(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Sigh

Oh well, predictably Richard Dawkins's programme wasn't very good. I mean, by no standard was it any good, except, perhaps, that whoever found the remarkably cheesy hymn arrangements for the soundtrack should probably get a few brownie points. I don't know if Prof. Dawkins's work in his own field is decent, but his display on Channel 4 just gave the impression that he wasn't too bright. He seemed to be mistaking assertion for argument, was apparently incapable of discerning how to use statistics in any constructive manner, and displayed remarkable ignorance of Who and What God is according to Judeao-Christian thought. Pretty solid gamma all round, really.

(The Guardian offers a review in the style of the original...)