Watch.
_
_
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
This is the six hundred sixty-sixth post here at The Abstracted Engineer, and as such I feel I owe it to my readership to talk about the Devil, and how "the devil" relates to science and engineering.
You see, dear readers, TAE does not believe in a devil. The idea that some angel in Heaven named Lucifer defied God, fell, and became some sort of super-powerful semi-God bent on the destruction of all things good in the Universe makes for an awesome movie, but is a difficult tale to wrap one's head around. First, I have explained many times (to anyone who will listen to my shouting) that putting human faces on deities is a limited and understated way of describing them. God is not a wizened, white-bearded grandfather sitting in a cloud-world watching the humans below struggle through their daily lives. God is, if omnipotence and omnipresence are to be believed, all-things at all times, and therefore describing God as a flying spaghetti monster is just as accurate (though equally imprecise) as the grandfather-image described above. Similarly, since Augustine (and probably before), the words of the Bible and the characters (and caracatures?) located within were not considered literal, but rather a poetic and lyrical description of a gigantic allegory for God, Humanity, and the relationship between the two. Stories of Lucifer's fall are not meant to be read literally (and for the most part weren't, until the last two centuries), rather they were meant to serve as a guide, a sort of parable without the convenient section heading so prevalent in the New Testament. So although I found the movie Constantine very entertaining, the idea that God and Satan are waging a secret war on Earth for our souls, in fact the idea that Satan (creepily portrayed by Peter Stormare) is sort of hanging out, and can, at the drop of a hat, stop time and come pay us a visit basically goes against basic logic (if Satan can stop time and wanted to end the Earth, why not just indefinitely stop time?).
What the heck, dear readers might be asking, does this have to do with science?
My point is that "the devil" is not a personage, not some malevolent being twitching puppet strings in the darkness above (or below). The devil is the doubter, the hate-monger, and the ones who only see one answer to a problem.
Take an old engineer. He's lived a long, healthy life, and in the twilight of his career, here comes some young, upstart newbie fresh out of engineering school. The newbie is assigned, under him, to design a small power plant facility that burns natural gas. The newbie, bright and energetic, comes up with a new way to use VFD-driven motors to save tons of energy in the cooling system at the plant. Only thing is, the control system is twice as complex, and requires an extra fan assembly in the exterior wall of the building. The senior engineer, who has designed dozens of natural gas power plants in his long and storied career, shoots down the young engineers idea, telling him that the contractors (in his experience, which is vast, he reminds us) will invariably screw up the control sequence and therefore they must design this facility (which is essentially a giant bomb) to be a simple as possible. But the young engineer implores him, arguing that control sequencing has come so much farther, and black-box control systems are now commonplace - and cheap.
Nevertheless, the senior engineer does not relent, and the facility goes in with a simple, inefficient, primary-secondary system that uses loads of electricity (the very thing the power plant is attempting to produce).
Now, I disclose I am a young engineer and occasionally get hotheaded at the elders at my company. But nevertheless, the devil here is the unflinching elder, who (thinking he is doing the right thing) refuses change. He is near retirement, and does he really want one of his last projects to be a contracting nightmare, with cost overruns when the control system doesn't work. He acknowledges, on some deep level, that the young engineer may be right - and when that young engineer is a senior engineer he can do whatever he damn well pleases - but he will not try new things when he has built a career doing what works.
Then again the devil is the young engineer too, because in his anger that his smart idea has been quashed, he talks trash to his peers about the senior engineer, day-dreaming about the day the old crank retires. He tells his peers how he could do the senior engineers' job, and better, and make the company more money. "High-risk, high-reward!" the young engineer trumpets. And he mulls and fumes about how long it takes him to move upward, when money and power will be his.
Or take this example: A smart scientist develops a method to identify a genetic disease with a "lab-on-a-chip" device for a mere $40 a use. Immediately "the devil" climbs aboard, as the scientist's peers gnash their teeth for not coming up with it, and write editorials to peer-reviewed journals claiming the inaccuracy of such a test method. The scientist then writes back, claiming that he alone is the brilliant pioneer amongst a cadre of old-fashioned plebians. Meanwhile the pharmaceutical companies have taken the $40 test and turned it into a convenient, over-the-counter product...that costs $100. The insurance companies, realizing that the knowledge gleaned from the test could better help them assess risk, raises rates company-wide and cover a small portion of the test ($20), claiming that "the increased costs of insuring those afflicted with the genetic disease in question warrant the policy rate increase." No mention is made of the fact that the people who test positive were already being covered by the insurance company at their old premium rate (and the insurance company was doing just fine). Meanwhile, other scientists at other companies have reverse engineered the product and come up with tons of other genetic diseases that also could be detected. They've also shaved the cost down to $25/test thanks to mass-production methods, but the OTC price still hovers around $100. The original test-making pharmaceutical company sues, claiming infringment. Faced with this sudden smorgasbord of easy genetic tests, insurers are forced to limit patients to 5 tests per person (or 10 per family).
The devils here are numerous and varied!
The point is that in science and engineering, the devil is harder to see than a mischievous, pointy-eared fellow with fire coming out of his eyeballs. The devil is as much about emotion as anything else. The devil drives people to steal the work/credit from others, or to undermine authority, or to refuse change because it requires hard work, or to be lazy and fake data, or a host of other things that happen every single day in the world.
And that brings us back around to theology. When you think about science and engineering, the "Seven Deadly Sins" seems especially applicable. In genetic testing case above, we managed to hit every single one of them: the scientist's peers were envious, and then the scientist was prideful in his defense. The pharmaceutical company was greedy, and then wrathful in their lawsuit. The other pharmaceutical companies were slothful by reverse engineering the genetic test, and lustful by stealing the idea. And the insurance company was gluttonous to raise rates on their clients without true justification. Did I catch them all?
And yet, every single person had their justification for their acts. The scientist was only defending himself from his attacking peers. The peers were only attempting to better the total body of scientific knowledge and help the public be informed to causal doubt about the genetic test. The insurance company new that people with the genetic disease would be expensive and needed to pad their books so they didn't go bankrupt, at which time no one would be covered. The pharmaceutical companies are trying to get the product out where it can help people! We all invite the devil into our lives with a good justification! Especially scientists and engineers.
_
You see, dear readers, TAE does not believe in a devil. The idea that some angel in Heaven named Lucifer defied God, fell, and became some sort of super-powerful semi-God bent on the destruction of all things good in the Universe makes for an awesome movie, but is a difficult tale to wrap one's head around. First, I have explained many times (to anyone who will listen to my shouting) that putting human faces on deities is a limited and understated way of describing them. God is not a wizened, white-bearded grandfather sitting in a cloud-world watching the humans below struggle through their daily lives. God is, if omnipotence and omnipresence are to be believed, all-things at all times, and therefore describing God as a flying spaghetti monster is just as accurate (though equally imprecise) as the grandfather-image described above. Similarly, since Augustine (and probably before), the words of the Bible and the characters (and caracatures?) located within were not considered literal, but rather a poetic and lyrical description of a gigantic allegory for God, Humanity, and the relationship between the two. Stories of Lucifer's fall are not meant to be read literally (and for the most part weren't, until the last two centuries), rather they were meant to serve as a guide, a sort of parable without the convenient section heading so prevalent in the New Testament. So although I found the movie Constantine very entertaining, the idea that God and Satan are waging a secret war on Earth for our souls, in fact the idea that Satan (creepily portrayed by Peter Stormare) is sort of hanging out, and can, at the drop of a hat, stop time and come pay us a visit basically goes against basic logic (if Satan can stop time and wanted to end the Earth, why not just indefinitely stop time?).
What the heck, dear readers might be asking, does this have to do with science?
My point is that "the devil" is not a personage, not some malevolent being twitching puppet strings in the darkness above (or below). The devil is the doubter, the hate-monger, and the ones who only see one answer to a problem.
Take an old engineer. He's lived a long, healthy life, and in the twilight of his career, here comes some young, upstart newbie fresh out of engineering school. The newbie is assigned, under him, to design a small power plant facility that burns natural gas. The newbie, bright and energetic, comes up with a new way to use VFD-driven motors to save tons of energy in the cooling system at the plant. Only thing is, the control system is twice as complex, and requires an extra fan assembly in the exterior wall of the building. The senior engineer, who has designed dozens of natural gas power plants in his long and storied career, shoots down the young engineers idea, telling him that the contractors (in his experience, which is vast, he reminds us) will invariably screw up the control sequence and therefore they must design this facility (which is essentially a giant bomb) to be a simple as possible. But the young engineer implores him, arguing that control sequencing has come so much farther, and black-box control systems are now commonplace - and cheap.
Nevertheless, the senior engineer does not relent, and the facility goes in with a simple, inefficient, primary-secondary system that uses loads of electricity (the very thing the power plant is attempting to produce).
Now, I disclose I am a young engineer and occasionally get hotheaded at the elders at my company. But nevertheless, the devil here is the unflinching elder, who (thinking he is doing the right thing) refuses change. He is near retirement, and does he really want one of his last projects to be a contracting nightmare, with cost overruns when the control system doesn't work. He acknowledges, on some deep level, that the young engineer may be right - and when that young engineer is a senior engineer he can do whatever he damn well pleases - but he will not try new things when he has built a career doing what works.
Then again the devil is the young engineer too, because in his anger that his smart idea has been quashed, he talks trash to his peers about the senior engineer, day-dreaming about the day the old crank retires. He tells his peers how he could do the senior engineers' job, and better, and make the company more money. "High-risk, high-reward!" the young engineer trumpets. And he mulls and fumes about how long it takes him to move upward, when money and power will be his.
Or take this example: A smart scientist develops a method to identify a genetic disease with a "lab-on-a-chip" device for a mere $40 a use. Immediately "the devil" climbs aboard, as the scientist's peers gnash their teeth for not coming up with it, and write editorials to peer-reviewed journals claiming the inaccuracy of such a test method. The scientist then writes back, claiming that he alone is the brilliant pioneer amongst a cadre of old-fashioned plebians. Meanwhile the pharmaceutical companies have taken the $40 test and turned it into a convenient, over-the-counter product...that costs $100. The insurance companies, realizing that the knowledge gleaned from the test could better help them assess risk, raises rates company-wide and cover a small portion of the test ($20), claiming that "the increased costs of insuring those afflicted with the genetic disease in question warrant the policy rate increase." No mention is made of the fact that the people who test positive were already being covered by the insurance company at their old premium rate (and the insurance company was doing just fine). Meanwhile, other scientists at other companies have reverse engineered the product and come up with tons of other genetic diseases that also could be detected. They've also shaved the cost down to $25/test thanks to mass-production methods, but the OTC price still hovers around $100. The original test-making pharmaceutical company sues, claiming infringment. Faced with this sudden smorgasbord of easy genetic tests, insurers are forced to limit patients to 5 tests per person (or 10 per family).
The devils here are numerous and varied!
The point is that in science and engineering, the devil is harder to see than a mischievous, pointy-eared fellow with fire coming out of his eyeballs. The devil is as much about emotion as anything else. The devil drives people to steal the work/credit from others, or to undermine authority, or to refuse change because it requires hard work, or to be lazy and fake data, or a host of other things that happen every single day in the world.
And that brings us back around to theology. When you think about science and engineering, the "Seven Deadly Sins" seems especially applicable. In genetic testing case above, we managed to hit every single one of them: the scientist's peers were envious, and then the scientist was prideful in his defense. The pharmaceutical company was greedy, and then wrathful in their lawsuit. The other pharmaceutical companies were slothful by reverse engineering the genetic test, and lustful by stealing the idea. And the insurance company was gluttonous to raise rates on their clients without true justification. Did I catch them all?
And yet, every single person had their justification for their acts. The scientist was only defending himself from his attacking peers. The peers were only attempting to better the total body of scientific knowledge and help the public be informed to causal doubt about the genetic test. The insurance company new that people with the genetic disease would be expensive and needed to pad their books so they didn't go bankrupt, at which time no one would be covered. The pharmaceutical companies are trying to get the product out where it can help people! We all invite the devil into our lives with a good justification! Especially scientists and engineers.
_
Monday, 28 September 2009
DARPA is looking for ideas on how to clean up NASA's astounding orbital mess.
Best idea so far: launching water into space and using it as a collision device to slow down orbital debris and send it into a burn-up in Earth's atmosphere. Because, explosions of ice wouldn't exacerbate the problem at all.
Here's TAE's cheap, practical solution:
Recruit a sqaudron of X-Wing fighters led by Wedge Antilles to streak in and blast all the space debris with their laser cannons and proton torpedo banks.
_
Best idea so far: launching water into space and using it as a collision device to slow down orbital debris and send it into a burn-up in Earth's atmosphere. Because, explosions of ice wouldn't exacerbate the problem at all.
Here's TAE's cheap, practical solution:
Recruit a sqaudron of X-Wing fighters led by Wedge Antilles to streak in and blast all the space debris with their laser cannons and proton torpedo banks.
_
TAE watched sadly (and with much gnashing of teeth) as his hometown team, the Kansas City Chiefs, didn't even show up for the game up Sunday. Expect Mel Kiper to start discussing who the Chiefs will pick no. 1 in the 2010 draft. Meanwhile, TAE wouldn't be especially surprised if the AFC West sends an 8-8 team to the playoffs...the entire division is hapless and lazy on the field, with no especial talent on the offensive line - TAE's secret belief is that massive, high-speed O-lines are what get teams into February, not quarterbacks, runningbacks or tweeting wide receivers.
And in case anyone wants to send me a "the Broncos/Chargers are 3-0/2-1, they look good" comment let me just point out that the Broncos have so far played 1-2 Oakland, 0-3 Cleveland, and 2-1 Cincinatti. Epic wins. The Chargers are a robust 2-1 against 1-2 Oakland, 0-3 Miami, and they lost (at home) to Baltimore.
Update (Mel Kiper released his 2010 draft projection later that day)
_
And in case anyone wants to send me a "the Broncos/Chargers are 3-0/2-1, they look good" comment let me just point out that the Broncos have so far played 1-2 Oakland, 0-3 Cleveland, and 2-1 Cincinatti. Epic wins. The Chargers are a robust 2-1 against 1-2 Oakland, 0-3 Miami, and they lost (at home) to Baltimore.
Update (Mel Kiper released his 2010 draft projection later that day)
_
Over the weekend Mrs. TAE and I enjoyed the movie "Yes Man" starring Jim Carrey last night. The plot was pretty good, the supporting cast was strong (TAE always loves Bradley Cooper's work and Danny Masterson was barely recognizable but brilliant), and the typical rom-com plot devices were refinished in a way that made them cliche but not annoyingly so.
However, at the end of the movie, I felt that it could have starred any male on Earth and probably have been just as good...if not better. Jim Carrey was probably brought in because hey, it's a comedy and he's Mr. Comedy. But at times when Carrey (47) was hugging a baby-faced Zooey Deschanel (29), it looked like an over-the-hill father comforting his college-age daughter...and then they started making out. Carrey does not look young for his age, but Deschanel does. The casting was a May-December romance that I found both awkward and hard to believe.
Otherwise a good movie.
_
However, at the end of the movie, I felt that it could have starred any male on Earth and probably have been just as good...if not better. Jim Carrey was probably brought in because hey, it's a comedy and he's Mr. Comedy. But at times when Carrey (47) was hugging a baby-faced Zooey Deschanel (29), it looked like an over-the-hill father comforting his college-age daughter...and then they started making out. Carrey does not look young for his age, but Deschanel does. The casting was a May-December romance that I found both awkward and hard to believe.
Otherwise a good movie.
_
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Travolta has finally admitted his son had autism, stopping with Scientology claim that autism isn't a real disease.
Stay tuned for Travolta to blame his late-son's autism on flu vaccines.
_
Stay tuned for Travolta to blame his late-son's autism on flu vaccines.
_
Here, it is reported that satellites around the moon (ironically, the moon is actually a large satellite) have detected small pockets of water all over the surface of the moon, though they are few and far between. "The moon remains drier than any desert on earth" the article proclaims.
If people knew why there was water on Earth, they wouldn't be so amazed about water being on the moon. Water on Earth (where it wasn't formed via bizarre lightning strikes hitting methane gas pockets and causing explosions the byproduct of which was water) mostly came to this planet via meteorites that contained huge volumes of water in the form of ice in their mass. The meteorites burned up in the atmosphere, leaving behind water vapor, or crashed into the surface of Earth, where the ice melted. And that is how we have all this water. It is possible, if Jupiter hadn't solidified and sucked up most of the debris between Mars and Uranus, that Earth would be completely covered in water. But we got to 70%, astronomical events occurred, and the meteorites stopped crashing here. Mostly.
The same is true for the Moon. Any causual observer looking at the moon can see the millions of pockmarks where meteorites have struck the surface. Most of those meteorites contained water. In the low atmosphere of the Moon, it makes sense that the water would sublimate and leave the Moon's surface. But the idea that frozen fragments of the meteorites remain is not a revelation, it is just an extension of what we already know to be true about our home planet.
I am just glad it was India that spent millions on the satellite that proved this, and not NASA. However, since I cannot write about space without criticizing my old pals at NASA, I must admit: India successfully put a satellite into Moon orbit for $80 million, but it took $600 million for NASA to build a toilet.
_
If people knew why there was water on Earth, they wouldn't be so amazed about water being on the moon. Water on Earth (where it wasn't formed via bizarre lightning strikes hitting methane gas pockets and causing explosions the byproduct of which was water) mostly came to this planet via meteorites that contained huge volumes of water in the form of ice in their mass. The meteorites burned up in the atmosphere, leaving behind water vapor, or crashed into the surface of Earth, where the ice melted. And that is how we have all this water. It is possible, if Jupiter hadn't solidified and sucked up most of the debris between Mars and Uranus, that Earth would be completely covered in water. But we got to 70%, astronomical events occurred, and the meteorites stopped crashing here. Mostly.
The same is true for the Moon. Any causual observer looking at the moon can see the millions of pockmarks where meteorites have struck the surface. Most of those meteorites contained water. In the low atmosphere of the Moon, it makes sense that the water would sublimate and leave the Moon's surface. But the idea that frozen fragments of the meteorites remain is not a revelation, it is just an extension of what we already know to be true about our home planet.
I am just glad it was India that spent millions on the satellite that proved this, and not NASA. However, since I cannot write about space without criticizing my old pals at NASA, I must admit: India successfully put a satellite into Moon orbit for $80 million, but it took $600 million for NASA to build a toilet.
_
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
"61 percent of Nones [people who claim no religious beliefs] find evolution convincing, compared with 38 percent of all Americans. And yet they do not dismiss the possibility of a God they do not understand; and refuse to call themselves atheists. This is the fertile ground on which a new Christianity will at some point grow. In the end, the intellectual bankruptcy of the theocon right and Christianist movement counts. Very few people with brains are listening to these people any more. They have discredited Christianity as much as they have tarnished conservatism." -Andrew Sullivan
TAE wonders: will the new Christianist movement come from visionary (and handsome) Evangelical Scientists?
Speaking of the term "evangelical scientist," for a laugh, read this old Onion article.
_
TAE wonders: will the new Christianist movement come from visionary (and handsome) Evangelical Scientists?
Speaking of the term "evangelical scientist," for a laugh, read this old Onion article.
_
“If you are scientifically literate the world looks very different to you. It's not just a lot of mysterious things happening. There is a lot we understand out there. And that understanding empowers you to, first, not be taken advantage of by others who do understand it. And second there are issues that confront society that have science as their foundation. If you are scientifically illiterate, in a way, you are disenfranchising yourself from the democratic process, and you don’t even know it.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson, July 3 2009
_
_
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
I've mentioned before that an increasingly large amount of scientific, peer-reviewed research shows that people are unsafe drivers while talking or texting on their cell phones. My solution, rather than limit the freedom of drivers to do so, was instead to automate cars.
I have conducted, over the past several days, an intensive and unscientific survey of drivers. At first I did this out of irritation because a pair of drivers on their cell phones almost killed me, but by the second day I was quite curious because I saw a trend emerging.
What I did was record the gender of drivers in cars that either passed me or were passed by me during my 13-mile, one way commute. I then recorded whether or not that driver was talking on their cell phone or texting, or neither. I did this for 4 commutes to work, and three home, until I reached a total of 1200 cars that had passed or been passed by me.
In all, of 1200 drivers, I recorded 234 of them using their cell phones while their cars were moving. That is just under 20% of drivers using their cell phones, which most authorities consider unsafe. But get this: of the 234 using their cell phones, 231 of them were women.
That is an astounding 98.7% of drivers in my sample pool that were using cell phones. Now I'll be the first in line at the "this isn't statistically sound test group sampling" line, and I admit, I did not record cars that were not moving, or the thousands of cars that moved along with my truck and I was unable to see the driver. But I humbly submit that while the statistic might skew more towards male cell phone use, it would still be an unbelievably lopsided number.
Now, I am not accusing women of being bad drivers. Nor am I accusing them of some sort of gender-based obsession with cellular technology. I am simply pointing out that on my daily commute, there are so many women on their cell phones that it nears absurdity.
_
I have conducted, over the past several days, an intensive and unscientific survey of drivers. At first I did this out of irritation because a pair of drivers on their cell phones almost killed me, but by the second day I was quite curious because I saw a trend emerging.
What I did was record the gender of drivers in cars that either passed me or were passed by me during my 13-mile, one way commute. I then recorded whether or not that driver was talking on their cell phone or texting, or neither. I did this for 4 commutes to work, and three home, until I reached a total of 1200 cars that had passed or been passed by me.
In all, of 1200 drivers, I recorded 234 of them using their cell phones while their cars were moving. That is just under 20% of drivers using their cell phones, which most authorities consider unsafe. But get this: of the 234 using their cell phones, 231 of them were women.
That is an astounding 98.7% of drivers in my sample pool that were using cell phones. Now I'll be the first in line at the "this isn't statistically sound test group sampling" line, and I admit, I did not record cars that were not moving, or the thousands of cars that moved along with my truck and I was unable to see the driver. But I humbly submit that while the statistic might skew more towards male cell phone use, it would still be an unbelievably lopsided number.
Now, I am not accusing women of being bad drivers. Nor am I accusing them of some sort of gender-based obsession with cellular technology. I am simply pointing out that on my daily commute, there are so many women on their cell phones that it nears absurdity.
_
Monday, 21 September 2009
If the first "engineers" were Frenchman who designed, built and maintained "siege engines" to use in conquering the British Isles, shouldn't what I do qualify for hazard pay?
_
_
Here, it is explained that what some reported to be a UFO on Saturday night was in fact a rocket designed by NASA to detonate high in the atmosphere and create, for a short time, burning clouds. The Black Brant II suborbital sounding rocket "spewed exhaust particles" into the upper atmosphere, where they quickly exhibited "noctiluscence", which is basically a high altitude flame in the air in the middle of the night.
The noctilucent cloud was visible for a few minutes up and down the Eastern seaboard. NASA describes this as a method to analyze and understand the naturally occurring noctilucent clouds occasionally reported.
_
The noctilucent cloud was visible for a few minutes up and down the Eastern seaboard. NASA describes this as a method to analyze and understand the naturally occurring noctilucent clouds occasionally reported.
"I'm sure many unsuspecting folks up and down the East Coast were surprised by this very unusual sight," Rao said.Remember when they used to give us warning before they instilled panic?
_
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Many long time friends of TAE know I have had a love/hate relationship with Avril Lavigne since August 27th, 2002, when her song "Sk8er boi" lit my face on fire. Love, because she is amazing. Hate, because her music is amazingly bad. Three years ago she married Deryck Whibley, who is both the lead singer of Sum 41 but also proudly bears the most irritating spelling of a name ever. Apparently they are divorcing.
I have often joked with friends that the highest compliment a woman can receive from me is for me to say "That was very Avril of you." This of course is a tongue-in-cheek joke because Avril, other than being mildly cute, really doesn't have a lot qualities I find desirable in women.
Nevertheless, one thing that I positively love about Avril is how women almost universally loathe her. I had a friend tell me once that she found "sk8er boi" to be "the single most offensive eight characters ever written." and that Avril was destroying our language (not necessarily false, just hyperbole). Some women gnash their teeth and call her untalented (probably true). Some women say she's unattractive to a fault (she's no Marisa Miller, granted). And last but not least, some people say she is "fake punk" because she sings pop tart music (basically true). In any case, I find it incredibly fascinating how much women loathe Avril Lavigne. I'd love to hear from a single woman, over the age of 15, who doesn't despise her.
_
I have often joked with friends that the highest compliment a woman can receive from me is for me to say "That was very Avril of you." This of course is a tongue-in-cheek joke because Avril, other than being mildly cute, really doesn't have a lot qualities I find desirable in women.
Nevertheless, one thing that I positively love about Avril is how women almost universally loathe her. I had a friend tell me once that she found "sk8er boi" to be "the single most offensive eight characters ever written." and that Avril was destroying our language (not necessarily false, just hyperbole). Some women gnash their teeth and call her untalented (probably true). Some women say she's unattractive to a fault (she's no Marisa Miller, granted). And last but not least, some people say she is "fake punk" because she sings pop tart music (basically true). In any case, I find it incredibly fascinating how much women loathe Avril Lavigne. I'd love to hear from a single woman, over the age of 15, who doesn't despise her.
_
I just read this article which claims the new Windows 7 can handle up to 192 gigs of RAM. And that's not even considering the ceiling of 64-bit machines, which is an estimated 17.2 BILLION gigabytes of RAM. This is a lot. The RAMmiest mobo I could find on NewEgg could only support 24 gigs of RAM, and even that is an obscene amount by today's standards. For reference, the computer you are using to read this probably has 2 - 4 gigs of RAM. Those of you with 64 bit machines undoubtedly have a whopping 8 gigs.
But the point is, 192 gigs of RAM seems almost hilarious...by today's standards. Then again, I was discussing with a friend a few weeks ago that my aging computer at home has a hard drive that was massive at the time I bought it: 16 gigabytes! Now, for the same price, you can acquire a 2 TERAbyte hard drive, 800 times larger. Or, conversely, you could buy 3 16-gigabyte USB flash drives.
All computer technology changes, and rapidly. Expect me to link to this post in 2 years, when 192 gigs of RAM is laughably pathetic.
_
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
I've written a short op-ed for Heretical Ideas, and outstanding online magazine. Give it a look, and then explore the rest of the magazine. I know several of the writers, and have always found them outstanding people (especially when they publish my opinions!). They also host their own blog, found here.
_
_
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
A while back, I posted what I believed was the only plausible method to colonize other planets:
For the sake of honesty, I have only read four Arthur C. Clarke novels: 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. I certainly have never read The Songs of A Distant Earth, in which Clarke describes the fictional method he dreamed up for humans (faced with the failing of the sun) to colonize other planets and save the species:
You can imagine my chagrin to find out that Arthur C. Clarke rose from his grave, read my blog, stole my idea, time-traveled back in time and told his younger, 1985 self to write the story.
Or perhaps I should be flattered to know that my ingenious ideas are not far-fetched, to some.
_
TAE's genius idea: Load a tiny ship with stem cells and a bioprocessor. Then, launch said ship (and a small army of others explained later) at nearly light speed to nearby stars. The ship army automatically determines if habitable planets exist around star. If not, the microship army moves on to next star, and so forth until a habitable planet is discovered. The bioprocessor ship then activates the bioprocessor, which turns the stem cells into sperm and eggs. The sperm then fertilize the eggs. The fertilized eggs are then frozen and the spaceship sends a "Go" signal.
Phase 2: Once the "go" signal is detected, a small army of microships are launched in the direction of the colony ship. These ships contain parts and pieces of incubation chambers, a power plant, colony buildings, and highly advanced robots. The robot ships, almost like Voltron, assemble in space into the robots, who use solar power to function. The robots then start assembling the power plant, which has an autolanding mechanism built into it. The robots then land (switching from solar power to power from the plant) and assemble the incubation pods. The fertilized eggs are then thawed and cultured in the incubation chambers for 9 months.
Voila! Human babies are born. The robots then meticulously raise them, using food from food-bearing microships that have also landed. The robots also teach them. Soon the humans have started a colony. Earth, meanwhile, (years before) has sent out a radio broadcast to the future colonists. The radio broadcast arrives, and the colonists send one back. Years later, it arrives on earth. Congratulations, we've just colonized another world, in another solar system.
For the sake of honesty, I have only read four Arthur C. Clarke novels: 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. I certainly have never read The Songs of A Distant Earth, in which Clarke describes the fictional method he dreamed up for humans (faced with the failing of the sun) to colonize other planets and save the species:
In the book, early in the 21st century it is realized that Sol is failing and will go supernova relatively quickly in cosmic terms. (A physicist by training, Clarke was much more concerned with neutrino absence than sunspots.) In the novel, determined attempts to discover warp drive produce nothing. The only idea anyone can come up with to preserve life is to build cargo vessels bearing robots, supplies, seeds and human and mammal embryos, then send the vessels on lengthy journeys at a fraction of the speed of light. When the vessels arrive at a habitable world, the robots would go down to build shelters and plant crops; once it was safe, the embryos would be allowed to develop, tended by robots until new generations began. In "The Songs of Distant Earth," for several centuries humanity devotes itself to launching gigantic cargo vessels packed with thousands of tons of robots, supplies, medical equipment and records of Earth, then dispatching them one by one toward distant star systems. At last, a sort of unplanned Golden Age occurs -- nations no longer fight, rather, concentrate their efforts on cooperation to spread life elsewhere. As expansion of the sun approaches, people stop having children, and Earth's population declines dramatically. Then a few years before the expected calamity, stardrive finally is invented -- and all energy is focused on construction of a magnificent starship to hold the final million people in suspended animation for a journey of 10,000 years to a world that resembles Earth. As human beings leave their cradle for the last time, the ship travels into a galaxy where many planets now have Earth-based life, spread by the robot vessels.
You can imagine my chagrin to find out that Arthur C. Clarke rose from his grave, read my blog, stole my idea, time-traveled back in time and told his younger, 1985 self to write the story.
Or perhaps I should be flattered to know that my ingenious ideas are not far-fetched, to some.
_
My efforts continue to point at that it is through our systematic destruction of water ecology that the world will end:
Scientists report that 1 in 5 male black bass has eggs growing inside it. This is because humans are dumping birth control and other hormone treatments into the water system. Typically, hormones are flushed down the toilet, where they escape into the sewer system and then into the creeks and rivers. The hormone play havoc on fish, who directly absorb them from the water through their gills.
This is good news to no one.
_
Scientists report that 1 in 5 male black bass has eggs growing inside it. This is because humans are dumping birth control and other hormone treatments into the water system. Typically, hormones are flushed down the toilet, where they escape into the sewer system and then into the creeks and rivers. The hormone play havoc on fish, who directly absorb them from the water through their gills.
This is good news to no one.
_
Monday, 14 September 2009
This reminded me of two things. One is that the human mind's erratic and sometimes psychotic randomness is what makes it so special. The other is that no matter how brilliant I am (or think I am), I will never be able to produce something like this. While hearing impaired.
_
_
Friday, 11 September 2009
Conservative readers, close your browser and don't read this.
It's funny how the religious right claims this country is becoming dangerously secular, and that Christianity is losing itself, either to the indignant growth of Islam or simply to a bunch of agnostic 20-somethings...but then when someone mentions ID tagging people, the whole country starts quoting Revelation.
Nevertheless, I have to wonder, as I listened to Joe Wilson yell "You Lie!" at President Obama (that took balls, Joe, nicely done) and the aftermath during which liberals eviscerated Wilson, Obama defended himself, and then Baucus claiming that "verification of citizenship will be required," whether or not it is time for a nationwide identification program.
Here's what I suggest: everyone gets a bar code tattoo on their wrist. The tattoo uses fluorescent ink, so it doesn't show up under normal light. Under a blacklight, it's quite vivid, and subsequently the scanning machine can then read it. The bar code translates into a unique (and very long) number that is different than your social security number.
To prevent identity thieves from simply having fake bar code tattoos created to fake your identity, a double pin number is assigned. You pick the first 4 numbers of your PIN. The last three numbers of the pin are assigned to you by the government. Each year, on successful completion of your Federal tax return, the government updates you to a new 3 digit PIN. Should the old 3 digit PIN be used, a flag is raised and investigation ensues.
7 digits may seem long for a PIN, but consider this: people have easily memorized hundreds of 7-digit phone numbers for years. If you have trouble remembering your PIN, you could save it into your cell phone under a fake name, like Paul I Nichols, and the PIN number would look like an innocuous phone number. By having 4 numbers chosen by the user, but the other three by the government, it prevents lazy people from having a PIN like "1234" that can easily be guess. "1234963" is a lot harder to guess (millions of times so) than "1234"
There really is no reason to not do this, other than paranoia. "I don't want the government to be able to track my movements" an opponent once said to me. Why? Because they can't already? Unless you've been living in a cave, you are aware that the government's ability to track our movements and whereabouts is better than ever.
And really, if you aren't doing something illegal, quit worrying about the government.
"But what if they pass an unconstitutional law and come after me? The bar code would make it easier for them to get me...or to shut down my bank accounts and make it impossible for me to travel."
I'm not sure of the exact language, but the Patriot Act, signed in 2001, basically did that already...bar codes are, in this case, essentially a much more secure version of your SSN.
"But a tattoo? That's a government-forced invasive procedure. Roe v Wade prevents the government from forcing invasive medical procedures." Sure, and property taxes are unconstitutional too. It doesn't have to be a tattoo, anyway. There are tons of other options, like a sturdy wrist band. It just has to be impossible for a thief to remove from the person's body.
"But what if I was kidnapped and forced to reveal my PIN?"
Well, then the kidnapper would have to drag you to a location where they actually could get you under a bar code scanner, and then enter your PIN. You can imagine that scenario is a little far-fetched. Although I won't deny it is possible.
"But what if the kidnapper made a perfect copy of my bar code on himself, then coerced the PIN number out of me?" Oh wow I didn't even think of this until just now when I asked myself the question! There's a solution: thumbprint scanning.
If the tattoo is placed on the top of the thumb, and linked to the users thumbprint, then a simple device could be built that scans downward to see the bar code, and scans upward to get the thumbprint of the person. Then a kidnapper would be unable to copy both your bar code and thumbprint, and acquiring your PIN would be useless.
"Unless they cut off your thumb." Yes, true. But if someone went through the check-out line at the grocery store and used a severed thumb to pay, it might raise concerns. To counter this, a "pulse-ox" pulse oximeter (measures oxygen concentration in blood using comparative light diffusion) could be placed beside the thumbprint scanner. A decapitated thumb would register no pulse, nor a blood oxygen content. A good pulse oximeter can register a pulse in two heartbeats, so you'd need to hold your thumb in place for about 1.8 seconds. That's less time than it takes to reach into your wallet for you debit card and swipe it.
So there you have it: the thiefproof proof of citizenship: fluorescent bar code, two-sourced 7-digit PIN, thumbprint scanner, and pulse oximeter. Seems elaborate and complex, right? Probably not. All the above are existing technologies. The government already issues PINs to students filling out the FAFSA. Fluorescent bar code scanners are actually pretty cheap. Fluorescent tattoo ink is also reasonable. Fingerprint scanners have become so commonplace that they are standard on many laptops. Pulse oximeters can be had for a couple hundred bucks from Biox.
Now this may seem like a lot of rigamarole to protect your identity. So what? If a simpler method to protect your identity existed, it would be in place. Clearly SSN's aren't safe. Clearly 4-digit PINs aren't safe. Clearly debit cards and credit cards aren't safe.
Now it goes against my nature to recommend we all get "The Mark," because I am as a rule highly skeptical that individuals in government have my best interests at heart, and I too feed into the Revelatory paranoia to a certain extent. But if people in this country really are committed to health care for citizens only, and if we really believe the economy is harmed by illegal immigrants 'stealing' jobs from legal immigrants and citizens, then we must take bold action.
_
It's funny how the religious right claims this country is becoming dangerously secular, and that Christianity is losing itself, either to the indignant growth of Islam or simply to a bunch of agnostic 20-somethings...but then when someone mentions ID tagging people, the whole country starts quoting Revelation.
Nevertheless, I have to wonder, as I listened to Joe Wilson yell "You Lie!" at President Obama (that took balls, Joe, nicely done) and the aftermath during which liberals eviscerated Wilson, Obama defended himself, and then Baucus claiming that "verification of citizenship will be required," whether or not it is time for a nationwide identification program.
Here's what I suggest: everyone gets a bar code tattoo on their wrist. The tattoo uses fluorescent ink, so it doesn't show up under normal light. Under a blacklight, it's quite vivid, and subsequently the scanning machine can then read it. The bar code translates into a unique (and very long) number that is different than your social security number.
To prevent identity thieves from simply having fake bar code tattoos created to fake your identity, a double pin number is assigned. You pick the first 4 numbers of your PIN. The last three numbers of the pin are assigned to you by the government. Each year, on successful completion of your Federal tax return, the government updates you to a new 3 digit PIN. Should the old 3 digit PIN be used, a flag is raised and investigation ensues.
7 digits may seem long for a PIN, but consider this: people have easily memorized hundreds of 7-digit phone numbers for years. If you have trouble remembering your PIN, you could save it into your cell phone under a fake name, like Paul I Nichols, and the PIN number would look like an innocuous phone number. By having 4 numbers chosen by the user, but the other three by the government, it prevents lazy people from having a PIN like "1234" that can easily be guess. "1234963" is a lot harder to guess (millions of times so) than "1234"
There really is no reason to not do this, other than paranoia. "I don't want the government to be able to track my movements" an opponent once said to me. Why? Because they can't already? Unless you've been living in a cave, you are aware that the government's ability to track our movements and whereabouts is better than ever.
And really, if you aren't doing something illegal, quit worrying about the government.
"But what if they pass an unconstitutional law and come after me? The bar code would make it easier for them to get me...or to shut down my bank accounts and make it impossible for me to travel."
I'm not sure of the exact language, but the Patriot Act, signed in 2001, basically did that already...bar codes are, in this case, essentially a much more secure version of your SSN.
"But a tattoo? That's a government-forced invasive procedure. Roe v Wade prevents the government from forcing invasive medical procedures." Sure, and property taxes are unconstitutional too. It doesn't have to be a tattoo, anyway. There are tons of other options, like a sturdy wrist band. It just has to be impossible for a thief to remove from the person's body.
"But what if I was kidnapped and forced to reveal my PIN?"
Well, then the kidnapper would have to drag you to a location where they actually could get you under a bar code scanner, and then enter your PIN. You can imagine that scenario is a little far-fetched. Although I won't deny it is possible.
"But what if the kidnapper made a perfect copy of my bar code on himself, then coerced the PIN number out of me?" Oh wow I didn't even think of this until just now when I asked myself the question! There's a solution: thumbprint scanning.
If the tattoo is placed on the top of the thumb, and linked to the users thumbprint, then a simple device could be built that scans downward to see the bar code, and scans upward to get the thumbprint of the person. Then a kidnapper would be unable to copy both your bar code and thumbprint, and acquiring your PIN would be useless.
"Unless they cut off your thumb." Yes, true. But if someone went through the check-out line at the grocery store and used a severed thumb to pay, it might raise concerns. To counter this, a "pulse-ox" pulse oximeter (measures oxygen concentration in blood using comparative light diffusion) could be placed beside the thumbprint scanner. A decapitated thumb would register no pulse, nor a blood oxygen content. A good pulse oximeter can register a pulse in two heartbeats, so you'd need to hold your thumb in place for about 1.8 seconds. That's less time than it takes to reach into your wallet for you debit card and swipe it.
So there you have it: the thiefproof proof of citizenship: fluorescent bar code, two-sourced 7-digit PIN, thumbprint scanner, and pulse oximeter. Seems elaborate and complex, right? Probably not. All the above are existing technologies. The government already issues PINs to students filling out the FAFSA. Fluorescent bar code scanners are actually pretty cheap. Fluorescent tattoo ink is also reasonable. Fingerprint scanners have become so commonplace that they are standard on many laptops. Pulse oximeters can be had for a couple hundred bucks from Biox.
Now this may seem like a lot of rigamarole to protect your identity. So what? If a simpler method to protect your identity existed, it would be in place. Clearly SSN's aren't safe. Clearly 4-digit PINs aren't safe. Clearly debit cards and credit cards aren't safe.
Now it goes against my nature to recommend we all get "The Mark," because I am as a rule highly skeptical that individuals in government have my best interests at heart, and I too feed into the Revelatory paranoia to a certain extent. But if people in this country really are committed to health care for citizens only, and if we really believe the economy is harmed by illegal immigrants 'stealing' jobs from legal immigrants and citizens, then we must take bold action.
_
Last year, I wrote this flight of whimsy about 9/11:
Now that we don't have loopy neocons in the White House, throwing 9/11 up like a banner every time they want to violate civil and human rights, I have to ask: how long will 9/11 be a big deal?
This is a question I wouldn't dare ask 2 years ago, and last year cloaked in the above imagined conversation. But it becomes a valid question. In the long stream of human history, the deaths in New York City, the Pentagon, and New York City are a miniscule blip on the radar. Somewhere around 3,000 people died. Meanwhile, 41,000 Americans die every year in vehicle related accidents. 63,000 Americans die every year from the flu or from side-effects of the flu. Alcohol is linked to as many as 75,000 American deaths a year. It is believed that over 100,000 Americans die every year from side effects to prescribed medicine. 162,000 Americans die every year from cardiovascular issues like strokes and heart attacks.
My point, here, is that huge, unfathomably huge numbers of Americans are dying every year in this country from things that are basically preventable. Crack down on obesity, and cardiovascular deaths plunge. Crack down on binge drinking and alcoholism, and alcohol related deaths plunge. Create a better method to determine if patients will have side effects to medicines (or reactions between multiple medications) and nearly 100,000 might live. Make cars safer (or make them drive themselves) and eliminate 40,000 deaths a year.
All of these deaths are, to a certain extent, preventable. We see the deaths coming. We see the alcoholic drinking himself to death years before he succumbs to liver cirrhosis. We see the obese, elderly person struggling to walk in and out of the Golden Corral SuperBuffet years before they have a quintuple bypass, and we see their quintuple bypass years before that person dies from their third heart attack. We see kids driving motorcycles with a higher power/weight ratio than jet fighters. We see people driving while texting, driving drunk, or driving recklessly, long before we see the massive car accident and the ambulance.
9/11 was probably not preventable. The 9/11 commission argued rightly that American intelligence groups should have collaborated more and shared information more readily. The CIA should have let Billy Waugh shoot Osama bin Laden back in the 80's when Waugh was tracking Carlos The Jackal. Another 9/11 is preventable, I argue, Bush argued, everyone argued. Maybe the Patriot Act was an extreme measure to further this goal, but nevertheless, Americans are safer from terrorists than we have been in a long time.
Why then, are we not aggressively pursuing methods to prevent other American deaths that are preventable? If 3,000 American deaths in 2001 spawned a $1.5 trillion war staged on two fronts, why doesn't 40,000 vehicle-related deaths create a similar outrage and response?
How do over 100,000 people a year die because they were fat, but we as a people do nothing, and the government doesn't do anything either?
My point is, when you look at 9/11 by itself, it seems like an atrocious act of murder, with a calculated and broad response. But when you look at American deaths per year and their causes, then compare that to the amount of money spent to prevent further deaths from those causes, 9/11 seems like a gross overreaction.
Someday soon, people will say "we overreacted after 9/11."
_
Future conversation with The Abstracted Daughter:
TAE: "six years before you were born a horrible catastrophe occurred that forever changed America."
TAD: "9/11? Boring! We learned about in history class. Dad, did you know that the number of Americans killed in 9/11 was 3,000 but the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam war was 20 times that? Almost 60,000 people! And the number of Americans killed in World War II was 150 times the number killed in 9/11; 450,000 Americans!
TAE: Yes, I know.
TAD: So why is 9/11 such a big deal?
TAE: Um.
Now that we don't have loopy neocons in the White House, throwing 9/11 up like a banner every time they want to violate civil and human rights, I have to ask: how long will 9/11 be a big deal?
This is a question I wouldn't dare ask 2 years ago, and last year cloaked in the above imagined conversation. But it becomes a valid question. In the long stream of human history, the deaths in New York City, the Pentagon, and New York City are a miniscule blip on the radar. Somewhere around 3,000 people died. Meanwhile, 41,000 Americans die every year in vehicle related accidents. 63,000 Americans die every year from the flu or from side-effects of the flu. Alcohol is linked to as many as 75,000 American deaths a year. It is believed that over 100,000 Americans die every year from side effects to prescribed medicine. 162,000 Americans die every year from cardiovascular issues like strokes and heart attacks.
My point, here, is that huge, unfathomably huge numbers of Americans are dying every year in this country from things that are basically preventable. Crack down on obesity, and cardiovascular deaths plunge. Crack down on binge drinking and alcoholism, and alcohol related deaths plunge. Create a better method to determine if patients will have side effects to medicines (or reactions between multiple medications) and nearly 100,000 might live. Make cars safer (or make them drive themselves) and eliminate 40,000 deaths a year.
All of these deaths are, to a certain extent, preventable. We see the deaths coming. We see the alcoholic drinking himself to death years before he succumbs to liver cirrhosis. We see the obese, elderly person struggling to walk in and out of the Golden Corral SuperBuffet years before they have a quintuple bypass, and we see their quintuple bypass years before that person dies from their third heart attack. We see kids driving motorcycles with a higher power/weight ratio than jet fighters. We see people driving while texting, driving drunk, or driving recklessly, long before we see the massive car accident and the ambulance.
9/11 was probably not preventable. The 9/11 commission argued rightly that American intelligence groups should have collaborated more and shared information more readily. The CIA should have let Billy Waugh shoot Osama bin Laden back in the 80's when Waugh was tracking Carlos The Jackal. Another 9/11 is preventable, I argue, Bush argued, everyone argued. Maybe the Patriot Act was an extreme measure to further this goal, but nevertheless, Americans are safer from terrorists than we have been in a long time.
Why then, are we not aggressively pursuing methods to prevent other American deaths that are preventable? If 3,000 American deaths in 2001 spawned a $1.5 trillion war staged on two fronts, why doesn't 40,000 vehicle-related deaths create a similar outrage and response?
How do over 100,000 people a year die because they were fat, but we as a people do nothing, and the government doesn't do anything either?
My point is, when you look at 9/11 by itself, it seems like an atrocious act of murder, with a calculated and broad response. But when you look at American deaths per year and their causes, then compare that to the amount of money spent to prevent further deaths from those causes, 9/11 seems like a gross overreaction.
Someday soon, people will say "we overreacted after 9/11."
_
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Here, blogger Alex Knapp (from Outside The Beltway fame, also from my high school) argues that we need a new group of innovators to create the future. We need forward thinkers, and there are currently precious few because the intellectuals are going to the business sector and not the science and engineering sector.
Here, as I mentioned before, Sir James Dyson, famous for inventing bagless vacuum cleaners, argues that the world needs more engineers, more inventors, and a new "Space Race."
We see these "Tesla is so great, we need another Tesla. Edison was a genius, we need another Edison." arguments almost with calculated regularity.
But what is happening with science history is the same thing that happens with sports history. People in the present romanticize the past and in doing so, trivialize the accomplishments being made in the present. The fact is, if you want to truly understand Edison's genius, rather than reading about how he had over 1,000 patents, instead read this fair and balanced biography, which points out that although Edison was bright, he was also uneducated and many of his inventions came through brute force experimentation, not mused introspection. Although Edison's number of patents is astounding, what also is astounding is how easily people have forgotten that at Menlo Park Edison had over a hundred brilliant men and women working for him, including at one time Alexander Graham Bell and the aforementioned Nikola Tesla. Einstein's genius was not his scientific abilities but rather his ability to turn someone else's research into a marketable product.
In any case, it's so convenient to forget certain details and build these mountainous men out of Franklin, Tesla, Edison, and others, because it makes for a good story. It's not exciting to read about 120 men working 16 hour days experimenting with every type of silicon and carbon filament they could produce until they eventually found one that would emit quality light at high temperature (to improve upon an already invented light bulb concept)...it's much more exciting to imagine Edison, alone at some workshop bench, when an incandescent lightbulb design pops into his head and he builds it, a titanic genius rogue scientist badass with no peers who lit up the world. Nor does the image of Edison creatively and altruistically making human life better encompass the aggressive way he would destroy his competitors, either by buying their companies and closing them, disseminating propoganda, or staging stunts to show how dangerous his competition's inventions were.
Similarly, people point to Franklin's almanacs and kite experiment and say "what a genius!" but they don't mention that hundreds of other scientists were also experimenting with electricity at that point, and his theory of electron flow from negatively charged to positively charged electrodes was one of many plausible theories of the time.
In sports, we trivialize the accomplishments of athletes (who are breaking records constantly) and romanticize the historical athletes, assuming that the old heroes of the sport were unequivocal in their skill. To hear people talk, you'd think Babe Ruth was the only person competent with a bat. My friend likes to say "Deion Sanders was the greatest cover corner of all time. He covered one half the field, and the quarterback would still throw to the other half."
Although it is true that Deion was really, really good at football, it is wild hyperbole to claim that he did the above activity, or that quarterbacks would ignore his half the field. But what my friend is doing is romanticizing Deion into an impossible-to-equal player so that the greatness of current defensive backs in the NFL is trivial.
In short, before we start attacking the current gamut of scientists and engineers as mindless drones, we need to pause and look less romantically, and more empirically, at the facts. More patents are being issued today than were issued ever before. Technologies are emerging faster than consumers can buy them (I haven't even gotten a flat panel tv yet and already anything less than "1080i" is obsolete junk), and more than ever, science plays a part in everyday lives.
But the present tense makes it hard to sort through the millions of engineers and scientists and pick out that one or two people to supersize. It's much easier to look back and see Edison as the lone inventor-genius with no present day equal, rather than the capitalistic captain of a ship full of geniuses who in many instances achieved greater scientific breakthroughs than he did.
UPDATE: I suppose I should add that Thomas Alva Edison is not only one of my greatest heroes, but I scavenged my initials, T.A.E., from him. When I go fishing, I try to channel Edison's fishing trips he often too to the dock below his Florida home, where he would sit for hours in silence and brainstorm possible innovations. When I think about what kind of scientist-engineer I want to be, it is without question Edison. The idea that I'd lead a team of brilliant minds to make the world a better place is an extremely attractive one. But then again, I'm romanticizing him too.
_
Here, as I mentioned before, Sir James Dyson, famous for inventing bagless vacuum cleaners, argues that the world needs more engineers, more inventors, and a new "Space Race."
We see these "Tesla is so great, we need another Tesla. Edison was a genius, we need another Edison." arguments almost with calculated regularity.
But what is happening with science history is the same thing that happens with sports history. People in the present romanticize the past and in doing so, trivialize the accomplishments being made in the present. The fact is, if you want to truly understand Edison's genius, rather than reading about how he had over 1,000 patents, instead read this fair and balanced biography, which points out that although Edison was bright, he was also uneducated and many of his inventions came through brute force experimentation, not mused introspection. Although Edison's number of patents is astounding, what also is astounding is how easily people have forgotten that at Menlo Park Edison had over a hundred brilliant men and women working for him, including at one time Alexander Graham Bell and the aforementioned Nikola Tesla. Einstein's genius was not his scientific abilities but rather his ability to turn someone else's research into a marketable product.
In any case, it's so convenient to forget certain details and build these mountainous men out of Franklin, Tesla, Edison, and others, because it makes for a good story. It's not exciting to read about 120 men working 16 hour days experimenting with every type of silicon and carbon filament they could produce until they eventually found one that would emit quality light at high temperature (to improve upon an already invented light bulb concept)...it's much more exciting to imagine Edison, alone at some workshop bench, when an incandescent lightbulb design pops into his head and he builds it, a titanic genius rogue scientist badass with no peers who lit up the world. Nor does the image of Edison creatively and altruistically making human life better encompass the aggressive way he would destroy his competitors, either by buying their companies and closing them, disseminating propoganda, or staging stunts to show how dangerous his competition's inventions were.
Similarly, people point to Franklin's almanacs and kite experiment and say "what a genius!" but they don't mention that hundreds of other scientists were also experimenting with electricity at that point, and his theory of electron flow from negatively charged to positively charged electrodes was one of many plausible theories of the time.
In sports, we trivialize the accomplishments of athletes (who are breaking records constantly) and romanticize the historical athletes, assuming that the old heroes of the sport were unequivocal in their skill. To hear people talk, you'd think Babe Ruth was the only person competent with a bat. My friend likes to say "Deion Sanders was the greatest cover corner of all time. He covered one half the field, and the quarterback would still throw to the other half."
Although it is true that Deion was really, really good at football, it is wild hyperbole to claim that he did the above activity, or that quarterbacks would ignore his half the field. But what my friend is doing is romanticizing Deion into an impossible-to-equal player so that the greatness of current defensive backs in the NFL is trivial.
In short, before we start attacking the current gamut of scientists and engineers as mindless drones, we need to pause and look less romantically, and more empirically, at the facts. More patents are being issued today than were issued ever before. Technologies are emerging faster than consumers can buy them (I haven't even gotten a flat panel tv yet and already anything less than "1080i" is obsolete junk), and more than ever, science plays a part in everyday lives.
But the present tense makes it hard to sort through the millions of engineers and scientists and pick out that one or two people to supersize. It's much easier to look back and see Edison as the lone inventor-genius with no present day equal, rather than the capitalistic captain of a ship full of geniuses who in many instances achieved greater scientific breakthroughs than he did.
UPDATE: I suppose I should add that Thomas Alva Edison is not only one of my greatest heroes, but I scavenged my initials, T.A.E., from him. When I go fishing, I try to channel Edison's fishing trips he often too to the dock below his Florida home, where he would sit for hours in silence and brainstorm possible innovations. When I think about what kind of scientist-engineer I want to be, it is without question Edison. The idea that I'd lead a team of brilliant minds to make the world a better place is an extremely attractive one. But then again, I'm romanticizing him too.
_
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Do I really even need to explain the post title? Almost weekly, I go on a cynical diatribe about the continous failings, blunders, red budget lines, broken ships, impractical goals, hyperexpensive version of rudimentary equipment, and general lack of leadership at NASA.
Honestly it isn't their fault. NASA has been used as some sort of campaign prop by incumbent Presidents for 40 years, and that isn't about to change. Bush used claims that he was going to initiate another moon mission (somehow without shuttles or the ISS, more on this later) by 2020, and Obama went a step further during his campaign, promising that "the return to the moon will be but a training run for manned missions to Mars." Right.
So NASA time and time again gets run up the White House Candidate Agenda Flagpole, and time and time again the breeze just doesn't come a'blowin'. This week a panel revealed that not only is a manned mission to the moon probably impossible, but it would take a 3 billion dollars a year increase in NASA's budget to get them there. And it'd probably cost between $100 billion and $150 billion total for a manned moon mission. That may seem like a lot of money to Joe The Plumber, who makes a comfortable $250,001 a year, and it is. But consider this: the Apollo Space Program designed and built the Saturn V rocket, designed and built the moon lander and command module, tested them both, did practice runs to the moon, then landed 6 manned missions on the moon all for $145 billion in today's dollars.
The problem here is that people aren't trying to come up with new science. Have you seen the "new" lunar lander? Makes me suspiciously nostalgic. Have you heard they are scrapping the shuttle and going back to rockets? Have you heard that they aren't going to use the ISS as a jumping off point? Why are we continuing to add modules to the ISS if not to make it an orbital construction platform?
One of the major complaints with the shuttle (and all rockets of that size) is that the fuel consumption is a massive cost. The shuttle burns (solid rocket fuel, which cannot be extinguished) the equivalent of somewhere upwards of 3 million gallons of fuel a minute. It is estimated that the shuttle program, from beginning through 2008, has cost the taxpayers $170 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion per flight. But, for $170 billion, we got 120+ flights out of those 5 birds. And a single manned moon mission will now cost us nearly $150 billion...?
NASA, clearly, has lost track of its mission statement, unless of course its mission statement is "We put your government pork into space, sometimes." or "We laugh in the face of budgets and goals." or "Accountability means...?"
But I am not just a complainer, I am a do-er. Therefore I suggest the following method to drastically reduce the cost of putting people on the moon in the near future: Launch unmanned supply convoys to the ISS and assemble the lunar modules there. Because it takes a huge amount of energy to go from the ground to the ISS, but a miniscule amount to go from the ISS to the Lagrangian point, it would save huge amounts (and I mean tens billions of dollars) if unmanned rockets were launched (like the Russians already do) that sent supplies up to the (now) 12 busy space-construction-workers on the ISS, who would then carefully assemble the parts into the lunar lander. The command module could be completely scrapped in this scenario, as a vessel to return through Earth's atmosphere is unnecessary. Once the lunar module is assembled, moon-nauts from the ISS (the magic number being three, I guess) hop aboard and begin the short journey to the moon. When they arrive there, they get to work assembling permanent colony structures, using the large chunks of materials that have arrived unmanned, having been sent from the ISS at an earlier date. Once they have assembled everything they can, or have run out of oxygen, they return to the lunar lander, and blast off back toward the ISS (escaping moon's gravity well is dramatically easier than Earth's and takes a fraction of the fuel). They dock at the ISS , and the lunar lander is refueled. A new crew of ISS residents climbs aboard and heads to the moon for their stint. All this time, unmanned (LIQUID FUELED) rockets are delivering supplies to the ISS, which assembles them and sends them off to the moon for eventual assembly.
What I am basically proposing is a "space elevator," where supplies are lifted (in this case via rockets) to an orbital platform, assembled, and then launched from there. The beauty of this plan is that NASA could easily and safely contract out the unmanned supply missions to either other countries or to private enterprises who have rocket experience. Occasionally a larger vessel (like the shuttle) could take fresh crews up to the ISS, bring some of the existing crew home, and bring home any moon rocks or whatever else.
But President Bush proposed, and President Obama hasn't halted, the retirement of the Shuttle fleet. This is to "help pay for the moon mission", but according to the figures above, it'll take 100 scrapped shuttle missions before the moon mission has been paid for. Why not keep using the shuttles, once a year, to refresh the ISS crew and take fresh moon-base builders up to orbit?
The point is, I really think it is time to just start over with America's Space Administration. I'm sure that NASA is full of wildly talented engineers who I would hate to see go, but it depresses me to think those brilliant engineers are working on goals that no one really wants to achieve, at a price no one wants to pay, for a country who doesn't really care.
NASA is far to dependent on the whim and fancy of a fickle White House, too. The death grip the Executive and Legislative branches have on NASA has turned them into at worst sock puppets for campaigning politicians, and at best idealogues with nothing to show for their dreams. Changing the administrative structure of NASA is clearly not an option. But a new space program...a new NASA, could potentially circumvent this problem.
_
Honestly it isn't their fault. NASA has been used as some sort of campaign prop by incumbent Presidents for 40 years, and that isn't about to change. Bush used claims that he was going to initiate another moon mission (somehow without shuttles or the ISS, more on this later) by 2020, and Obama went a step further during his campaign, promising that "the return to the moon will be but a training run for manned missions to Mars." Right.
So NASA time and time again gets run up the White House Candidate Agenda Flagpole, and time and time again the breeze just doesn't come a'blowin'. This week a panel revealed that not only is a manned mission to the moon probably impossible, but it would take a 3 billion dollars a year increase in NASA's budget to get them there. And it'd probably cost between $100 billion and $150 billion total for a manned moon mission. That may seem like a lot of money to Joe The Plumber, who makes a comfortable $250,001 a year, and it is. But consider this: the Apollo Space Program designed and built the Saturn V rocket, designed and built the moon lander and command module, tested them both, did practice runs to the moon, then landed 6 manned missions on the moon all for $145 billion in today's dollars.
The problem here is that people aren't trying to come up with new science. Have you seen the "new" lunar lander? Makes me suspiciously nostalgic. Have you heard they are scrapping the shuttle and going back to rockets? Have you heard that they aren't going to use the ISS as a jumping off point? Why are we continuing to add modules to the ISS if not to make it an orbital construction platform?
One of the major complaints with the shuttle (and all rockets of that size) is that the fuel consumption is a massive cost. The shuttle burns (solid rocket fuel, which cannot be extinguished) the equivalent of somewhere upwards of 3 million gallons of fuel a minute. It is estimated that the shuttle program, from beginning through 2008, has cost the taxpayers $170 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion per flight. But, for $170 billion, we got 120+ flights out of those 5 birds. And a single manned moon mission will now cost us nearly $150 billion...?
NASA, clearly, has lost track of its mission statement, unless of course its mission statement is "We put your government pork into space, sometimes." or "We laugh in the face of budgets and goals." or "Accountability means...?"
But I am not just a complainer, I am a do-er. Therefore I suggest the following method to drastically reduce the cost of putting people on the moon in the near future: Launch unmanned supply convoys to the ISS and assemble the lunar modules there. Because it takes a huge amount of energy to go from the ground to the ISS, but a miniscule amount to go from the ISS to the Lagrangian point, it would save huge amounts (and I mean tens billions of dollars) if unmanned rockets were launched (like the Russians already do) that sent supplies up to the (now) 12 busy space-construction-workers on the ISS, who would then carefully assemble the parts into the lunar lander. The command module could be completely scrapped in this scenario, as a vessel to return through Earth's atmosphere is unnecessary. Once the lunar module is assembled, moon-nauts from the ISS (the magic number being three, I guess) hop aboard and begin the short journey to the moon. When they arrive there, they get to work assembling permanent colony structures, using the large chunks of materials that have arrived unmanned, having been sent from the ISS at an earlier date. Once they have assembled everything they can, or have run out of oxygen, they return to the lunar lander, and blast off back toward the ISS (escaping moon's gravity well is dramatically easier than Earth's and takes a fraction of the fuel). They dock at the ISS , and the lunar lander is refueled. A new crew of ISS residents climbs aboard and heads to the moon for their stint. All this time, unmanned (LIQUID FUELED) rockets are delivering supplies to the ISS, which assembles them and sends them off to the moon for eventual assembly.
What I am basically proposing is a "space elevator," where supplies are lifted (in this case via rockets) to an orbital platform, assembled, and then launched from there. The beauty of this plan is that NASA could easily and safely contract out the unmanned supply missions to either other countries or to private enterprises who have rocket experience. Occasionally a larger vessel (like the shuttle) could take fresh crews up to the ISS, bring some of the existing crew home, and bring home any moon rocks or whatever else.
But President Bush proposed, and President Obama hasn't halted, the retirement of the Shuttle fleet. This is to "help pay for the moon mission", but according to the figures above, it'll take 100 scrapped shuttle missions before the moon mission has been paid for. Why not keep using the shuttles, once a year, to refresh the ISS crew and take fresh moon-base builders up to orbit?
The point is, I really think it is time to just start over with America's Space Administration. I'm sure that NASA is full of wildly talented engineers who I would hate to see go, but it depresses me to think those brilliant engineers are working on goals that no one really wants to achieve, at a price no one wants to pay, for a country who doesn't really care.
NASA is far to dependent on the whim and fancy of a fickle White House, too. The death grip the Executive and Legislative branches have on NASA has turned them into at worst sock puppets for campaigning politicians, and at best idealogues with nothing to show for their dreams. Changing the administrative structure of NASA is clearly not an option. But a new space program...a new NASA, could potentially circumvent this problem.
_
TAE is extremely pleased to have stumbled upon his old friend, Brian Knapp, writing here. When TAE was a senior in high school, he and Brian took a school trip to Washington D.C. where they were the only two people in the entire city that knew what START 1 and 2 were. One fond memory:
In any case, Brian and I used our two hours a day during QUEST (the gifted/talented program at our high school) to discuss politics, philosophy, and how ridiculous the screeching, feminist, wacko teacher was.
I always assumed Brian would go into a wildly successful political career, but after we graduated high school, he dropped off my radar.
Glad to see he still lives. And thinks. And writes.
_
The instructor asked a roomful of us to go to one side of the room if we believed the United States had not passed major nuclear reduction legislation since the Cold War. We were instructed to go to the other side of the room if we believed the opposite. En masse, students herded to one side of the room, where they turned and face Brian and me.
I remember my face flushing, because even though the night before I had read the assigned reading that clearly stated that START 1 and START 2 (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaties) had been passed and signed by Reagan and Bush 41, and even though Brian was standing next to me, we were in fact the only two people on that side of the room.
In any case, Brian and I used our two hours a day during QUEST (the gifted/talented program at our high school) to discuss politics, philosophy, and how ridiculous the screeching, feminist, wacko teacher was.
I always assumed Brian would go into a wildly successful political career, but after we graduated high school, he dropped off my radar.
Glad to see he still lives. And thinks. And writes.
_
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Saw that on a poster, thought it was hilarious, if a bit misrepresenting.
_
Friday, 4 September 2009
Macchiaveli once said "the easiest way to control public opinion is to lie to stupid people," or something like that. Bill O'Reilly has obviously read The Prince.
_
_
Here, "Sir" James Dyson, inventor of the Dyson series of vacuums, says what we hear every 6 months or so: we need engineers, more of them, and we need them now. He throws in the usual "Asia is catching us!" fear-mongering and even manages to reminisce longingly for the days of NASA engineers working to reach the moon (a concept that would have been very unimportant to him as a British citizen, the British have never shown much interest in space, and do not provide funding to the ISS).
In any case, he does manage one good point: we need another space race. Many people have argued this, scientists, engineers, and even politicians all have at certain times suggested what they believe should be the next "Space Race" for engineers, be it "green" technologies like renewable energy, a colony on Mars, or whatever is the hot issue at the time.
However, what they continue to miss is the face that a "race" is usually not run by one team. We can't band all the planet's engineers together for a race, because then there is no opponent. The reason the Space Race worked, and was so instrumental in the shaping of the future, was that we had a clear, dangerous opponent we feared might wipe us off this planet if we did not defeat.
So building safe fusion power is a worthy goal, but I do not see anyone rousing interest in a "Fusion Race" because the end result does not mean American doom.
So for the record, I suggest what should be the next technological race on this planet, complete with high-stakes, deadly opponents possibly bent on our destruction, and cool gadgets and lofty though realistic goals: weather control!
The potential benefits of large-scale weather control are obvious: irrigation of arid areas, decreased damage from thunderstorms and hurricanes, increased hours of sunlight over crops, increased snow on the polar ice caps to combat global warming...just to name a few.
But there is a danger too: what if the Chinese beat us to weather control and suck up all the rainclouds to irrigate their rice fields (which require a lot of rain)? What if the Russians get weather control and use it to warm up Siberia, opening up millions of acres of farmland and oil reserves, while plunging North America into a neverending drought?
The point here is that America can only trust itself to be safe shepherds of weather control, much like we only trust ourselves with nuclear weapons. We must be the first to control the weather, otherwise we cannot possibly legislate worldwide non-proliferation of weather control without the upperhand.
Weather control isn't just Star Trek mumbo jumbo either. Scientists have suggested that pumping water-vapor 80 feet into the air along coasts would blow enough moisture into the coast to dramatically effect the weather. India has admitted (as have other countries to certain degrees) to using cloud seeding to create rainclouds and increase rainfall in dry areas. Before the Beijing Olympics, China launched rockets into the sky to cause rainfall outside of the city, hoping it would both eliminate rain in the city and also knock down pollution. And these are technologies that already exist. Technologies have been suggested that could dissipate stormclouds as they form, preventing intense thunderstorms. Other technologies are being studied that would reduce temperatures over city-sized areas by inducing either wind or wind shifts.
With a rapidly growing world population, weather control methods to increase crop production aren't just a good idea, they are quickly becoming necessary! So I humbly submit that the next technological race this planet enters should be The Weather Race.
_
In any case, he does manage one good point: we need another space race. Many people have argued this, scientists, engineers, and even politicians all have at certain times suggested what they believe should be the next "Space Race" for engineers, be it "green" technologies like renewable energy, a colony on Mars, or whatever is the hot issue at the time.
However, what they continue to miss is the face that a "race" is usually not run by one team. We can't band all the planet's engineers together for a race, because then there is no opponent. The reason the Space Race worked, and was so instrumental in the shaping of the future, was that we had a clear, dangerous opponent we feared might wipe us off this planet if we did not defeat.
So building safe fusion power is a worthy goal, but I do not see anyone rousing interest in a "Fusion Race" because the end result does not mean American doom.
So for the record, I suggest what should be the next technological race on this planet, complete with high-stakes, deadly opponents possibly bent on our destruction, and cool gadgets and lofty though realistic goals: weather control!
The potential benefits of large-scale weather control are obvious: irrigation of arid areas, decreased damage from thunderstorms and hurricanes, increased hours of sunlight over crops, increased snow on the polar ice caps to combat global warming...just to name a few.
But there is a danger too: what if the Chinese beat us to weather control and suck up all the rainclouds to irrigate their rice fields (which require a lot of rain)? What if the Russians get weather control and use it to warm up Siberia, opening up millions of acres of farmland and oil reserves, while plunging North America into a neverending drought?
The point here is that America can only trust itself to be safe shepherds of weather control, much like we only trust ourselves with nuclear weapons. We must be the first to control the weather, otherwise we cannot possibly legislate worldwide non-proliferation of weather control without the upperhand.
Weather control isn't just Star Trek mumbo jumbo either. Scientists have suggested that pumping water-vapor 80 feet into the air along coasts would blow enough moisture into the coast to dramatically effect the weather. India has admitted (as have other countries to certain degrees) to using cloud seeding to create rainclouds and increase rainfall in dry areas. Before the Beijing Olympics, China launched rockets into the sky to cause rainfall outside of the city, hoping it would both eliminate rain in the city and also knock down pollution. And these are technologies that already exist. Technologies have been suggested that could dissipate stormclouds as they form, preventing intense thunderstorms. Other technologies are being studied that would reduce temperatures over city-sized areas by inducing either wind or wind shifts.
With a rapidly growing world population, weather control methods to increase crop production aren't just a good idea, they are quickly becoming necessary! So I humbly submit that the next technological race this planet enters should be The Weather Race.
_
Thursday, 3 September 2009
People who argue that global climate change isn't real because rising global temperatures are part of Earth's natural cycles and then point to inconclusive evidence are essentially also saying that Abraham Lincoln was never President of the United States because you aren't allowed to draw correlations between now, the past, or the future.
Just because the Earth cyclically sinusoided (sinusoided is a trademarked word of TAE) between two major inflection points for millenia, then the Industrial Revolution happened and the inflection points went out the window doesn't mean that humans caused it, because past global climate patterns are irrelevant to the current global climate pattern that is being revealed in the present, and not only that, you cannot prove that in the future the inflection points won't either reappear or appear at new levels because of a global climate change that happened regardless of human existence!
Similarly, just because I witnessed with my very own eyes Bill Clinton hand over the reigns to George Bush who then handed them over to Barack Obama doesn't mean that the current pattern of people taking the job of President has always been the rule. You can't prove that Abraham Lincoln was actually President because there are no living witnesses, and pro-Lincoln historians are obviously biased. It's just as likely Stephen Douglas was elected and current historians are skewing the data to push their Republican agenda. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that anyone will be elected after President Obama, because you can't interpolate forward that just because the trend has been to elect President every 4 years for the last 240 years, that it will continue into the future. It's just as likely a Presidential term trend shift is occurring as we speak, and Obama will be President for 25 decades.
UPDATE: Told you so.
_
Just because the Earth cyclically sinusoided (sinusoided is a trademarked word of TAE) between two major inflection points for millenia, then the Industrial Revolution happened and the inflection points went out the window doesn't mean that humans caused it, because past global climate patterns are irrelevant to the current global climate pattern that is being revealed in the present, and not only that, you cannot prove that in the future the inflection points won't either reappear or appear at new levels because of a global climate change that happened regardless of human existence!
Similarly, just because I witnessed with my very own eyes Bill Clinton hand over the reigns to George Bush who then handed them over to Barack Obama doesn't mean that the current pattern of people taking the job of President has always been the rule. You can't prove that Abraham Lincoln was actually President because there are no living witnesses, and pro-Lincoln historians are obviously biased. It's just as likely Stephen Douglas was elected and current historians are skewing the data to push their Republican agenda. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that anyone will be elected after President Obama, because you can't interpolate forward that just because the trend has been to elect President every 4 years for the last 240 years, that it will continue into the future. It's just as likely a Presidential term trend shift is occurring as we speak, and Obama will be President for 25 decades.
UPDATE: Told you so.
_
I've mentioned before that not only do I think that we need to stop eating sushi immediately before we wipe out the world tuna population, but also that when the environment finally collapses under the weight of humanity, it won't be noticeable on land as much as it will be in the oceans.
A new study proclaims the obvious: humans are totally wiping out tuna. Not as much from the cans of chunk light tuna you get at the store (they're chicken anyway, right Jess?) but the sushi, in various forms that has become so popular in the United States and Europe. My own wife, Mrs. TAE, loves sushi and used to eat it regularly before her sometimes-treehugger husband cut that practice off. TAE admits on some occasions eating sushi as well, although I preferred Unagi Maki (eel).
In any case, the continued reports that our ever increasing uptake of tuna is far, far beyond the ability of tuna to repopulate (they don't breed until they are quite large, larger than the minimum size fisherman will catch) brings about what I think is a very real question: just how many humans can this planet hold?
Of course I am talking about rationing. Perhaps the planet can hold the current population of humans, but no more. If that is the case, then global tuna consumption needs to drop by a factor of 100 in order to restore the tuna population to the oceans. That means that we all only get sushi about twice a year, and I mean all of us. Those of you who don't eat sushi get to continue not eating sushi. Once the tuna population has recovered, we can only increase our global sushi intake to about 2% of what it currently is. I'm not joking. That's how lopsided our tuna intake has become. Similarly, canned tuna sales need to basically get cut off for about 5 years, at which point we can buy 5% of current canned tuna consumption.
But if we aren't getting our protein from tuna, where will we get it? Well, actually we need to basically wipe out the world's cattle population to eliminate the huge amounts of greenhouse gas that are being spewed out of their butts into the atmosphere. That means that beef is off the menu. What about pork? Well pig feces is dumped into lagoons that belch out huge amounts of carbon dioxide and therefore the pork must go too. Besides, pigs were meant to beferalwild, right?
I could go on, and fully intended to, but I realized my point is being made: meat harvesting/livestock production has allowed our species to overpopulate the earth while simultaneously stabbing it with a knife.
Okay I have to take a deep breath because I'm about to write something controversial and offensive: most of you need to die. Back in 1804, before much of the Industrial Revolution had taken effect on the world's population, the global population was estimated at 1 billion people. It is believed that by and large, this population was a stable, sustainable population.
The current world population is estimated at 6.7 billion people. But this isn't simply a 7 fold increase in resource use. Humans of 2009 use way more resources per person than their ancestors 200 years ago. Not only did my ancestors of long ago not have access to bluefin tuna steaks, but they didn't have huge boats to ship them, ice-cold freezers to store them, or refrigerated trucks to ship them. I may get 100 calories of energy from a small morsel bluefin tuna and my 1804 ancestor may have gotten 100 calories from a small morsel of deer or salmon. But the amount of total energy required for me to enjoy my 100 calories is astronomically higher than the amount of energy required to get my ancestor his 100 calories.
So you have this situation where although our population is 7 times bigger, the resource consumption is something like 70 times bigger.
So if you go on the (huge) assumption that a single human uses 7o times the resources per calorie of someone back in 1804, and 1804's world population was basically sustainable, then you end up with the figure that the sustainable world population of today is around 100 million. That's roughly 1/3rd the population of the United States. So 69/70ths of us must die for the Earth to survive.
...or must we? Here's a much better alternative: Build 69 gigantic spacecraft capable of holding 100 million people each, then round us all up and randomly (except for rich people of course, they get to choose) put us in each of the spacecraft (with the remaining 100 million left here on Earth). Send each spacecraft (after putting the 100 million inhabitants in cryogenic sleep, obviously) to a distant, habitable planet, to build their own society there. Each spacecraft, and Earth, are given strict rules that their rate of reproduction must never allow their total population to exceed 100 million.
It's foolproof!
_
A new study proclaims the obvious: humans are totally wiping out tuna. Not as much from the cans of chunk light tuna you get at the store (they're chicken anyway, right Jess?) but the sushi, in various forms that has become so popular in the United States and Europe. My own wife, Mrs. TAE, loves sushi and used to eat it regularly before her sometimes-treehugger husband cut that practice off. TAE admits on some occasions eating sushi as well, although I preferred Unagi Maki (eel).
In any case, the continued reports that our ever increasing uptake of tuna is far, far beyond the ability of tuna to repopulate (they don't breed until they are quite large, larger than the minimum size fisherman will catch) brings about what I think is a very real question: just how many humans can this planet hold?
Of course I am talking about rationing. Perhaps the planet can hold the current population of humans, but no more. If that is the case, then global tuna consumption needs to drop by a factor of 100 in order to restore the tuna population to the oceans. That means that we all only get sushi about twice a year, and I mean all of us. Those of you who don't eat sushi get to continue not eating sushi. Once the tuna population has recovered, we can only increase our global sushi intake to about 2% of what it currently is. I'm not joking. That's how lopsided our tuna intake has become. Similarly, canned tuna sales need to basically get cut off for about 5 years, at which point we can buy 5% of current canned tuna consumption.
But if we aren't getting our protein from tuna, where will we get it? Well, actually we need to basically wipe out the world's cattle population to eliminate the huge amounts of greenhouse gas that are being spewed out of their butts into the atmosphere. That means that beef is off the menu. What about pork? Well pig feces is dumped into lagoons that belch out huge amounts of carbon dioxide and therefore the pork must go too. Besides, pigs were meant to be
I could go on, and fully intended to, but I realized my point is being made: meat harvesting/livestock production has allowed our species to overpopulate the earth while simultaneously stabbing it with a knife.
Okay I have to take a deep breath because I'm about to write something controversial and offensive: most of you need to die. Back in 1804, before much of the Industrial Revolution had taken effect on the world's population, the global population was estimated at 1 billion people. It is believed that by and large, this population was a stable, sustainable population.
The current world population is estimated at 6.7 billion people. But this isn't simply a 7 fold increase in resource use. Humans of 2009 use way more resources per person than their ancestors 200 years ago. Not only did my ancestors of long ago not have access to bluefin tuna steaks, but they didn't have huge boats to ship them, ice-cold freezers to store them, or refrigerated trucks to ship them. I may get 100 calories of energy from a small morsel bluefin tuna and my 1804 ancestor may have gotten 100 calories from a small morsel of deer or salmon. But the amount of total energy required for me to enjoy my 100 calories is astronomically higher than the amount of energy required to get my ancestor his 100 calories.
So you have this situation where although our population is 7 times bigger, the resource consumption is something like 70 times bigger.
So if you go on the (huge) assumption that a single human uses 7o times the resources per calorie of someone back in 1804, and 1804's world population was basically sustainable, then you end up with the figure that the sustainable world population of today is around 100 million. That's roughly 1/3rd the population of the United States. So 69/70ths of us must die for the Earth to survive.
...or must we? Here's a much better alternative: Build 69 gigantic spacecraft capable of holding 100 million people each, then round us all up and randomly (except for rich people of course, they get to choose) put us in each of the spacecraft (with the remaining 100 million left here on Earth). Send each spacecraft (after putting the 100 million inhabitants in cryogenic sleep, obviously) to a distant, habitable planet, to build their own society there. Each spacecraft, and Earth, are given strict rules that their rate of reproduction must never allow their total population to exceed 100 million.
It's foolproof!
_
Nothing says "conserve natural resources" like riding a toxic-gas-spewing rocket into space! The carbon footprint of a single launch of the Russian rocket creates more carbon than a small city. But don't notice that! Instead watch the simulcast on water conservation featuring perennial private-plane-flying, huge-expensive-mansion-with-ridiculous-electric-bill-living hypocrites Al Gore and Bono! Good times!
_
_
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
If I had a dollar for every time some airhead science nut got a chubby over carbon nanotubes, I'd have retired to my own private island where the internet doesn't exist.
And yet, we have almost zero products on the market that actually contain carbon nanotubes.
But have no fear! Any day now they'll be getting us the waterproof textiles, combat jackets, concrete, polyethylene, sports equipment, supercomputers, synthetic muscles, fiber, bridges, flywheels, fire fighting suits, paper, film, motors, light bulbs, magnets, igniters, solar cells, ultracapacitors, displays, transistors, loudspeakers, air filters, containers, hydrogen storage cells, membranes, slick surfaces, and of course space elevator that they promise "are being developed as we speak."
_
And yet, we have almost zero products on the market that actually contain carbon nanotubes.
But have no fear! Any day now they'll be getting us the waterproof textiles, combat jackets, concrete, polyethylene, sports equipment, supercomputers, synthetic muscles, fiber, bridges, flywheels, fire fighting suits, paper, film, motors, light bulbs, magnets, igniters, solar cells, ultracapacitors, displays, transistors, loudspeakers, air filters, containers, hydrogen storage cells, membranes, slick surfaces, and of course space elevator that they promise "are being developed as we speak."
_
Is it possible the Judicial branch of American government is the last holdout against corruption and lobbyist efforts? After the last 8 year run of Presidential favors and corporate sole-source contracts, and the continued exposures of Congressional members having relationships with lobbyists or corporate execs (or retiring from the Senate to found lobby firms), one has to admit the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch seem...ethically gray. Our new President swore no lobbyists would get Federal positions...and then gave lobbyists positions.
But today it was announced that the judicial branch, namely the Justice Department has settled with Pfizer, the world's largest drugmaker, to the tune of 2.3 billion. Pfizer plead guilty or no contest to several charges, including taking doctors on exotic trips in exchange for the doctors prescribing Pfizer drugs, promoting drugs as having benefits not approved by the FDA, and writing fake requests for information to doctors in order to solicit drugs for unapproved uses and doses.
Part of the beauty in this is that Pfizer was unable to get favors from anyone to quash the lawsuit. In history, it seems that part of the price you pay to become the "world's largest (insert product here) maker" is that you have to do a lot of shady and unethical things in order to beat your competition. I am glad to see Justice done.
_
But today it was announced that the judicial branch, namely the Justice Department has settled with Pfizer, the world's largest drugmaker, to the tune of 2.3 billion. Pfizer plead guilty or no contest to several charges, including taking doctors on exotic trips in exchange for the doctors prescribing Pfizer drugs, promoting drugs as having benefits not approved by the FDA, and writing fake requests for information to doctors in order to solicit drugs for unapproved uses and doses.
Part of the beauty in this is that Pfizer was unable to get favors from anyone to quash the lawsuit. In history, it seems that part of the price you pay to become the "world's largest (insert product here) maker" is that you have to do a lot of shady and unethical things in order to beat your competition. I am glad to see Justice done.
_
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
In the wake of last week's evisceration of the cell phone industry from almost every corner of the internet, T Mobile has proven that cell phone companies are still coming up with innovation, despite protests from critics that claim innovation is being quashed.
Unfortunately for consumers, the only innovation appears to be in how we are billed. T Mobile has announced that they will now (I'm not joking) bill you for billing you. If you do not sign up for paperless billing (bills sent to your email address), then they will charge you an extra $1.50 for a paper bill, or $3.50 for a detailed bill.
Now, a righteous person would pay their bill, but not the bill for the bill, right? I mean, you can't do that to your customers! But if you don't pay the bill for your bill, they'll shut off your phone until your bill for your bill is paid. And if you don't pay the $1.50 bill for your bill, you get a late fee, which is significantly more than $1.50
I guess T Mobile's slogan should not be "Get More" but "Get Billed For More."
_
Unfortunately for consumers, the only innovation appears to be in how we are billed. T Mobile has announced that they will now (I'm not joking) bill you for billing you. If you do not sign up for paperless billing (bills sent to your email address), then they will charge you an extra $1.50 for a paper bill, or $3.50 for a detailed bill.
Now, a righteous person would pay their bill, but not the bill for the bill, right? I mean, you can't do that to your customers! But if you don't pay the bill for your bill, they'll shut off your phone until your bill for your bill is paid. And if you don't pay the $1.50 bill for your bill, you get a late fee, which is significantly more than $1.50
I guess T Mobile's slogan should not be "Get More" but "Get Billed For More."
_
This study shows 1 in 10 binge drinkers gets behind the wheel and attempts to drunk-drive home.
How many people, TAE asks himself almost daily, have to die on our roads before we buck up and let computers drive us to and from our places of interest? I have, over the last 18 months, enumerated on several occasions my belief that not only would automated cars save lives, but they'd save money, and save time.
The bizarre thing is that cars that drive themselves is no longer a question of inventing the technology, its becoming a question of human dignity. People can no longer argue that "some day in the future" cars will be able to drive themselves, because they already can. The new Mercedes can parallel park itself, detect when the driver gets sleepy and sound an alert, detect when the car in front of it slams on its brakes and it does likewise, can course-correct if the driver veers over the dividing line between lanes, and pretty much anything else you can think of to keep the driver from being...well...human.
DARPA has an ongoing competition in which automated vehicles travel across rugged terrain.
GPS navigation systems can now tell you exactly where you are to within 3 feet or less, and good car GPS systems can even tell you if you are in the wrong lane of traffic for your upcoming turn.
A remote control system to drive a car, like the kind they use on Mythbusters when a car is going to do something unsafe for a driver, can now be acquired for less than a thousand dollars, and can be installed by someone with no experience in mechanics.
So wait, we can install in our cars systems that allow them to drive themselves, systems that allow them to know where they are exactly, systems that allow the steering, gas and brakes to be remotely controlled, and systems that allow the car to navigate through sudden obstacles and rough terrain? What's the hold-up?
The answer, of course, can be found by looking in a mirror. Humans, by nature, love control, and nowhere is there a chance to exert more control than at the wheel of a 3500 lb. steel behemoth barreling down the highway at a speed faster than reflexes can handle.
Simply put, it is just going to take a fundamental change in people's understanding of what a "car" and a "commute" represents. The American people (and people in other countries too) will have to grasp the concept that getting in the car is simply the same thing as getting on the subway, or getting on the bus...a device for transit over which the passenger has no control other than their entry and exit points.
Mrs. TAE and I moved to a new apartment last weekend. My commute has shortened by about 10 minutes, depending on how lucky I am with the traffic lights. But it is still 25 minutes long. That is 25 minutes I could have spent today reading Mark Twain's "What Is Man" or taking a nap, or reading the newspaper, or watching out the window at the deer that are overpopulating a nearby park. Then, this afternoon, I have to drive almost an hour from work out to my parents farm to pick up The Abstracted Daughter. That's an hour I could spend doing paperwork for work (instead of losing an hour tomorrow morning doing it then), or talking on the phone with someone (since driving on the phone is deadly, I'll avoid doing it), or making a grocery list, or taking a nap.
I really think the sell for automated cars won't be the safety aspect; people will always claim that it's not them that is the unsafe driver, it's (amazingly) everyone else. It won't be the savings; a few hundred dollars doesn't compute with many drivers when they have to balance it against their lost control of their car.
What will sell automated cars will be the amount of free time gained by not having to concentrate on the road. It will be the 18% decrease in their commute time because automated traffic systems are more efficient than traffic lights and human drivers. What if every day I could sleep 8 minutes longer and still get to work on time? What if during the drive to work I could read the newspaper (a pleasure I rarely get to enjoy)? I absolutely would hand over the keys.
If you need other reasons why automated cars are a damn good idea, just take a moment, and remember that every 31 minutes someone is killed in a PREVENTABLE car accident in this country.
_
How many people, TAE asks himself almost daily, have to die on our roads before we buck up and let computers drive us to and from our places of interest? I have, over the last 18 months, enumerated on several occasions my belief that not only would automated cars save lives, but they'd save money, and save time.
The bizarre thing is that cars that drive themselves is no longer a question of inventing the technology, its becoming a question of human dignity. People can no longer argue that "some day in the future" cars will be able to drive themselves, because they already can. The new Mercedes can parallel park itself, detect when the driver gets sleepy and sound an alert, detect when the car in front of it slams on its brakes and it does likewise, can course-correct if the driver veers over the dividing line between lanes, and pretty much anything else you can think of to keep the driver from being...well...human.
DARPA has an ongoing competition in which automated vehicles travel across rugged terrain.
GPS navigation systems can now tell you exactly where you are to within 3 feet or less, and good car GPS systems can even tell you if you are in the wrong lane of traffic for your upcoming turn.
A remote control system to drive a car, like the kind they use on Mythbusters when a car is going to do something unsafe for a driver, can now be acquired for less than a thousand dollars, and can be installed by someone with no experience in mechanics.
So wait, we can install in our cars systems that allow them to drive themselves, systems that allow them to know where they are exactly, systems that allow the steering, gas and brakes to be remotely controlled, and systems that allow the car to navigate through sudden obstacles and rough terrain? What's the hold-up?
The answer, of course, can be found by looking in a mirror. Humans, by nature, love control, and nowhere is there a chance to exert more control than at the wheel of a 3500 lb. steel behemoth barreling down the highway at a speed faster than reflexes can handle.
Simply put, it is just going to take a fundamental change in people's understanding of what a "car" and a "commute" represents. The American people (and people in other countries too) will have to grasp the concept that getting in the car is simply the same thing as getting on the subway, or getting on the bus...a device for transit over which the passenger has no control other than their entry and exit points.
Mrs. TAE and I moved to a new apartment last weekend. My commute has shortened by about 10 minutes, depending on how lucky I am with the traffic lights. But it is still 25 minutes long. That is 25 minutes I could have spent today reading Mark Twain's "What Is Man" or taking a nap, or reading the newspaper, or watching out the window at the deer that are overpopulating a nearby park. Then, this afternoon, I have to drive almost an hour from work out to my parents farm to pick up The Abstracted Daughter. That's an hour I could spend doing paperwork for work (instead of losing an hour tomorrow morning doing it then), or talking on the phone with someone (since driving on the phone is deadly, I'll avoid doing it), or making a grocery list, or taking a nap.
I really think the sell for automated cars won't be the safety aspect; people will always claim that it's not them that is the unsafe driver, it's (amazingly) everyone else. It won't be the savings; a few hundred dollars doesn't compute with many drivers when they have to balance it against their lost control of their car.
What will sell automated cars will be the amount of free time gained by not having to concentrate on the road. It will be the 18% decrease in their commute time because automated traffic systems are more efficient than traffic lights and human drivers. What if every day I could sleep 8 minutes longer and still get to work on time? What if during the drive to work I could read the newspaper (a pleasure I rarely get to enjoy)? I absolutely would hand over the keys.
If you need other reasons why automated cars are a damn good idea, just take a moment, and remember that every 31 minutes someone is killed in a PREVENTABLE car accident in this country.
_
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)