Beware!

Scrumpula!!

Nothing special....

...about these guys.



We just liked their attitude.

(Tiki is home sickie today. *sniff*)

There they go again....

As some of you might recall, in 1999, the troubled toy retailer, Toys R Us, threatened us with a cease and desist letter over Mr. Tiki's domain name, toysrgus.com. He shut down the Star Wars Collectors Archive for a few days, but after consideration of TRU's legal case (or lack thereof), we reopened the site.

Well, seven years later, they're at it again. So, Mr. Tiki has decided to move the Archive to a new domain, theswca.com. Please update your bookmarks. And shop at Target.

Jellyfish: MADE OF COWS!

One of PZ Myers' more deranged commenters pointed us to this link.

Scientific Accuracy....AND YOU!!!

Via TPM Muckraker:

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), HHS last year spent $153 million on abstinence education programs -- including my favorite, "A.C. Green's Game Plan Abstinence Program," developed by the famously abstinent onetime NBA superstar (ironic nickname: "Ironman").

Set aside the issue of whether they do any good. GAO tried to see if they did any harm, and concluded they did: Some of the abstinence programs are telling kids stuff that just isn't true. The GAO cites one program which told kids that HIV can pass through latex condoms, because latex is porous. (That's false.)

The GAO gave the reasonable-sounding recommendation to HHS that it ensure that all information given to kids through these programs should be scientifically accurate.

If only the world were so simple! In response, the Department of Health and Human Services -- which has on staff more than a few scientists and other educated types -- said the GAO's suggestion was useless. "GAO never defines the term 'scientific accuracy' in its report," HHS complained. "As such, it is difficult to precisely determine the criteria employed by GAO in making the recommendations as to scientific accuracy."

To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Flunkies
From: Dr. Tiki
Re: Scientific Accuracy

Thankyou for your inquiry regarding standards of so-called scientific accuracy.

Let us summarize the Scientific Method for you.



It all starts with a Scientist. The Scientist has spent many years subsisting on a diet of ramen noodles in order to study and become an expert in an arcane field of study.

Wait! You mean not everyone is offered a lucrative think tank job right out of college like me?

True.



The Scientist will conduct what is called a "Study."

This sounds boring. Can't we skip this part?

No.



Once the findings of the Study are collected, the Scientist must turn them over to her buddy, the Statistician. The Statistician will subject the findings to various mathematical twists and turns. Sometimes, the findings will not turn out to be what the Scientist expected them to be.

In that case, can't we cheat?

Not unless you work for Diebold.



But it's not over yet. Then the findings are now submitted to a Panel of Experts. They are called, The Reviewers. They are Scientists too, and they are not in the best of moods. They will decide whether the results may be published.

What if the results go against God's Will?

Reviewers don't listen to God, only the voices inside their heads.



And now, you are published. Yay, you!

Thankyou for explaining Scientific Accuracy to us. Sometimes, it becomes expedient for HHS to skip certain steps in the process. What is the term for results, such as the "leaky latex theory," that don't strictly follow the methodology to obtain Scientific Accuracy?

Yes, there actually is a technical term for that. That is called, "Making Shit Up."

XOXOXOXO

--Dr. Tiki