sets that ameliorate this, but clearly the models need some refinement."

getting quoted as this:

"Well, if we plug in temperature rises from weather stations, the Earth will rise in temperature by 104 degrees C, boiling the seas. Clearly, the models need refinement."

Every word in the second quote appears in the first. They're given in the same order.

If those seem hauntingly familiar, the author of the quotes is Dr. Reid Bryson, and those are reasonably close examples of what he claims to have said and what was actually printed, when he was interviewed in 2004.

I did a follow-up interview with Dr. Bryson after he raised a ruckus about being quoted out of context. There was never a retraction printed by the paper.

If you're lucky, you get someone who's enthusiastic about science, and can ask novice level questions.

If you're stunningly lucky, you get someone who can follow calculus, statistical means, and chi squares, if you go slowly and let them sound out the big words.

Unfortunately, writers who can don't stick around for long - the pay in engineering and technical writing is better than in science journalism.

Most times, the science writer is the guy who's new to the publication, working the "George" jobs and can't wait until he gets something better paying. He comes to the interview armed with a lot of Google printouts that he can't make hide nor hair of, and asks you to translate.

In all cases, it's not unreasonable to be terrified of what pre-conceptions the interviewer has that he hasn't bothered to tell you, and to be on the watch for someone trying to make the Big Splash story so they can build a rep and move on to something that pays better, like the Paris Hilton Lingerie Patrol.

I will vote for the candidate who promises this:

“Our current electoral process is, due to a number of factors that have magnified greatly since the days of the Founding Fathers, trundled towards a dangerous precipice. One where “compromise†and “listening to the opposition†are considered offenses worthy of stoning.â€

“I propose to change that. If I win the election, I promise my opponent that he will have access to the White House, and access to Executive Office funds to create a team of advisors, mirroring the Presidential Cabinet. On every substantial issue that comes before me as President, he will be asked to provide a reasoned opinion. Where doing so does not compromise the security of the nation, he will have access to information he might not otherwise get.â€

“Every second Wednesday that I’m in office, there will be a two hour block of time for my opponent, with his staff of advisors, to bring me up to speed on issues of concern to their side of the political aisle.â€

“The Presidency of the United States is too important for partisanship. I urge my opponent to make the reciprocal pledge, in the event that he wins.â€

Yeah. I know. I'm dreaming.

It's funny how the discourse in this thread mirrors the discourse on the anti-Hillary/anti-Obama sites.

"Let's focus on the things about a candidate we disagree with! Let's get all riled up! Wow, can you believe what a whack job that candidate is? Man, we have to get everyone mobilized to make sure that he never comes close to the elected position of dog catcher! He's too dangerous!"

How about we listen to the good ideas from all quarters, and attempt to integrate 'em instead...

My two copies of the Janus: Sonnet poster print have arrived.

One is going to my father as a gift.

The other is getting this written on the bottom:

"Thanks for the miracles, Mike."

It will be laminated and put on a telephone pole in the skateboarding park, where the street poet scene here posts their versifications.

Seemed the best way to mark the anno sombre

He shew'd us dreamburst
Not so long as we'd like
Raconteur abetting thirst
We hope again to see the like

The challenges of Euterpe*
Barely shows us adequate for art.
Inspired, but without his quiet example
Words, once joyous, slip our net

Though joyous dwelt, given freely
Perhaps this is the lesson learnt?
Methinks he would find it most unseemly
That we hide from the joy of dreamburst

Though we had him not so long as liked
In gratitude, thanks for the miracles, Mike.

* Euterpe, the Pleasing One among the muses. Very likely co-starring with Mike in the Parnassian version of The Office, the two of them zipping bon mots in dialog far too witty for focus groups.

Comment statistics for Ken Burnside on the Making Light blog

Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.