Well, if you were born on February 29, HA HA, YOU LOSE! Interesting thing is that in the U.K. people born on the 29th apparently have their date of birth changed (on their birth certificate) to the 28th or March 1. That seems just a little like declaring that PI = 3.
After having one juror dismissed for being tainted, the Libby jury deliberations continue. No description of what information the dismissed juror was exposed to was provided. The Remaining jurors requested some clarification yesterday, but experts could not ferret out any indication of how the jury was going to find based on the contents of the request.
Today is the day that the BATF initiated the raid of the Branch Davidian church in Waco. This tragic event will fuel conspiracies theories for years.
Just as right wing pundits are counting him out, John McCain has announced that he will run for president. At the moment, Rudy Giuliani is the apparent front runner in the race for Republican nomination.
Over-all, it's an uninspiring day.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
February 28 - BHDG Hypocrisy
Associated Press reports that Al Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot home and paid over $1350/month for his electric bill. In fact, he used more than 10 times the amount of electricity than the average individual living where he does, Nashville. He must not have simply invented the Internet, he must be powering it too. Gore explains it away by saying he purchases his energy from renewable sources. But that is the lie of someone who intentionally disregards the meaning of the word fungible.
You see, he gets his energy from the grid like every one else and every renewable erg that he consumes is one that another can't consume and so must acquire it from a non-renewable source. Just because the energy company has come up with a way of linking a consumer with a source does not mean that consumer has lessened the impact of their energy consumption.
Bleeding Heart Do Gooders, still willing to part me from my money before parting themselves from theirs. I can accept that Al might feel the need to run around the world telling us all about imminent doom, but I don't see how he justifies such an environmentally unfriendly, opulent lifestyle. You'd think he would want to lead by example.
You see, he gets his energy from the grid like every one else and every renewable erg that he consumes is one that another can't consume and so must acquire it from a non-renewable source. Just because the energy company has come up with a way of linking a consumer with a source does not mean that consumer has lessened the impact of their energy consumption.
Bleeding Heart Do Gooders, still willing to part me from my money before parting themselves from theirs. I can accept that Al might feel the need to run around the world telling us all about imminent doom, but I don't see how he justifies such an environmentally unfriendly, opulent lifestyle. You'd think he would want to lead by example.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
February 27 - Asteroids and the U.N.
A friend pointed out that an Earth orbit crossing asteroid had a high probability (for these sorts of things) of hitting us in about 30 years. Being just those kind of geeks, we started talking about what it would take to prevent it. The most notable problems being 1) whatever we do, we can't move it much and, 2) we don't know which way to move it. Since it is quite possible that it won't hit the Earth, if we nudge it right now, with what we know, we may actually cause it to hit the Earth. Actually there is a 3) and that is that there really isn't anything we can do right now, though we could begin working on something.
Then he pointed something out to me and I relaxed. It seems the U.N. is working on a protocol for dealing with this. Good. Matter settled. I can go back to my Post Toasties and Tivo'd Survivor... as if. What are they going to do? Expel hot air at it until it veers off? Ooh, Ooh, I know, they are going to issue sanctions. We've seen these do wonders elsewhere. Unfortunately, this is all too likely. Important people will talk about it, replaced every 4 to 8 years by more important people talking about it until it is effectively too late. It's a good thing the actual odds of impact are quite low and that this one would only wipe out some sea-front property in California.
By the way, what the heck is a "protocol"? As in, "the U.N. is working on a protocol..." Is this different than a plan? I suppose it is primarily composed of the seating arrangement for the negotiating table where they will determine who will pay for the mission to save us all, as if that was in any doubt. According to some news service or other, they will have the protocol ready by 2009. Oh, come on!?! Deep Impact and Armageddon came out how long ago? 8 Years? What is with these people?
The news completely fails to present information about science in a way that is useful. There are just too many examples, but in this case the most glaring example is when they describe what we can do about it. The nifty idea (far from a plan) the gearheads have for this asteroid (named Apophis) is to send a spacecraft to it and have it hover, burning fuel the whole time, next to the asteroid in the direction we want it to go. By doing this, the news reports say, the asteroid can be moved by 1 earth diameter if the spacecraft weighs 1 ton.
What they fail to mention is how long this will take. This is the case if they start about now. See, acceleration is like compounding interest where the principle grows more and more, like the old "one penny on the first day, two pennies on the second day, four pennies and so on" joke. The point is, the effect of the spacecraft is so small, and the reliance on accumulated velocity so great, that you have to start very early. Oh, and have a lot of fuel to burn over the next 30 years. As I said, it's an idea, not a plan, as of yet.
Oh well, at least we'll have a cool show, maybe. Apophis will swing by us once first before trying to hit us a few years later. Long before then, though, we will likely learn that it has, in fact, no chance of hitting us. Not before the U.N. calls us all deniers and has attempted to bleed the U.S. of every last cent they can paying for a then worthless mission, though.
Then he pointed something out to me and I relaxed. It seems the U.N. is working on a protocol for dealing with this. Good. Matter settled. I can go back to my Post Toasties and Tivo'd Survivor... as if. What are they going to do? Expel hot air at it until it veers off? Ooh, Ooh, I know, they are going to issue sanctions. We've seen these do wonders elsewhere. Unfortunately, this is all too likely. Important people will talk about it, replaced every 4 to 8 years by more important people talking about it until it is effectively too late. It's a good thing the actual odds of impact are quite low and that this one would only wipe out some sea-front property in California.
By the way, what the heck is a "protocol"? As in, "the U.N. is working on a protocol..." Is this different than a plan? I suppose it is primarily composed of the seating arrangement for the negotiating table where they will determine who will pay for the mission to save us all, as if that was in any doubt. According to some news service or other, they will have the protocol ready by 2009. Oh, come on!?! Deep Impact and Armageddon came out how long ago? 8 Years? What is with these people?
The news completely fails to present information about science in a way that is useful. There are just too many examples, but in this case the most glaring example is when they describe what we can do about it. The nifty idea (far from a plan) the gearheads have for this asteroid (named Apophis) is to send a spacecraft to it and have it hover, burning fuel the whole time, next to the asteroid in the direction we want it to go. By doing this, the news reports say, the asteroid can be moved by 1 earth diameter if the spacecraft weighs 1 ton.
What they fail to mention is how long this will take. This is the case if they start about now. See, acceleration is like compounding interest where the principle grows more and more, like the old "one penny on the first day, two pennies on the second day, four pennies and so on" joke. The point is, the effect of the spacecraft is so small, and the reliance on accumulated velocity so great, that you have to start very early. Oh, and have a lot of fuel to burn over the next 30 years. As I said, it's an idea, not a plan, as of yet.
Oh well, at least we'll have a cool show, maybe. Apophis will swing by us once first before trying to hit us a few years later. Long before then, though, we will likely learn that it has, in fact, no chance of hitting us. Not before the U.N. calls us all deniers and has attempted to bleed the U.S. of every last cent they can paying for a then worthless mission, though.
Monday, February 26, 2007
February 26 - BBQ
Some days, a guy just has to have BBQ. No, I don't mean pulling out the Weber and a pile of Kingsford and trying to singe your eyebrows. That's grilling. And I sure don't mean shredding a bunch of meat and drowning it in a sweet tomatoey sauce between two pieces of bread. I don't know what to call that, but it sure ain't BBQ. Nope, I mean big hunks of bovine seasoned with a dry rub and very slowly cooked next to a wood fire. And when I say very slowly, I mean it. A 12 pound brisket should take 18 hours cooked to perfection. Sauce should not come into the picture until the meat is on your plate, er, butcher paper.
Meat, in other words. As the saying goes, I didn't kick scratch and claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables. Meat. And lots of it. Brisket, sausage, ribs, mmmmm. Dr. Atkins is my hero, may he forever rest in blissful peace.
Meat, in other words. As the saying goes, I didn't kick scratch and claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables. Meat. And lots of it. Brisket, sausage, ribs, mmmmm. Dr. Atkins is my hero, may he forever rest in blissful peace.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
February 25 - "Next", Micahel Chrichton
Chrichton is slipping. He is counting on his notoriety and controversy to sell books. Like his last book, "State of Fear", "Next" is a cautionary tale. Unlike his "State of Fear", "Next" causes more chuckles than concern. For background, "State of Fear" warned us to be skeptical of global warming because it was being used as a tool by power elites to generate fear in the populace, making them susceptible to persuasion. "Next" warns us of how the application of genetics could threaten each of us.
Unfortunately the scenarios that Chrichton creates in his book come across as ludicrous more than scary. Because they seem so ridiculous, for instance, by positing that our right to be secure in our person would be trumped by a tenuous claim by a corporation of intellectual property right to our genetic material. Or, because the possibility seem so remote, such as a chimp/human hybrid actually being admitted to public school. Because of this, this book comes across as a humor punctuated sci-fi tale more than anything.
Again unfortunately, it isn't very good at that, either. The over all story is pretty good, but it is told with far to little literary meat. Not enough character development, not enough detail. It being based on science, not enough science, something Chrichton is usually better at. It is told as several separate but loosely connected stories that just wind up feeling disjoint. One winds up feeling like Chrichton, "phoned this one in," so to speak.
Chrichton does hit on how screwed up intellectual property law seems to be in this country. His focus on how it is being used in regard to biology, medicine and genetics was somewhat illuminating. However, it seems unlikely that this would have made much of an impact if one wasn't already concerned with some aspect or other of the topic.
Over all, I am not sorry I read the book. Despite it's failings, it was sufficiently entertaining to be worth the time spent reading it. I recommend waiting for the paperback or checking it out of the library.
Unfortunately the scenarios that Chrichton creates in his book come across as ludicrous more than scary. Because they seem so ridiculous, for instance, by positing that our right to be secure in our person would be trumped by a tenuous claim by a corporation of intellectual property right to our genetic material. Or, because the possibility seem so remote, such as a chimp/human hybrid actually being admitted to public school. Because of this, this book comes across as a humor punctuated sci-fi tale more than anything.
Again unfortunately, it isn't very good at that, either. The over all story is pretty good, but it is told with far to little literary meat. Not enough character development, not enough detail. It being based on science, not enough science, something Chrichton is usually better at. It is told as several separate but loosely connected stories that just wind up feeling disjoint. One winds up feeling like Chrichton, "phoned this one in," so to speak.
Chrichton does hit on how screwed up intellectual property law seems to be in this country. His focus on how it is being used in regard to biology, medicine and genetics was somewhat illuminating. However, it seems unlikely that this would have made much of an impact if one wasn't already concerned with some aspect or other of the topic.
Over all, I am not sorry I read the book. Despite it's failings, it was sufficiently entertaining to be worth the time spent reading it. I recommend waiting for the paperback or checking it out of the library.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
February 24 - Tar Sands and Peak Oil
On this day in 1982, Dome Petroleum and Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas withdraw from $13.5 billion Alsands project, the Alberta Tar Sand project. (http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Feb&day=24) For those that don't know, this is one of the largest petroleum deposits in the world, possibly equal to 1/2 of the total world reserves. The thing is, usable petroleum is difficult to recover. Until oil prices hit about $40 per barrel, it is not really economically feasible.
Wanna re-run that last sentence? How long has it been since oil prices hit $40 per barrel? And it's stayed above $40/bbl ever since, too. The upshot is that, today, 1/5 of all oil consumed in Canada is sourced from the oil sands and more production ability continues to come online.
It is doubtful, given the long time until fruition, that Dome and Hudson's Bay are regretting their bailing out, but for those who stayed in, the future looks pretty rosy.
Almost all predictions made prior to 2004 by Peak Oil Theory have the world peak occurring prior to 2004. As each peak passes, a new estimate of the peak needs to be made because the theory does not seem to take into account that vast unproven reserves might become proven such as the Tar Sands in Canada and Venezuela, Oil Shale in Canada and the U.S., and the previously unproven deep Gulf of Mexico fields like the Jack 2. Finally, there is a theory of abiogenic "deep oil" reserves that, here and there, now and again, proves to have merit such as in the White Tiger field in Vietnam. If the abiogenic theory proves itself, oil may be effectively limitless for at least the next few hundred years.
In any case, while oil may run out one day, there are so many unproven reserves, so many places left to look and, at current prices, so many economic things we can do to recover it, it is very difficult to predict when except to say that it is unlikely to happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today.
Wanna re-run that last sentence? How long has it been since oil prices hit $40 per barrel? And it's stayed above $40/bbl ever since, too. The upshot is that, today, 1/5 of all oil consumed in Canada is sourced from the oil sands and more production ability continues to come online.
It is doubtful, given the long time until fruition, that Dome and Hudson's Bay are regretting their bailing out, but for those who stayed in, the future looks pretty rosy.
Almost all predictions made prior to 2004 by Peak Oil Theory have the world peak occurring prior to 2004. As each peak passes, a new estimate of the peak needs to be made because the theory does not seem to take into account that vast unproven reserves might become proven such as the Tar Sands in Canada and Venezuela, Oil Shale in Canada and the U.S., and the previously unproven deep Gulf of Mexico fields like the Jack 2. Finally, there is a theory of abiogenic "deep oil" reserves that, here and there, now and again, proves to have merit such as in the White Tiger field in Vietnam. If the abiogenic theory proves itself, oil may be effectively limitless for at least the next few hundred years.
In any case, while oil may run out one day, there are so many unproven reserves, so many places left to look and, at current prices, so many economic things we can do to recover it, it is very difficult to predict when except to say that it is unlikely to happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
February 23 - Iran and Moral Equivalence and Gutenberg
552 Years ago, today, Gutenberg began printing the bible. This was the beginning of a process of technical innovation that led to the point where any moron can spew opinion and invective for large audiences to read :-) (Well, audiences, anyway. All three of you or so.)
Iran recently said that they would stop their uranium enrichment if the western nations did likewise. What could be wrong with that proposal? Moral equivalence suggests that all nations should have equal rights, right? How could anyone in this country that continues to produce enriched uranium rationally deny that right from anyone else. How about the simple case of us versus them. Ahmadinejad has led his people with nationalistic fervor in chants of "Death to America". How hard is this decision?
As long as nations still practice nationalism we can not drop our guard for however peaceful and egalitarian we may wish to be, they indicate that they do not feel the same way. I just can not imagine handing a gun to someone who has said that they intend me imminent harm.
Iran recently said that they would stop their uranium enrichment if the western nations did likewise. What could be wrong with that proposal? Moral equivalence suggests that all nations should have equal rights, right? How could anyone in this country that continues to produce enriched uranium rationally deny that right from anyone else. How about the simple case of us versus them. Ahmadinejad has led his people with nationalistic fervor in chants of "Death to America". How hard is this decision?
As long as nations still practice nationalism we can not drop our guard for however peaceful and egalitarian we may wish to be, they indicate that they do not feel the same way. I just can not imagine handing a gun to someone who has said that they intend me imminent harm.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
February 22 - Scooter Libby and Jury Nullification
Today will be day two of jury deliberations in the Scooter Libby perjury case. Notice that I didn't write the Valerie Plame identity leak case or anything similar. That's because, after all the investigation, no sufficient evidence that a crime involving revealing her identity was found. In fact, evidence found indicates that there was no crime to be committed as she was no longer a covert agent with a cover to be blown at the time the events under investigation took place.
Why was Scooter Libby tried? I think it is because he has a name that news casters find amusing to say. Repeat, "Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby". Admit it, it feels a little silly. Unfortunately the very serious reality is that Mr. Libby could find himself serving 35 years in jail if he is found guilty of... what, exactly? Perjury. He lied to the grand jury investigating Ms. Plame's case or so say the charges against him. The thing is, this isn't perjury in the Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." sense where it clearly is or is not a lie. This is perjury in the, "I rented that car on a Thursday," when it actually happened on Wednesday sense. In other words, quite possibly a case of mis-remembering.
Jurors in this country have an unusual and specifically unpublished power. They have the ability to actually take into account the "rightness" of the applicable law or its application in a particular case. This act does not create precedent. In other words, it does not have the power to overturn existing law in general, just for a given case. This power is called Jury Nullification. It has very long precedence going all the way back to English common law which actually has some legal basis in this country in the absence of other governing law. This case seems ripe for its application except the judge is withholding the very facts that might sway the jury to invoke it. Of course no judge in this country even permits Jury Nullification to be introduced to a jury. They all will seek to disbar a lawyer who attempts to inform a jury of the power and will excuse any potential jury member who so much as expresses knowledge of the concept.
The facts the judge has forbidden the jury to consider regard the question of if an underlying crime had been committed. The Judge has specifically forbidden the Jury to speculate on if Valerie Plame actually had her cover blown, or not. Without seeing that, at worst, Mr. Libby's action resulted in no harm, no foul, they have no means to consider if Mr. Libby's crime is worth a potential 35 years in jail, even if it was committed.
Further, his guilt or innocence seems to have come down to a "he said, he said" situation where the "he"'s in question are Scooter Libby and Tim Russert. Do we see a problem here? We should. Tim Russert is not just anyone. He is a newscaster who has appeared before the public many times for many years. It is unlikely that he is not known to the members of the jury. Before this incident, I suspect that very few had ever heard the name, "Scooter Libby." As a news caster, Russert receives immense credibility simply by virtue of his job. We are supposed to trust news casters. Never mind that he is just a person like any other. I don't know how we can expect the jury to leave the realm of subjectivity and trust Libby over Russert. It does not seem reasonable to do so.
Whatever. Maybe today we will obtain some insight into of what reasoning a jury of one's peers are capable. Maybe tomorrow...
Why was Scooter Libby tried? I think it is because he has a name that news casters find amusing to say. Repeat, "Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby". Admit it, it feels a little silly. Unfortunately the very serious reality is that Mr. Libby could find himself serving 35 years in jail if he is found guilty of... what, exactly? Perjury. He lied to the grand jury investigating Ms. Plame's case or so say the charges against him. The thing is, this isn't perjury in the Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman..." sense where it clearly is or is not a lie. This is perjury in the, "I rented that car on a Thursday," when it actually happened on Wednesday sense. In other words, quite possibly a case of mis-remembering.
Jurors in this country have an unusual and specifically unpublished power. They have the ability to actually take into account the "rightness" of the applicable law or its application in a particular case. This act does not create precedent. In other words, it does not have the power to overturn existing law in general, just for a given case. This power is called Jury Nullification. It has very long precedence going all the way back to English common law which actually has some legal basis in this country in the absence of other governing law. This case seems ripe for its application except the judge is withholding the very facts that might sway the jury to invoke it. Of course no judge in this country even permits Jury Nullification to be introduced to a jury. They all will seek to disbar a lawyer who attempts to inform a jury of the power and will excuse any potential jury member who so much as expresses knowledge of the concept.
The facts the judge has forbidden the jury to consider regard the question of if an underlying crime had been committed. The Judge has specifically forbidden the Jury to speculate on if Valerie Plame actually had her cover blown, or not. Without seeing that, at worst, Mr. Libby's action resulted in no harm, no foul, they have no means to consider if Mr. Libby's crime is worth a potential 35 years in jail, even if it was committed.
Further, his guilt or innocence seems to have come down to a "he said, he said" situation where the "he"'s in question are Scooter Libby and Tim Russert. Do we see a problem here? We should. Tim Russert is not just anyone. He is a newscaster who has appeared before the public many times for many years. It is unlikely that he is not known to the members of the jury. Before this incident, I suspect that very few had ever heard the name, "Scooter Libby." As a news caster, Russert receives immense credibility simply by virtue of his job. We are supposed to trust news casters. Never mind that he is just a person like any other. I don't know how we can expect the jury to leave the realm of subjectivity and trust Libby over Russert. It does not seem reasonable to do so.
Whatever. Maybe today we will obtain some insight into of what reasoning a jury of one's peers are capable. Maybe tomorrow...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
February 21 - Avatar
Today, featured on Wikipedia, is an article on Avatar, the Last Airbender. This is an animated children's series based on a fantasy world that is largely Asian in character. My kids began watching this last year and I found it to be good enough for me to watch as well. this is something I appreciate, children's material that is engrossing (and not grossing) enough for me to enjoy sharing it.
In a nutshell, the world is divided between four nations each with a magical prowess in one of the four basic elements, air, earth, fire and water. One who can wield the magic is called a "bender". The Avatar is a master of all four elements, or one who is destined to be so. The story is set in a time when the Fire nation has pretty much taken over the world after the last Avatar died 112 years past. Two adolescents, Sokka and Katara from the water tribe find a boy, Aang, encased in an iceberg and release him. Not long after they discover that he is the latest incarnation of the Avatar. The adventure takes them on a journey to discover his unrealized talents, ultimately to turn back the power of the Fire nation and presumable return balance to the world.
The animation quality is good but not excellent, the story line is good the telling of the story is occasionally childish, but not intolerably so. The story is very coherent and fairly complex for a children's series. Most shows like this are composed of stand-alone episodes, but this one has a long term story arc making missing an episode a problem. I think this is what makes it most appealing to me. My kids seem to like it because they begin to identify with the characters as they develop.
If you can't stand Sponge Bob and want to spend some quality time in front of a show your kid likes to watch, try this one.
In a nutshell, the world is divided between four nations each with a magical prowess in one of the four basic elements, air, earth, fire and water. One who can wield the magic is called a "bender". The Avatar is a master of all four elements, or one who is destined to be so. The story is set in a time when the Fire nation has pretty much taken over the world after the last Avatar died 112 years past. Two adolescents, Sokka and Katara from the water tribe find a boy, Aang, encased in an iceberg and release him. Not long after they discover that he is the latest incarnation of the Avatar. The adventure takes them on a journey to discover his unrealized talents, ultimately to turn back the power of the Fire nation and presumable return balance to the world.
The animation quality is good but not excellent, the story line is good the telling of the story is occasionally childish, but not intolerably so. The story is very coherent and fairly complex for a children's series. Most shows like this are composed of stand-alone episodes, but this one has a long term story arc making missing an episode a problem. I think this is what makes it most appealing to me. My kids seem to like it because they begin to identify with the characters as they develop.
If you can't stand Sponge Bob and want to spend some quality time in front of a show your kid likes to watch, try this one.
February 20 - Blame it on WoW
A few months back I started playing World of Warcraft. In fact that was one of the reasons I started this blog. I decided that while entertaining, it was too much time spent un-productively. At least, even if no-one but me reads it, this blog is making me stretch my mind, learn a few things and maybe learn to organize my thoughts a little better. But not tonight. I haven't played much since I began the blog and felt like playing a bit tonight. In the immortal words of Forest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Monday, February 19, 2007
February 19 - Poking the Bear
C'mon, pushing other people's buttons is fun. In good nature, getting ones buttons pushed can be fun too if you are in sufficient good humor. In any case here is a little bear poking for today.
Leaving a parking lot today, I spied a bumper sticker that said:
I thought, what a cool idea. I've noticed that bleeding heart do-gooders generally want to do good with MY MONEY. Until they've secured my money they are loath to part with their own. I find that to be hypocritical but rationalization is a powerful tool.
One of the things that BHDG's (tm) are on about these past few years is Global Warming and how it is caused by all the CO2 that man, meaning primarily the U.S., is spewing into the atmosphere. The solution, they say, is to reduce or eliminate these emissions, damn the cost. They are willing to give the rest of the world a pass on this, though, until the western nations do it first. The U.S. is one of the few hold-outs in signing on to this philosophy codified in the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty set limits and provides for accounting for CO2 emissions. It has some neat provisions such as: one country can purchase CO2 "credits" to offset any CO2 overage they might have and countries can also pay money to reduce CO2 emissions in another country in order to offset their own emissions. More on this in a second.
The things is, just because the U.S. has not signed onto the treaty does not mean that Americans can not now participate. For an appropriate cost, Terrapass will ensure that your personal CO2 footprint is offset, taking into account the emissions due to your home's and your autos' energy consumption. Frankly, if you have come to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming and that it must be stopped, I have difficulty finding a rationalization not to do this. I expect all my concerned BHDG friends to be sporting these bumper stickers in short order. I know I could not stand the hypocrisy. Well, actually, I could, but that's just me :-) For your benefit, here is a link: TerraPass
Back to the Kyoto Treaty. Apparently it provides for CO2 credits to be granted to countries who pay to reduce CO2 emissions in another country. It also gives an unlimited pass to certain countries. Do we see a problem, here? An opportunity for a sweet scam, maybe? China is one of these free pass countries and they've figured it out. They are throwing up cheap coal-fired power plants (with no CO2 penalty) and selling them at a premium to countries in western nations who tear them down and probably sell the property back to the Chinese who promptly erect another cheaply made, CO2-spewing power plant and so on. This, according to that right-wing rag, the Wall Street Journal. This is wrong in so many astounding ways, further words escape me.
The vaunted Kyoto treaty is the current linchpin in beginning reduction of CO2. One would think that it, therefore, represents the best thinking in the relationship between CO2 emissions, economics and Global Warming. The best thinking is not too impressive.
Leaving a parking lot today, I spied a bumper sticker that said:
I thought, what a cool idea. I've noticed that bleeding heart do-gooders generally want to do good with MY MONEY. Until they've secured my money they are loath to part with their own. I find that to be hypocritical but rationalization is a powerful tool.
One of the things that BHDG's (tm) are on about these past few years is Global Warming and how it is caused by all the CO2 that man, meaning primarily the U.S., is spewing into the atmosphere. The solution, they say, is to reduce or eliminate these emissions, damn the cost. They are willing to give the rest of the world a pass on this, though, until the western nations do it first. The U.S. is one of the few hold-outs in signing on to this philosophy codified in the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty set limits and provides for accounting for CO2 emissions. It has some neat provisions such as: one country can purchase CO2 "credits" to offset any CO2 overage they might have and countries can also pay money to reduce CO2 emissions in another country in order to offset their own emissions. More on this in a second.
The things is, just because the U.S. has not signed onto the treaty does not mean that Americans can not now participate. For an appropriate cost, Terrapass will ensure that your personal CO2 footprint is offset, taking into account the emissions due to your home's and your autos' energy consumption. Frankly, if you have come to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming and that it must be stopped, I have difficulty finding a rationalization not to do this. I expect all my concerned BHDG friends to be sporting these bumper stickers in short order. I know I could not stand the hypocrisy. Well, actually, I could, but that's just me :-) For your benefit, here is a link: TerraPass
Back to the Kyoto Treaty. Apparently it provides for CO2 credits to be granted to countries who pay to reduce CO2 emissions in another country. It also gives an unlimited pass to certain countries. Do we see a problem, here? An opportunity for a sweet scam, maybe? China is one of these free pass countries and they've figured it out. They are throwing up cheap coal-fired power plants (with no CO2 penalty) and selling them at a premium to countries in western nations who tear them down and probably sell the property back to the Chinese who promptly erect another cheaply made, CO2-spewing power plant and so on. This, according to that right-wing rag, the Wall Street Journal. This is wrong in so many astounding ways, further words escape me.
The vaunted Kyoto treaty is the current linchpin in beginning reduction of CO2. One would think that it, therefore, represents the best thinking in the relationship between CO2 emissions, economics and Global Warming. The best thinking is not too impressive.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
February 18 - Book Review Sunday, "Empire"
Starting today, I'm going to dedicate Sundays to short book reviews. Typically, my interests are technical, programming related books, science fiction, history and hard (science) fiction. On my nightstand, right now are "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, "Dreaming in Code" by Scott Rosenberg, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond and "Off Armageddon Reef" by David Weber. Recently finished are "Next" by Michael Chrichton that I'll review next Sunday and "Empire" by Orson Scott Card that I'll review today.
Empire is a kind of science fiction that I categorize as future history. This is a kind of science fiction that tells the story of the future without fantastic devices (no light sabres, for instance) or, at worst with only logical technical extrapolation. Empire relies on no technical devices. It tells a story of how the U.S. political landscape shifts rapidly in the next few years. Card posits that, far from the decadent Rome that the U.S. is usually compared to, the U.S. is about to enter it's real imperial phase such as the vibrant, expanding Rome. He also suggests that for this to happen the fundamental governmental organization must change and tells a tale of how that happens through implicit rather than explicit means. The findamental shift is that the U.S places even more power in the executive, making the president something like a benevelent dictator.
Other implicit shifts in American government have similarly taken place without explicit legislation, most notably the shift from states primacy prior to the American Civil war to Federal Primacy afterwards. In this book a similar although much shorter event occurs (led by a George Soros type of character.) At the end, a desire for a return to normalcy combined with some deft political maneuvering results in both very divided parties independently desiring the same person in the executive position. What happens next is, I certainly hope, the subject of another book.
As anyone who has read 'Ender's Game" or 'Folk of the Fringe" knows, Orson Scott Card is a captivating writer whose prose is also very easy to read. If I were to criticise this book, I'd say it is a little light on detail. However, I've recently been reading Neil Stephenson, so have perhaps become accustomed to the other extreme. Politically, I'd say this book leans right of center. And it is a political book. This book is clearly intended to make people think about where the country is headed. On his website, Orson Scott Card describes himself as a former Democrat who moved to the center after seeing how the Democratic party responded after the September 11 attacks. Having read some of his articles on his website, I'd say he move right of center consistent with the feel I get from this book.
Though the end did not result in the U.S. returning to democratic roots, I'd say that it felt moderately positive. It left the possibility that such an outcome could be a good thing. Hopefully a sequel will settle the outcome, at least in Card's universe. I'll buy it.
Empire is a kind of science fiction that I categorize as future history. This is a kind of science fiction that tells the story of the future without fantastic devices (no light sabres, for instance) or, at worst with only logical technical extrapolation. Empire relies on no technical devices. It tells a story of how the U.S. political landscape shifts rapidly in the next few years. Card posits that, far from the decadent Rome that the U.S. is usually compared to, the U.S. is about to enter it's real imperial phase such as the vibrant, expanding Rome. He also suggests that for this to happen the fundamental governmental organization must change and tells a tale of how that happens through implicit rather than explicit means. The findamental shift is that the U.S places even more power in the executive, making the president something like a benevelent dictator.
Other implicit shifts in American government have similarly taken place without explicit legislation, most notably the shift from states primacy prior to the American Civil war to Federal Primacy afterwards. In this book a similar although much shorter event occurs (led by a George Soros type of character.) At the end, a desire for a return to normalcy combined with some deft political maneuvering results in both very divided parties independently desiring the same person in the executive position. What happens next is, I certainly hope, the subject of another book.
As anyone who has read 'Ender's Game" or 'Folk of the Fringe" knows, Orson Scott Card is a captivating writer whose prose is also very easy to read. If I were to criticise this book, I'd say it is a little light on detail. However, I've recently been reading Neil Stephenson, so have perhaps become accustomed to the other extreme. Politically, I'd say this book leans right of center. And it is a political book. This book is clearly intended to make people think about where the country is headed. On his website, Orson Scott Card describes himself as a former Democrat who moved to the center after seeing how the Democratic party responded after the September 11 attacks. Having read some of his articles on his website, I'd say he move right of center consistent with the feel I get from this book.
Though the end did not result in the U.S. returning to democratic roots, I'd say that it felt moderately positive. It left the possibility that such an outcome could be a good thing. Hopefully a sequel will settle the outcome, at least in Card's universe. I'll buy it.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
February 17 - More Barbaracy
Pirates flew Jolly Rogers (though not the Barbary pirates). I knew there was a connection with Ginger Rogers there somewhere :-)
On the History Channel today, was a series of shows called "The Presidents". The first episode covered Washington (1789-1797) Adams (1797-1801), Jefferson (1801-1809) and Madison (1809-1817). For the lovers of pastries, Madison is, of course, the most important, or rather, his wife, anyway. This is, of course, the period of time covered in yesterday's post regarding the Barbary wars. The next president after Madison was Monroe, the fellow credited with the Monroe Doctrine, even though it was Adams who authored it. Anyway, the second in the series begins with Monroe and was certain to mention the doctrine. What is interesting is that not a single mention of the Barbary Wars, nor the doctrine that came out of them was mentioned in the first of the series.
The war of 1812 figures prominently in the first show of the series. It is the only war fought on American soil that the U.S. lost, but it is otherwise not very notable. One wonders why the Barbary wars that bracketed it were not mentioned because these wars, aside from establishing a doctrine that lives to this day, also 1) had the U.S. building a Navy suitable for fighting halfway around the world and 2) establishing itself for the first time as a significant military power in the world by virtue of that navy proving to be effective.
It also fails to mention that captured American merchant sailors were sold into slavery by the North Africans during that time and that was one of the major issues of the peace treaties signed at the cessation of hostilities, each time. This seems like an interesting fact that folks might want to know about. Of course, at the time, as we all know, the U.S. was still a slave nation. I suspect it is less well known that the taking of slaves was somewhat bi-lateral.
In a modern context, it is also interesting to note that what we had at the time was Muslim nations initiating unprovoked aggression against America, taking Americans for slaves, stealing American property, extorting America and breaking peace treaties with America. In the present, when we practice all kinds of moral relativism, might this be classified an inconvenient truth?
Dear reader, what explanation can you provide for neglecting these nuggets of knowledge?
On the History Channel today, was a series of shows called "The Presidents". The first episode covered Washington (1789-1797) Adams (1797-1801), Jefferson (1801-1809) and Madison (1809-1817). For the lovers of pastries, Madison is, of course, the most important, or rather, his wife, anyway. This is, of course, the period of time covered in yesterday's post regarding the Barbary wars. The next president after Madison was Monroe, the fellow credited with the Monroe Doctrine, even though it was Adams who authored it. Anyway, the second in the series begins with Monroe and was certain to mention the doctrine. What is interesting is that not a single mention of the Barbary Wars, nor the doctrine that came out of them was mentioned in the first of the series.
The war of 1812 figures prominently in the first show of the series. It is the only war fought on American soil that the U.S. lost, but it is otherwise not very notable. One wonders why the Barbary wars that bracketed it were not mentioned because these wars, aside from establishing a doctrine that lives to this day, also 1) had the U.S. building a Navy suitable for fighting halfway around the world and 2) establishing itself for the first time as a significant military power in the world by virtue of that navy proving to be effective.
It also fails to mention that captured American merchant sailors were sold into slavery by the North Africans during that time and that was one of the major issues of the peace treaties signed at the cessation of hostilities, each time. This seems like an interesting fact that folks might want to know about. Of course, at the time, as we all know, the U.S. was still a slave nation. I suspect it is less well known that the taking of slaves was somewhat bi-lateral.
In a modern context, it is also interesting to note that what we had at the time was Muslim nations initiating unprovoked aggression against America, taking Americans for slaves, stealing American property, extorting America and breaking peace treaties with America. In the present, when we practice all kinds of moral relativism, might this be classified an inconvenient truth?
Dear reader, what explanation can you provide for neglecting these nuggets of knowledge?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
February 16 - Ginger Rogers had nothing to do with The Barbary Pirates.
"Sure he was great, but don't forget that Ginger Rogers did everything he did ... backwards and in high heels!" - Bob Thaves, cartoonist of "Frank and Earnest"
It turns out that the U.S. has had trouble with Muslim nations practically since it's inception. In it's earliest days, this country paid vast amounts of tribute, aka protection money, to the Barbary Coast nations of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis. This led to two wars with a brief intermission for the war of 1812. After both wars the Barbary states broke their peace agreements and resumed piracy of American (and other nation's) vessels. It was during this time that Thomas Jefferson uttered the phrase "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute." He also established U.S. doctrine that defined ransom and tribute as different things and as president did, in fact, pay ransom to secure the return of American servicemen from Tripoli.
The reason the Barbary Pirates felt free to do their thing was because in 1789 Napoleon, the stupid git, decided to seize Malta from the Knights of Malta. The Knights of Malta, originally the Knights Hospitaller, on later authority from Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, had been keeping the pirates in check since the 1300's, but Napoleon needed a vacation island in the Med or something. Napoleon had other goals in life than ensuring safe trade for all of Europe and so the position of Protector of the Mediterranean went unfilled.
Anyway, after the U.S. pounded the Barbary States again in the Second Barbary War and secured another peace agreement, The Barbary states broke the agreement again, this time drawing the ire of Britain and Holland who took their turn at thumping mainly the Algerians, destroying most of their pirate fleet. They secured yet another peace treaty. It wasn't all that long after that these states became European and Turkish colonies which finally made the Mediterranean a more peaceful place for commerce.
It is interesting to note that the justification provided by the Barbary states for their actions was as follows:
There was no mention of Ginger Rogers in any of the material I read regarding the Barbary Wars, I just really like the quote.
---
A brief note - the "Millions for defense..." quote is also attributed to Robert Goodloe Harper and is also apparently often mis-attributed to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
It turns out that the U.S. has had trouble with Muslim nations practically since it's inception. In it's earliest days, this country paid vast amounts of tribute, aka protection money, to the Barbary Coast nations of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis. This led to two wars with a brief intermission for the war of 1812. After both wars the Barbary states broke their peace agreements and resumed piracy of American (and other nation's) vessels. It was during this time that Thomas Jefferson uttered the phrase "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute." He also established U.S. doctrine that defined ransom and tribute as different things and as president did, in fact, pay ransom to secure the return of American servicemen from Tripoli.
The reason the Barbary Pirates felt free to do their thing was because in 1789 Napoleon, the stupid git, decided to seize Malta from the Knights of Malta. The Knights of Malta, originally the Knights Hospitaller, on later authority from Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, had been keeping the pirates in check since the 1300's, but Napoleon needed a vacation island in the Med or something. Napoleon had other goals in life than ensuring safe trade for all of Europe and so the position of Protector of the Mediterranean went unfilled.
Anyway, after the U.S. pounded the Barbary States again in the Second Barbary War and secured another peace agreement, The Barbary states broke the agreement again, this time drawing the ire of Britain and Holland who took their turn at thumping mainly the Algerians, destroying most of their pirate fleet. They secured yet another peace treaty. It wasn't all that long after that these states became European and Turkish colonies which finally made the Mediterranean a more peaceful place for commerce.
It is interesting to note that the justification provided by the Barbary states for their actions was as follows:
Still to come in the history of American interaction with Muslim states, the Spanish American war and the Moro Rebellion.The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. - Thomas Jefferson reporting to Congress
There was no mention of Ginger Rogers in any of the material I read regarding the Barbary Wars, I just really like the quote.
---
A brief note - the "Millions for defense..." quote is also attributed to Robert Goodloe Harper and is also apparently often mis-attributed to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
February 15- Flag Day and Remember the Maine
Happy Flag Day to all my Canadian friends.
This is also the day that marks the event that triggers the Spanish-American War: The Sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. During this war, President McKinley sent a man named Rowan to Cuba to establish contact with General Garcia, leader of the insurgents. The means by which Rowan accomplished this is briefly chronicled in Elbert Hubbard's "A Message to Garcia", written in 1899.
Documenting Rowan's trip is, in fact, not the purpose of Hubbard's essay. The purpose is to either celebrate 10% or belittle the other 90% of people who work for a living. He basically wrote the essay in order to bemoan the incredible (to him) lack of self-motivation he saw in the "average man". In fact, he suggested that the only way you will get useful work out of such men was through the judicial application of a "thick-soled No. 9 boot." Such was management philosophy in 1899.
This is also the day that marks the event that triggers the Spanish-American War: The Sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. During this war, President McKinley sent a man named Rowan to Cuba to establish contact with General Garcia, leader of the insurgents. The means by which Rowan accomplished this is briefly chronicled in Elbert Hubbard's "A Message to Garcia", written in 1899.
Documenting Rowan's trip is, in fact, not the purpose of Hubbard's essay. The purpose is to either celebrate 10% or belittle the other 90% of people who work for a living. He basically wrote the essay in order to bemoan the incredible (to him) lack of self-motivation he saw in the "average man". In fact, he suggested that the only way you will get useful work out of such men was through the judicial application of a "thick-soled No. 9 boot." Such was management philosophy in 1899.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
February 14 - Ballantines Day, Nikita Khrushchev and HDDVDDRM
Happy Valentines Day. And, for you folks who think that's silly, Happy Ballantine's Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballantine%27s_Day
Laws and techniques that are supposed to curb the dishonest but only wind up hurting the honest really get my britches in a twist. In yet another it-was-only -matter-of-time blow against copy-protection, HDDVD (and BluRay) copy protection was reported cracked, today. It seems like the RIAA and MPAA are tilting at windmills. Every time they come up with a copy protection scheme someone breaks the scheme. The damage done to us, the consumers is that even after this is accomplished we still have very restricted access to our media because the investment to implement the crack is high and still, potentially, illegal even if our use would not be. For the people that wish to steal music and movies and distribute them, the investment is ridiculously low. Without license, the RIAA and MPAA have taken away our fair-use rights by making the actions needed to exercise them illegal.
In other news, acronyms and initialisms declared illegal :-)
The 20th congress of the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R. began on this day in 1956. This event was marked by an event that had significance for two reasons. Proving yet again that there is no honor among thieves, the event was Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschev denouncing Joseph Stalin as a criminal and describing his crimes. While controversial at the time, this marked the beginning of a return to the governing principles of Lenin and the rise of Krushchev to eventually be Premier of the U.S.S.R. Krushchev is probably most popularly famous for his outbursts in the U.N. In particular, the image of him removing a shoe and banging it on a conference table while yelling is indelibly etched into the memory of those that were aware of such things during the cold war. He is also famous for the quote "We will bury you" in a reference he made to capitalism. For those that want a little picture of the man before he was the leader of the then second most powerful country in the world, "Enemy at the Gates" is another movie that is worth a few hours of your life. In that movie, Bob Hoskins plays Khrushchev when he was a military leader and one of Stalin's henchmen during the siege of Leningrad in W.W. II.
Finally, in a savory bit of irony, the U.S. House of representative canceled it's hearing on Global Warming today due to an Ice storm.
Laws and techniques that are supposed to curb the dishonest but only wind up hurting the honest really get my britches in a twist. In yet another it-was-only -matter-of-time blow against copy-protection, HDDVD (and BluRay) copy protection was reported cracked, today. It seems like the RIAA and MPAA are tilting at windmills. Every time they come up with a copy protection scheme someone breaks the scheme. The damage done to us, the consumers is that even after this is accomplished we still have very restricted access to our media because the investment to implement the crack is high and still, potentially, illegal even if our use would not be. For the people that wish to steal music and movies and distribute them, the investment is ridiculously low. Without license, the RIAA and MPAA have taken away our fair-use rights by making the actions needed to exercise them illegal.
In other news, acronyms and initialisms declared illegal :-)
The 20th congress of the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R. began on this day in 1956. This event was marked by an event that had significance for two reasons. Proving yet again that there is no honor among thieves, the event was Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschev denouncing Joseph Stalin as a criminal and describing his crimes. While controversial at the time, this marked the beginning of a return to the governing principles of Lenin and the rise of Krushchev to eventually be Premier of the U.S.S.R. Krushchev is probably most popularly famous for his outbursts in the U.N. In particular, the image of him removing a shoe and banging it on a conference table while yelling is indelibly etched into the memory of those that were aware of such things during the cold war. He is also famous for the quote "We will bury you" in a reference he made to capitalism. For those that want a little picture of the man before he was the leader of the then second most powerful country in the world, "Enemy at the Gates" is another movie that is worth a few hours of your life. In that movie, Bob Hoskins plays Khrushchev when he was a military leader and one of Stalin's henchmen during the siege of Leningrad in W.W. II.
Finally, in a savory bit of irony, the U.S. House of representative canceled it's hearing on Global Warming today due to an Ice storm.
Monday, February 12, 2007
February 13 - Winter Olympics and North Korea
On February 13th, Calgary, Alberta, opened the 15th Winter Olympics. If you've never seen the movie "Cool Runnings", it is worth a few hours of your life. It is the mostly true and quite funny story of the first Jamaican bobsleigh team. The 15th Winter Olympics in 1988 was where the events of the movie take place.
In the third phase of the fifth round (whew) of six party talks, North Korea has conceded that they will shut down and button up their Yongbyon Nuclear reactor. At least until they decide to unbutton it and turn it back on for more ransom as they did the last time such an agreement was reached. This seems like good news, but probably it is not. It is costing 50,000 tons of fuel oil. Thomas Jefferson said, "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." He'd probably think this was a bad idea.
In the third phase of the fifth round (whew) of six party talks, North Korea has conceded that they will shut down and button up their Yongbyon Nuclear reactor. At least until they decide to unbutton it and turn it back on for more ransom as they did the last time such an agreement was reached. This seems like good news, but probably it is not. It is costing 50,000 tons of fuel oil. Thomas Jefferson said, "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." He'd probably think this was a bad idea.
February 12 - Darwin Day
Today is Darwin Day, or so say a bunch of yahoos from Palo Alto. The Darwin in question, of course, is Charles Robert Darwin. He's the fellow who penned "Origin of the Species" and introduced and promoted environmental selection and common ancestry, Evolution in other words, as the dominant explanation for the variety of life on this planet. It is somewhat ironic that Darwin started out a deeply religious man. However, investigation of natural philosophy led him to question traditional expression of faith. It all but disappeared when his daughter died when he was in his early 40's. Thereafter he considered himself an Agnostic.
It is probably not well known, but one of the specific things that caused erosion of his faith was the idea of Intelligent Design. At the time it was promoted as Beneficent Design. As he traveled the globe in the Beagle, observing the creatures of the world, he found examples that led him to question the "beneficent" bit and he sought a better answer for himself.
OK so "Beneficent Design" was off the mark, but that does not invalidate Intelligent Design, does it? Well, this will be another post that tries to address the difference between what is real and what gets spun in politics. "Evolution is just a theory", it's detractors claim and say "Intelligent Design is a theory too". On the basis of this it is proposed that Intelligent Design should get equal time in education. This is not consistent with what "Theory" means in science.
Intelligent Design has some good science in it under the layers of politics. Specifically, the arguments based on information theory show some promise. What is that, you ask? Well, if you have not investigated Intelligent Design as a theory, then you probably just know it as: "Life on this planet is too complex to have arisen by happenstance and therefore it requires a creator." However, in science, this can not be taken simply on faith, it must be tested and not found lacking. Those working on Intelligent Design work in several directions. Mostly this involves looking for examples that simply could not explained by evolution. The least valuable of these take the form of, "look at the human eye, there is no way it could have been created by evolution." I take that only to indicate a lack of imagination on the part of the speaker. The more valuable arguments are being made with the application of hard science and mathematics.
DNA is a code for life. This code carries information. Not all of the sequences in DNA carry useful information. The ratio of useful to non-useful information is 1) a number that can be pinned down and 2) a number that can be predicted by the application of Evolution. The folks working this aspect of Intelligent Design are thinking that evolutionary processes could not produce the density of information based on information theory. I'll leave further understanding of this as an exercise for the reader, but suffice it to say that this has some scientific merit.
I used a word in the last paragraph, "predicted". That word is important in this debate because it characterizes the concept of "theory". A theory, amongst other things, is something that can be used to predict. This is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is unpalatable presented as a theory. It seems to seek to throw it's hands up and fall back on faith, especially as it is presented by those seeking to shape public opinion. One of the things about Evolution is that it is a fine predictor. I'll explain more a little further down.
The main thing that characterizes a theory, though, is that it has been tested, either through observation of past evidence or through controlled experiments. Evolution has stood the test of both. No other theory has so well explained the apparent progression of species over time as evolution. Yes, there are holes in the record, but they are un-proven opportunities to invalidate Evolution. Those opportunities, as yet, are unsatisfied. Based on the overwhelming evidence in the rest of the historical record, it is reasonable to assume that those holes would be filled similarly. To date, no strong evidence of Evolution being false has been promoted and found valid.
Furthermore, Evolution has been tested. Scientists have observed speciation 30 or so times. Unfortunately for the layperson, none of these have been obvious enough (such as a dog morphing into an otter or some such) as to be convincing. This is, of course, mainly because our opportunity to observe these changes has been pitifully short compared to the history of life. However, tests have been conducted with Evolution as the idea being tested and the results have been positive.
Detractors of evolution then turn to something that Evolution does not attempt to explain and say that because it does not it must be false. This is tantamount to claiming that because a car can not fly it is not a vehicle. The something is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis the creation of life from non-living matter. For some faithful, there is nothing contradictory with saying God stuck his finger in the muck and, "zap," we have cyanobacteria and the rest is Evolutionary history. Others are offended at the thought of having a bacteria as a great great ... great grandfather. Nevertheless, Abiogenesis is a separate topic that has many theories of it's own.
Intelligent Design is a theory that has barely made it past the stage of hypothesis. It is very poorly tested at this point. That does not mean it is false, it simply means that it is very questionable. Evolution, on the other hand, has been very well investigated and found to be, many times over, an adequate theory to explain what has happened and what will happen. When theories become this well established, this is when they should be introduced into lower education. Intelligent Design, as it stands, is pretty much still a topic for graduate level scholars to puzzle through.
Happy Darwin Day!
It is probably not well known, but one of the specific things that caused erosion of his faith was the idea of Intelligent Design. At the time it was promoted as Beneficent Design. As he traveled the globe in the Beagle, observing the creatures of the world, he found examples that led him to question the "beneficent" bit and he sought a better answer for himself.
OK so "Beneficent Design" was off the mark, but that does not invalidate Intelligent Design, does it? Well, this will be another post that tries to address the difference between what is real and what gets spun in politics. "Evolution is just a theory", it's detractors claim and say "Intelligent Design is a theory too". On the basis of this it is proposed that Intelligent Design should get equal time in education. This is not consistent with what "Theory" means in science.
Intelligent Design has some good science in it under the layers of politics. Specifically, the arguments based on information theory show some promise. What is that, you ask? Well, if you have not investigated Intelligent Design as a theory, then you probably just know it as: "Life on this planet is too complex to have arisen by happenstance and therefore it requires a creator." However, in science, this can not be taken simply on faith, it must be tested and not found lacking. Those working on Intelligent Design work in several directions. Mostly this involves looking for examples that simply could not explained by evolution. The least valuable of these take the form of, "look at the human eye, there is no way it could have been created by evolution." I take that only to indicate a lack of imagination on the part of the speaker. The more valuable arguments are being made with the application of hard science and mathematics.
DNA is a code for life. This code carries information. Not all of the sequences in DNA carry useful information. The ratio of useful to non-useful information is 1) a number that can be pinned down and 2) a number that can be predicted by the application of Evolution. The folks working this aspect of Intelligent Design are thinking that evolutionary processes could not produce the density of information based on information theory. I'll leave further understanding of this as an exercise for the reader, but suffice it to say that this has some scientific merit.
I used a word in the last paragraph, "predicted". That word is important in this debate because it characterizes the concept of "theory". A theory, amongst other things, is something that can be used to predict. This is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is unpalatable presented as a theory. It seems to seek to throw it's hands up and fall back on faith, especially as it is presented by those seeking to shape public opinion. One of the things about Evolution is that it is a fine predictor. I'll explain more a little further down.
The main thing that characterizes a theory, though, is that it has been tested, either through observation of past evidence or through controlled experiments. Evolution has stood the test of both. No other theory has so well explained the apparent progression of species over time as evolution. Yes, there are holes in the record, but they are un-proven opportunities to invalidate Evolution. Those opportunities, as yet, are unsatisfied. Based on the overwhelming evidence in the rest of the historical record, it is reasonable to assume that those holes would be filled similarly. To date, no strong evidence of Evolution being false has been promoted and found valid.
Furthermore, Evolution has been tested. Scientists have observed speciation 30 or so times. Unfortunately for the layperson, none of these have been obvious enough (such as a dog morphing into an otter or some such) as to be convincing. This is, of course, mainly because our opportunity to observe these changes has been pitifully short compared to the history of life. However, tests have been conducted with Evolution as the idea being tested and the results have been positive.
Detractors of evolution then turn to something that Evolution does not attempt to explain and say that because it does not it must be false. This is tantamount to claiming that because a car can not fly it is not a vehicle. The something is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis the creation of life from non-living matter. For some faithful, there is nothing contradictory with saying God stuck his finger in the muck and, "zap," we have cyanobacteria and the rest is Evolutionary history. Others are offended at the thought of having a bacteria as a great great ... great grandfather. Nevertheless, Abiogenesis is a separate topic that has many theories of it's own.
Intelligent Design is a theory that has barely made it past the stage of hypothesis. It is very poorly tested at this point. That does not mean it is false, it simply means that it is very questionable. Evolution, on the other hand, has been very well investigated and found to be, many times over, an adequate theory to explain what has happened and what will happen. When theories become this well established, this is when they should be introduced into lower education. Intelligent Design, as it stands, is pretty much still a topic for graduate level scholars to puzzle through.
Happy Darwin Day!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
February 11 - Dragonflies and Children
When I was a kid, I remember quite clearly catching dragonflies and examining them. I don't know why I feel compelled to write, but while I probably did once or twice, I wasn't generally the sort to rip their wings off. I also remember catching butterflies. I haven't been able to catch either as an adult, at least not with my bare fingers. Kids aren't normally known for their patience, but they must have tremendously greater patience and concentration to be able to catch dragonflies. Along with their energy, it would be nice to figure out how to re-capture that, as an adult.
Yep, that's all. What? You think all of these are going to be like yesterday?
Yep, that's all. What? You think all of these are going to be like yesterday?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
February 10 - More Viral Marketing and the Price of Gary Powers
Yesterday I wrote that viral marketing seems wrong. It comes down to a matter of trust. We have an understanding of what the rules are in advertising. We know that an ad is a biased statement and we generally know who stands to gain. Even with something as potentially subtle as product placement we generally recognize it for what it is. With viral marketing, however, we often have no way of knowing. Viral marketing seeks to create a situation where the market has no idea that it is being sold to. It is fundamentally dishonest. I'd call it lame, like paying famous folks to attend your party, but it is potentially harmful.
Dissecting the Boston WMD party, though, I come to a different conclusion than most I've read or heard. First, the act itself of putting up those signs was no more than graffiti and should be treated as such. Perhaps less because not even semi-permanent defacement was involved. That the officials of Boston were not savvy enough to be aware of something that has been happening all over the world for over a year now does not make the guys who did it criminals. Some say that the guys had a responsibility to say something when they saw the panic. Now that we know it was a viral marketing campaign, I think we'll find that they were contractually bound to say nothing. I don't know this for sure, but I'd bet a Franklin it's so. Who was responsible to say something and fast was Turner, owner of the Cartoon Network that sponsored the event. I figure the $2,000,000 fine they were levied does not even come close to the costs involved. While I am generally a small government sorta guy, I hope that this is the event that causes the appropriate governmental entity to have a look at drafting legislation regarding viral marketing.
While working in the San Jose Bay area, I once saw a U.2. land at Moffet field.
We all know who Gary Powers is. Right? Well, for a re-cap, Gary Powers is the American Air Force pilot who was shot down while flying his U2 over Soviet air space. He was capture alive and held by the Soviets for almost 2 years. We got him back by swapping him for some other fellow named Vilyam Fisher, a KGB agent who the U.S. was holding. Actually the U.S. also got an American student named Fredric Pryor returned. So, Gary Powers = Vilyam Fisher - Fredric Pryor. Maybe not. Anyway, Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher was a classic cold war spy, trained for physical infiltration into the U.S. Probably a fairly good spy, too, as his capture came about when he was betrayed by his defecting assistant, not through any mis-step on his part. This happened in 1957. He is also interesting because before he was caught he was the handler for the couriers that carried the nuclear secrets betrayed by the Rosenbergs.
If you've ever wondered why we endured 50 years of cold war, why the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction" became doctrine, then you have the Rosenbergs and a few others to thank. After W.W.II the Soviets did not have the bomb. Any significant aggression by the U.S.S.R. would have had the potential of serious ramifications for them. However, Klaus Fuchs and David Greenglass (Ethel Rosenberg's brother) of Los Alamos leaked construction details to Ethel and Julius. Folks who should, wondered why the U.S.S.R. was able to develop their own nuclear weapons so quickly and this was found to be why. The U.S.S.R., once on an equal footing with the U.S., felt more free to promote communism in the world, again.
The U.S. now had a powerful enemy that they needed to keep track of and began developing some of the most interesting weapons and systems we have ever seen. To this day, the U2 remains one of the most advanced airframes in existence and it still sees service, though not military. Anyway, as amazing as the U2 was, it still needed a pilot. So, on that fateful day, May 1, 1960, Gary Powers boarded his airplane at Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey and took off for a reconnaissance mission over the U.S.S.R.
Dissecting the Boston WMD party, though, I come to a different conclusion than most I've read or heard. First, the act itself of putting up those signs was no more than graffiti and should be treated as such. Perhaps less because not even semi-permanent defacement was involved. That the officials of Boston were not savvy enough to be aware of something that has been happening all over the world for over a year now does not make the guys who did it criminals. Some say that the guys had a responsibility to say something when they saw the panic. Now that we know it was a viral marketing campaign, I think we'll find that they were contractually bound to say nothing. I don't know this for sure, but I'd bet a Franklin it's so. Who was responsible to say something and fast was Turner, owner of the Cartoon Network that sponsored the event. I figure the $2,000,000 fine they were levied does not even come close to the costs involved. While I am generally a small government sorta guy, I hope that this is the event that causes the appropriate governmental entity to have a look at drafting legislation regarding viral marketing.
While working in the San Jose Bay area, I once saw a U.2. land at Moffet field.
We all know who Gary Powers is. Right? Well, for a re-cap, Gary Powers is the American Air Force pilot who was shot down while flying his U2 over Soviet air space. He was capture alive and held by the Soviets for almost 2 years. We got him back by swapping him for some other fellow named Vilyam Fisher, a KGB agent who the U.S. was holding. Actually the U.S. also got an American student named Fredric Pryor returned. So, Gary Powers = Vilyam Fisher - Fredric Pryor. Maybe not. Anyway, Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher was a classic cold war spy, trained for physical infiltration into the U.S. Probably a fairly good spy, too, as his capture came about when he was betrayed by his defecting assistant, not through any mis-step on his part. This happened in 1957. He is also interesting because before he was caught he was the handler for the couriers that carried the nuclear secrets betrayed by the Rosenbergs.
If you've ever wondered why we endured 50 years of cold war, why the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction" became doctrine, then you have the Rosenbergs and a few others to thank. After W.W.II the Soviets did not have the bomb. Any significant aggression by the U.S.S.R. would have had the potential of serious ramifications for them. However, Klaus Fuchs and David Greenglass (Ethel Rosenberg's brother) of Los Alamos leaked construction details to Ethel and Julius. Folks who should, wondered why the U.S.S.R. was able to develop their own nuclear weapons so quickly and this was found to be why. The U.S.S.R., once on an equal footing with the U.S., felt more free to promote communism in the world, again.
The U.S. now had a powerful enemy that they needed to keep track of and began developing some of the most interesting weapons and systems we have ever seen. To this day, the U2 remains one of the most advanced airframes in existence and it still sees service, though not military. Anyway, as amazing as the U2 was, it still needed a pilot. So, on that fateful day, May 1, 1960, Gary Powers boarded his airplane at Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey and took off for a reconnaissance mission over the U.S.S.R.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Feburay 9 - The Sahara, Global Warming, WMDs and Viral Marketing
The Sahara is a desert. According to Wikipedia, it has not always been so. 7000 years ago or so, coincident with the ending of the last ice age, it seems, it was positively wet. Apparently, oddly, reduction of insolation (the amount of the sun's energy it is exposed to) actually caused it to dry out due to the effects on regional climate. This makes me wonder a bit if increasing global temperatures might cause the Sahara to bloom.
Speaking of which, the UN said today that there is a 90% chance that global warming has a human cause. Therefore, if you take that at face value, there is a 10% chance that it does not. I've noticed the pro -human caused global warming folks getting a might shrill lately. I so wish they would dis-entangle politics from this debate so I could develop some faith in the opinions.
In the aftermath of the Boston Electric Cartoon Character WMD fiasco, I learn that the "Bride Has a Massive Hair Wig Out" video on YouTube was another viral marketing campaign, this time by Unilever, a soap manufacturer. This viral marketing thing has got to stop. I'm feeling too inarticulate right now to say why, but my gut says this is wrong on many levels.
However, on the plus side, since that Democratic bastion that Boston is considered little electronic signs of cartoon characters to be WMDs, I guess it can no longer be credibly claimed that warheads full of Sarin and Mustard gas are not. Were they lying or just simply wrong when they shut down the city, costing millions of dollars?
Speaking of which, the UN said today that there is a 90% chance that global warming has a human cause. Therefore, if you take that at face value, there is a 10% chance that it does not. I've noticed the pro -human caused global warming folks getting a might shrill lately. I so wish they would dis-entangle politics from this debate so I could develop some faith in the opinions.
In the aftermath of the Boston Electric Cartoon Character WMD fiasco, I learn that the "Bride Has a Massive Hair Wig Out" video on YouTube was another viral marketing campaign, this time by Unilever, a soap manufacturer. This viral marketing thing has got to stop. I'm feeling too inarticulate right now to say why, but my gut says this is wrong on many levels.
However, on the plus side, since that Democratic bastion that Boston is considered little electronic signs of cartoon characters to be WMDs, I guess it can no longer be credibly claimed that warheads full of Sarin and Mustard gas are not. Were they lying or just simply wrong when they shut down the city, costing millions of dollars?
First Post
When you create you own blog, you get one of these by default. Cool. This blog is going to be an experiment by me for me. Every day I am going to look at the front page of Wikipedia and find something there to write about. In addition, I will occasionally write about current events, maybe even at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)