Skip to main content

To Explore Strange New Worlds

This week I have been making a figure for a paper (due next week) and wanted to get ideas how to sketch the endoplasmic reticulum in a dendrite. I therefore did a Google Images search for "ER dendrite." Because "dendrite" is such a science word, I didn't figure I would get many non-scientific images. I was correct, and a very helpful image appeared on the first line of the first page. That helped in my construction of this draft of my figure. (The ER is contiguous with the upper right-hand corner, sitting in the larger dendrite):
I wanted to be complete, though, so I searched through the next several pages, most of which were just pictures of dendrites without any endoplasmic reticulum. Then to my horror, on page five of the search results, I found this mixed in with all the images of neurons:

Why, oh, why? It turns out the indicated page is an archived week's worth of posts from October of 2005 on a blog called BoingBoing. One post is titled "Dean on Matthews and, er, salami" and another post contains a sentence about some legal decisions:
All of them -- the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Melvin v Doe, New Jersey's Superior Court, Appellate Division in Dendrite v Doe, and now the Delaware Supreme Court -- have required the presentation of evidence before a Doe defendant may be deprived of his right to remain anonymous.
What I don't understand, though, is why Google Images picked that image out of the dozens of pictures on that page to include in the search. The image is in a post separate from any occurrences of "er" or "dendrite." I love Google Images, but the abrupt appearance of the fan fiction soft porn almost made me toss my lunch.

Comments

  1. Unknown7:43 PM

    Spock and Kirk together like that is just wrong. Any two unknown guys - whatever they want, but not Spock and Kirk.

    On another note, I learned how to read your blog on my Kindle. Pretty cool!

    ReplyDelete
  2. J. Michael Andresen8:19 PM

    I agree completely. I am fully supportive of all lifestyles no matter how mainstream or alternative. It was Kirk and Spock in particular that was disturbing. I would have been equally nauseated by a similar depiction of, say, Batman and Wonder Woman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. J-W Maessen7:59 AM

    Couldn't you just have *said* Kirk/Spock? Oh my eyes!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can You Cross Your Toes?

Katie and I had a heated discussion the night before last. We were sitting on the couch watching Jon Stewart when she noticed a large, apparently cancerous growth sticking out of the bottom of my foot. She asked what the big lump in my sock was. "That's my toe," I responded, nonplussed. I had crossed my first and second toes, causing a lump to protrude from the bottom of my sock. Katie was quite alarmed. "You can cross your toes?" "Sure, can't you? Everyone can cross their toes!" "Of course I can't cross my toes. Who can cross their toes?" And I confirmed that Katie could not, in fact, cross her toes. Even manipulating her toes with my fingers, I could not get her toes to stay crossed. She just has very short toes. That led, of course, into a discussion of who was the freak. Were my long, crossable toes abnormal, or were her stubby, uncrossable phalanges the outliers? In case you're confused, here are some pictures. First, of my v
35 comments
Read more

Leagalize drugs!

The Economist has a wonderful editorial this week about legalizing drugs. I wholeheartedly agree that the world will be better off by far if the United States legalized, taxed, and regulated illicit drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and heroin. The goods that will come from legalization: 1. We will save the $40 billion the US spends trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. 2. We will save the costs involved in incarcerating so many drug offenders (as well as gain their productivity in society). 3. We will gain money through taxation on the legal drug trade. 4. Legalized drugs will be regulated, and thus purer and safer to take. 5. With all these savings, we will have lots of money to spend on treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than as a law and order issue. We will have lots of money to fund treatment programs for addicts that are ensnared by the easier availability of drugs. 6. We will prevent tens of thousands of killings in countries that produce drugs when proc
10 comments
Read more

2017 Prognostication Quiz FINAL POST: Questions 10 and 11, Stocks and Quakes

In the last post , I pointed out that Matthew D. and I were in a two-way tie at the top of the leaderboard with me holding the edge over him in the tiebreaker. For Matthew D. to have a chance to come from behind and grab the win, some significant December movement would be needed in one of three areas: the stock market, world earthquakes, or a convenient death. Here's what happened: 10. Stocks (December 29) How will stocks do in this first year of Trumponomics? Will the Dow Jones Industrial Average be up or down compared to the final close of 2016? Which way will the Dow go? a. Up b. Down The Dow Jones continued to rise throughout the month. I maintained my advantage in the tie-breaker. 11. Earthquake (December 31) How many big earthquakes (magnitude 8.0 or larger on the Richter scale) will there be this year? (Big earthquake counts from this millennium are indicated in parentheses.) How many big earthquakes will there be this year? a. None (2) b. One (7) c. Two (4) d. Th
Post a Comment
Read more