@Randem

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist who is making a big name for himself using game theory, a branch of applied mathematics, to make shockingly accurate predictions.

A Math Trek story in Science News tells the story of one such prediction:

One of his most famous past predictions also concerned Iran. In 1984, the model predicted that when Ayatollah Khomeini died, an ayatollah named Hojatolislam Khameini and a little-known cleric named Hasheimi Rafsanjani would rise to succeed Khomeini as leaders of Iran. At the time, most experts considered that outcome exceedingly unlikely, since Khomeini had designated a different person as his successor. But in fact, when Khomeini died five years later, Rafsanjani and Khameini succeeded him.

GOOD Magazine calls him The New Nostradamus:

The criticism rankles him, because, to his mind, the proof is right there on the page. “I’ve published a lot of forecasting papers over the years,” he says. “Papers that are about things that had not yet happened when the paper was published but would happen within some reasonable amount of time. There’s a track record that I can point to.” And indeed there is. Bueno de Mesquita has made a slew of uncannily accurate predictions—more than 2,000, on subjects ranging from the terrorist threat to America to the peace process in Northern Ireland—that would seem to prove him right.

This kind of thing really excites me. As a computer programmer and a mathematics buff, game theory really stokes my fire. I first learned about game theory while reading the The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins described how game theory could be used to reveal evolutionarily stable strategies — the real-world manifestation of natural selection.

Upon learning about game theory, I immediately recognized its potential predictive power. I was excited again recently, when a colleague emailed me a link to this essay by Rob Brown where he describes how he used a very simple implementation of game theory to create a movie recommendation system that was more accurate than that used by Netflix!

Yeah. Game theory is good stuff.

Labels: science, tech

The Council of Europe, a non-governmental body whose aim is to protect human rights, has adopted a resolution regarding the dangers of creationism in education.

You know it's gonna be good when it starts like this:

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

Oh, if only my fellow Americans had as much common sense.

Labels: common sense, science

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry thinks the human race is going to split into two distinct species — like in The Time Machine, by H. G. Wells — one attractive, intelligent, ruling elite, and the other an underclass of dim-witted, ugly, goblin-like creatures.

But then again, he also thinks that before that happens, we'll all become a single coffee-colored species that mixes all the qualities of all the different races we currently know. I have a hard time with the first 1,000 years of Curry's theory, but if you want to get into that, you can start by having a look at Ben Goldacre's response to Curry, at Bad Science.

Believe it or not, the part in which I'm interested is the two species, H. G. Wells, sci-fi future of humanity. In fact, I think he's right.

Background
First, I should explain that physical evolution has not stopped, but for humans it has taken a back seat. Biological evolution and natural selection require thousands of years for they newly evolved mutations to become prominent in the gene pool.

In contrast, psychological evolution and sexual selection shows it's evidence much faster. Mate choice and sexual selection show immediate results after one generation, and can thus become rather widespread after only a few centuries.

Also, in a world where the environment changes so much from one generation to the next, natural selection is too slow to evolve changes for adaptation. That leaves sexual evolution in the driver's seat, and that means the most attractive people will couple with equally attractive people, and unattractive people will be left to couple with equally unattractive people.

Evidence
The top half of today's children are physically superior not only to others, but to history's children of similar ages. Kids are developing at earlier ages. The beautiful people are getting more beautiful.

They're also getting smarter. Today's teenagers can operate the computers and program the VCRs and work the cell phones that drive their parents crazy. They're better at spelling, better at math, better at music.

But the bottom half of today's children are significantly inferior. Nearly 35 percent of American children ages 6 to 19 are overweight. Half of those—some 11 million children—are so overweight they’re classified as obese. They're getting shorter, and fatter, and more unhealthy.

They're intellectually inferior, too. Mark Morford at SF Gate writes:

But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

So the smart, good-looking, physically fit people are getting smarter, better looking, taller, stronger. Meanwhile the fat, lazy, dumb people are getting fatter, lazier, sicker, shorter, and dumber.

Evolution
So indeed, I can see how the human race could easily be headed for a genetic split. After all, the smart, beautiful people don't want to be with the dumb, fat people, right? Sexual selection will continue to lead the superior genes to mix, while leaving the inferior genes with no better options.

Labels: science

Since I've been on a rampage against fundamentalism this week, perhaps it's only fair to offer a different perspective that occurred to me recently.

As I read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and now as I'm finishing up The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, the evolutionary evidence continues to mount in support of the idea that our genes are programmed for survival and for mating.

The case is built that regardless of our modern concept of morality, our nature is to be selfish rather than to share, to philander rather than be monogamous, and at times to fight, to lie, to steal, etc.

In the view of our modern, evolved, moral sensibilities, these things are sins. Therefore, evolution actually lends credibility to the teaching that man is sinful in nature. Quite literally!

While literal inerrancy of the bible cannot be supported by modern science (see my recent posts) it is nevertheless quite interesting to notice how much of what modern science has given us actually lends support to biblical teachings.

For instance, in Deuteronomy, the people are instructed to bury their excrement outside the camp, whereas before this they paid no mind to such things. Today, we can easily recognize the medical good sense in doing this to prevent disease.

Or, revisiting the topic of the blood type diet, Peter D'Adamo claims that people of Jewish descent primarily have Type B blood. Is it a coincidence that the diet commanded for them was made up of dairy products, whole grains, and legumes? And that pork — considered bad for every blood type — was forbidden?

This only scratches the surface. Belief in science does not have to mean the negation of belief in God or the Bible. If one takes a bigger view, and considers the advances of modern science, rather than dismissing them dogmatically, it actually makes the Bible a pretty cool book!

Labels: religion, science

As I read about human evolution in such important books as The Selfish Gene, The Mating Mind, and The Red Queen, I am finding a new appreciation for the extremely complicated and powerful functions of which the human mind is capable. Humans have evolved complex abilities to infer a great deal of information from small, key indicators, many of which our conscious minds are not even aware.

Indeed, the conclusion reached by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink holds true that while careful consideration may be the best strategy for simple choices, complex decisions are best made not by considering all the options and weighing pros and cons, but by simply trusting your instinct.

For instance, as is pointed out by Gerry Spence in How to Argue and Win Every Time (as well as books on body language) the body gives away the truth even the mouth is lying. Our instincts are looking out for our best interest even when our conscious mind is unaware of being lied to.

It is with that thought in mind that I continue to find myself amazed at the persistence with which people try to mislead one another — especially in those times when the deception is so obvious!

Take for example the classic suicidal cry for help. When a person genuinely does not want to live any more, they quietly and calculatingly set out on a path toward that end. People who talk about suicide, on the other hand, are not serious about doing it. When they do try, it's always a token effort like eating painkillers or cutting wrists. The talkers don't like the risk of actually succeeding. But don't we always see through it?

Similarly, we all know that friend who is always up for coming along, but never has money. And when he promised to return the favor next time, you end up paying for him. Again. Still, he's a good friend, and you like having him around. But when you're talking about going bowling or meeting at the bar and someone says you should invite that guy, you all get an uncomfortable pit in your stomachs. Sure, he's a friend and you want him along, but your instincts are already forewarning you that you're going to be taken advantage of.

And when you run into your ex, and she starts telling you about all the wonderful things that have been happening in her life, doesn't it go without saying that she's embellishing (maybe even outright lying) in order to make the appearance that she's got her life together and doesn't need you? But the reality is that if you didn't matter and she didn't need you, she would have had no reason to bring any of that up. Indeed, the very fact of her telling you all of that nonsense is proof of the doublespeak. You don't need to cognitively work all this out, of course, because your gut is already telling you right there, while she's doing it.

Detectives trust their instincts. So do mothers. Why shouldn't I? Some people call that God speaking to them. Other people (like the authors mentioned above) would call it an evolutionarily stable genetic trait. I say they're both the same.

If I get an uncomfortable feeling about a situation, I don't need to
care why I'm uncomfortable, I just need to know it and respond to it. If I don't trust you, it's your loss. Don't waste my time asking me to explain why.

Labels: philosophy, science

The Association for Psychological Science is reporting that sometimes, quitting may be good for you.

Miller and Wrosch suggest it may be more prudent to cut one’s losses in the face of an insurmountable obstacle. “When people are faced with situations in which they cannot realize a key life goal, the most adaptive response for physical and mental health may be to disengage from this goal,” write the authors.

This goes with a theme that I talk about a lot: knowing when to cut your losses. The example that's easiest to use is that of an investor who buys stock in a company. He watches the stock go up and he gets excited. Then the stock goes down and he gets worried. The stock value goes up again and he gets confident that while it may fluctuate, it will keep going up.

But then it drops. Slowly, but steadily, it drops a little bit each week. Because he's sure it'll go back up, he doesn't sell it. This loyalty to the sinking stock will end up costing the investor significantly.

There are many possible causes for this logic-defying loyalty to a thing, a person, or a cause in our lives. Sometimes it's because that thing, person, or cause has given good things in the past and we're hoping — indeed, expecting — that one day those good things will return. Other times it's because the object of our loyalty is something we've invested in heavily with our money or time or energy, and we feel a need or expectation to get a return on that investment. And sometimes, that thing or person or cause has changed, and we're really only hanging on to what once was.

This is not to say that perserverence is bad, or foolish. But a reality check is good from time to time. In the face of an unrealistic, unattainable goal, sometimes it's better to cut your losses.

Labels: health, life, philosophy, science

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene (ISBN: 0199291152) explains the Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) in terms of Game Theory.

He describes the give and take of numeric representation of possible sides of an genetic disposition, showing how some traits evolve to become dominant while others fall into an ESS where more than one side are represented in varying proportion.

Of particular interest is how this relates to lying, as a genetic trait:

Obviously, it is vitally important in the war of attrition that individuals should give no inkling of when they are going to give up. Anybody who betrayed, by the merest flicker of a whisker, that he was beginning to think of throwing in the sponge, would be a an instant disadvantage. If, say, whisker-flickering happened to be a reliable sign that retreat would follow within one minute, there would be a very simple strategy: ‘If your opponent's whiskers flicker, wait one more minute, regardless of what your own previous plans for giving up might have been. If your opponent's whiskers have not yet flickered, and you are within one minute of the time when you intend to give up anyway, give up immediately and don't waste any more time. Never flicker your own whiskers.’ So natural selection would quickly penalize whisker-flickering and any analogous betrayals of future behaviour. The poker face would evolve.

Why the poker face rather than out-and-out lies? Once again, because lying is not stable. Suppose it happened to be the case that the majority of individuals raised their hackles only when they were truly intending to go on for a very long time in a war of attrition. The obvious counterploy would evolve: individuals would give up immediately when an opponent raised his hackles. But now, liars might start to evolve. Individuals who really had no intention of going on for a long time would raise their hackles on every occasion, and reap the benefits of easy and quick victory. So liar genes would spread. When liars became the majority, selection would not favour individuals who called their bluff. Therefore liars would decrease in numbers again. In the war of attrition, telling lies is no more evolutionarily stable than telling the truth. The poker face is evolutionarily stable. Surrender, when it finally comes, will be sudden and unpredictable.

The Selfish Gene is an excellent source for understanding why the altruistic society can never be. It also serves to point out the folly in generalizations, such as the ever-popular “why do men lie?”

Labels: books, life, reviews, science

According to a recent article in Science Daily, the "ones" digit in a price has a more profound effect on our perception of a discount than the actual amount of the discount!

The researchers show that "right-digit effect" influences consumer perception of sale prices. When the right digits are small, people perceive the discount to be larger than when the right digits are large. In other words, an item on sale for $211 from the original price of $222 is thought to be a better deal than an item on sale for $188 from an original price of $199, even though both discounts are $11.

When I considered that example, I found that my initial perception did indeed match the effect they reported. Crazy!

Labels: science

I just read this story about PRISM — an astroturf organization established by science publishers to discredit free open access journals — illegally using copyrighted materials on the very web site they created to promote locking up scientific knowledge for profit. Yes folks, they bandy all these moral arguments for maximizing copyright and protecting rights, and then in the very web site where they do this, they use copyrighted images pilfered from elsewhere.

I can't help thinking there needs to be a “hypocrite clause” in our law books. Any time someone is making an argument for something, and then current evidence is found to prove that they don't adhere to the principle for which they are arguing, their arguments should be thrown out.

If you're going to stand on morals, you have to be moral.

Labels: science

Top astronomers and scientists from around the world have been meeting to determine just exactly what qualifies as a planet. The focus appears to be on two heavenly bodies in particular — Pluto, and J-Lo's ass — which, in spite of their size and gravitational pull, appear to bear none of the other characteristics exhibited by the other eight planets in our system.

Personally, on the subject of Pluto, I agree with Brian Marsden, who thinks Pluto shouldn't be a planet. I'm still undecided on J-Lo's ass, however, which has an orbit far more planetary than Pluto.

Labels: science

This is the height of American laziness. We've got pharmaceutical scientists researching a way to “immunize” people against weight gain. You see, when the politically correct crowd refers to obesity as a disease, you start getting research to cure it. Jesus. Imagine that: rather than eating properly, and being active, you can just get your shot and keep eating like a pig.

The scientists have isolated a chemical called ghrelin, which regulates appetite and energy metabolism. And now, they have engineered a way to trick the immune system into attacking ghrelin, thus preventing it from causing your body to store energy in fat cells.

Mice injected with the vaccine ate just as much as untreated mice but had about a 20 or 30 percent reduction in weight gain. However, the mice were fed low-fat, low-energy diets. It's not certain that a ghrelin vaccine would be effective against the burger-rich, high-fat diet that many Americans eat, the researchers noted.

Notice the disclaimer given there. It is widely accepted that people are obese because of their diet. Obesity is not a disease. Is it really smart to treat it like one? Once you've tricked your immune system into thinking ghrelin is a foreign body, will it stop when you stop using the vaccine? Or will anyone even bother to stop?

Labels: health, science

No. ABC News asks Is the shuttle safe to fly? In fact, they make you click through three pages of advertisement to read the story, and they never even answer the question posed in the title.

Well don't fear... I'm here, and I'll answer the question.

HELL NO!

Hmmm... lets see, you're going to strap yourself into an aluminum box affectionately known as the "flying brick", attach a pair of rockets and enough fuel to wipe out a race, then hurtle yourself off of the planet to a place where there is no air, while hoping that a tiny little piece of foam doesn't happen to fall off in the process. Then, after two weeks in this tiny aluminum box, breathing stale air and going to the bathroom in your clothes, you're going try to float back down to earth on a cushion of 6000° fire. You're right... sounds perfectly safe.

Frankly, I think we're all fooling ourselves if we think we can demand it be safe. Please. And don't think for a minute that the people on board in that sardine can have ever doubted that they can die in an instant at every step along the journey.

Look, anyone who has read my blog will know how I feel about the space shuttle program. But if our government insists on spending this insane money on this useless flying brick, then let's have the balls to get out there and do it right! You know it's not safe, stop pretending you care and start acting like brainless cowboys from Texas. Gee-Haw!

Labels: science

Today I was turned on to Paul MacLean's Triune Brain Theory, and I must say that it's pretty interesting. The idea he puts forward is that the human brain is made up of three seperate brains in one, which are:

• The R-complex, or reptilian brain, which would be the most basic of the three. Developed during early stages in our evolution (in case the name wasn't obvious enough) the reptilian complex is responsible for basic brain functions such as movement, digestion, reproduction, circulation, breathing, and the execution of fight-or-flight reaction.
• The Limbic system, or mammal brain, which were developed during a middle stage of our evolution. The mammal brain includes the amygdala, responsible for associating events with emotion, and the hippocampus, which provides our long-term memory. Love, hate, fear, joy, pity, rage come from the limbic complex.
• The Neocortex (sometimes called cerebral cortex), or human mind, which occupies five-sixths of the space within our heads. The cerebral cortex gives us communication, logic, operational thinking, and the ability to plan.

The idea suggests that - in spite of how civilized we'd like to think we are - the Neocortex doesn't run the show. In fact, it's only when the two underlying brains are not in control that the Neocortex gets to run the show. In modern society, we find our basic needs met, so we're able to feed our human mind, but order of importance starts from oldest-to-youngest.

This is the part that really starts to get fascinating for me, because it makes so much sense.  It explains why, when faced with a dangerous situation, we do things we didn't know we were capable of - often without emotion, and we often have a very cloudy memory when it's done. It explains why even the smartest people we know make such horrible decisions when they think they're in love... or for that matter when they're irate, as well.

I'm always the one to say that the reason for everything we do is written in our DNA - particularly when I'm talking about relationships and/or sex - but this gives me a whole new depth to the idea. Indeed, it's really quite fascinating how much of human nature seems to be something we have little ability to do anything about!

Labels: philosophy, science

Have you ever wondered? There is a seemingly limitless supply of peanuts everywhere: in the grocery store, at the drug store, at the convenience store, in the stadium at the game, or even at some vendor on the side of the road. So why is it that in all my travels, I've never seen a peanut tree? This thought kept me up pretty late last night...

As it turns out, peanuts are not really nuts, and they don't grow on trees. Peanuts are legumes, and that means they grow in the ground, like peas and beans. The plants grow to about 60cm and bear small yellow flowers for about half a day. After about four days, a “peg” grows out of the flower and into the ground, and a seed pod (peanuts in a shell) grows at the end of that peg.

Peanut plants are annuals, meaning that they complete their life-cycle after one year. Thus, when harvesting peanuts, the entire plant is dug up and new peanut seeds are buried in its place.

Labels: fun, science

Suspect engine cut-off sensors are the cause for yet another delay of a space shuttle launch. My question is this: all this time, while the shuttle has sat idle — while highly paid experts inspect o-rings and insulators and sensors — how many satellites did Rupert Murdoch safely place in orbit? How many spy satellites has the military launched into space without incident? CNN? Time Warner?

We can launch a rocket and safely land a man on the moon, and then safely return him back to Earth. We can launch two seperate rockets and land them both safely on Mars. We can launch hundreds of satellites into orbit around the Earth without incident. Meanwhile, the ridiculously impotent and expensive shuttle program has lost TWO entire crews and wasted millions — maybe even billions — of dollars sitting on their hands because of heat shields, o-rings, and cut-off sensors.

When are we going to scrap this stupid shuttle program, and return to the rockets that have cost less, have been more powerful, and have been consistently safer?

Labels: science

Somehow, people still find the ignorance in their hearts to believe that the landing on the moon was made somewhere in a Hollywood studio. This recently came up in a conversation I had. In case there's any doubt, I submit two arguments:

• The moon landing was in 1969. Star Trek (the original series) aired from 1966-68, and even the biggest idiot in America would not have believed in a lunar landing filmed by the film crew from Star Trek. By way of comparison, the most realistic sci-fi film of the day (2001, A Space Odyssey), shot by one of the best directors of the time (Stanley Kubrick), didn't have quite the feel of actual footage of a moon landing.

• In 2002, after being confronted by conspiracy theorist and filmmaker Bart Sibrel, Buzz Aldrin — the second man to set foot on the moon — punched Sibrel out. Slow down and read that carefully: after being called a liar, Buzz Aldrin — then 72 years old — was so enraged by Sibrel that he punched him out. (watch it in slo-mo!)

I find it astonishing that people could actually believe that was faked. But then again, there are people who believe the pentagon crash on 911 was faked too. And I guess if you're dumb enough to believe there's an invisible man who lives in the sky, well, I guess we're really not as evolved as we'd like to think. Sheesh.

Labels: science

Okay, folks, it's getting ridiculous now. It's time for a reality check, and I may have to rant a bit here.

It's been over 500 years since the church taught us the world was flat and a guy with a boat went and proved that wrong. I like to think we've come a long way in 500 years, but it appears now that scientists have to lobby churches to support their findings. How long are we going to have this ridiculous argument between churches — who have NO proof — and science, which is all about proof.

So here's your wake up call: a Belgian newspaper published some cartoons a couple of weeks ago that Muslims found offensive, and since then Muslims have spent their time in the streets, burning American flags and assaulting US embassies. Go back and read that again. A Belgian disrespects Islam, and they turn their hatred on America in response.

Radical people are not hard to find in a radical religion, and here's a news flash: it's now the most popular religion in the world. They're not arguing about evolution, they're attacking US embassies! One protestester said “Suicide bombings! Prepare for a bomb!”

Now... maybe we can put away this stupid anti-evolution campaign. Maybe we can all grow up. It's a serious world out there, and we're in the heart of it, whether we like it or not. Fuck evolution. Fuck abortion. Fuck your stupid religious dogma.

Four-and-a-half years ago, these crazies attacked us. They killed thousands of people and forever changed the face of our country. Their hatred is our suffering, and every time we forget that fact we will be doomed to relive it.

Your idiotic religious dogma produced a president who was asleep on the job when the attack bells were ringing... a president who pulled out of Tora Bora and let the evil mastermind get away... a president who created thousands — maybe even millions — more enemies for our country when he led us to war in Iraq... a president whose only qualifications for the job were that he likes war, hates fags, and wouldn't mind getting all that evolution mumbo-jumbo out of the schools.

Fuck your bigotry. Fuck your simple-mindedness. Fuck your rewriting of history. While you argue about unintelligent design, Osama bin Laden is out there taunting us.

He's still out there. And he doesn't care whether we learn about evolution or intelligent design. He doesn't care who wins the gold medal in the downhill slalom. He doesn't care about global warming, or abortion, or taking the Christ out of Christmas.

He's out there. And he's not alone.

Labels: rant, religion, science

In the American Chronicle, Keith Lockitch Writes:

The insistence of “intelligent design” advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a “designer” who is susceptible of scientific study--in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god--metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

BWAAHAAAHAHAA! A Gateway God? HAH HAAHAA AHHAHA!!


But since the opinion of real scientists — such as the Ph.D fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, who I quoted above — hasn't been widely accepted by the dogmatic religious zealots who brought you Intelligent Design, it is encouraging to read that a federal judge (appointed by Bush!) recently handed down a ruling that Intelligent Design is “nothing less than the progeny of creationism” and should not be taught in public schools. This is a victory for Common Sense, which seems to have been the underdog in our country for the past few years.

Labels: religion, science

The dispute over Global Warming has largely centered around a small subset of data that seemed to indicate no temperature change in the troposphere from the '70s to the present. Those who stand to benefit from "debunking" global warming (ie, petroleum companies, polluters, auto manufacturers) have clung to that data in spite of the overwhelming evidence in all the rest of the data on the matter.

A team at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now say they have found the reason for that anomoly. In early equipment designs sensors were exposed, which would make readings taken in direct sunlight show warmer temperatures than later equipment with sensors protected from direct exposure. Thus the old readings were artificially high, which ultimately (and somewhat coincidentally) produced the same numbers as today's more accurate readings of a warmer troposhpere.

Labels: science

Space shuttle Discovery landed safely at 8:11am ET at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California without incident. I predicted disaster, but sometimes it's good to be wrong. I'm happy to see the crew return home safely.

Labels: science

Adding further to my recent tirades (1, 2) about the shuttle program, I've found another voice with which I agree.

The black hole of the shuttle/ISS has left the projects that produce real science advances to scrabble for crumbs. For the amount of tax money sunk into the shuttle, we could have sent untold numbers of unmanned probes around the solar system. We could have continued the moon program and thoroughly explored our own satellite. We could have developed powerful and practical ion drive units to speed our probes (and possible future manned missions) over the vast distances of space.

Alas, we are stuck with this white elephant. NASA plans on finally scrapping the shuttles at the end of this decade. The ISS will still not be completed by then. And thus we will have spent 40 years and untold hundreds of billions of dollars to find ourselves no further advanced than when the Russians placed Mir into orbit.

Okay, guilty admission time...
It's morbid to say, and I don't ever want to wish for seven of our society's best and brightest to die, but I have a feeling this shuttle is going to have trouble. I voiced it quietly last week, and I might as well make the prediction here in writing. I won't be surprised if Discovery burns up on re-entry just like Challenger did. I think removing that filler material from the bottom was a bad move, and I'm not comfortable with that damaged blanket under the nose cone, either.

The return trip was supposed to happen today at 4:00am, and we got up at four this morning to see it. It's interesting that NASA decided to pass on this one and keep the crew up in space for an extra day, eh? And all they're saying is that weather was unfavorable.

The cloud cover, although within NASA's safety limits for landing, was enough to make mission controllers uncomfortable about attempting a Monday touchdown in Florida.

It's not being made into a big deal. News programs are just brushing it off and taking NASA at their word. But it seems to me that with Irene approaching Florida's coast, doesn't it seem like weather is going to get worse if they wait, rather than better? And if the cloud cover is "well within safety limits", what are they worried about... maybe the possibility of being unable to see a shuttle burning up because the clouds were in their way?

For the sake of the astronauts aboard that hunk of junk, I hope everything is all right. But honestly I feel that things might not be, and I can't help thinking that a disintegrated shuttle is pretty hard to sink billions of dollars into.

Labels: science

Last week, I voiced my opinion that the shuttle program should be scrapped, citing the top scientific minds who feel the same. Today, I'm quoting Peter S. Rieth, who speaks from common sense more than from scientific background.

"Imagine a company building an airplane that could be threatened by 'quilted fabric covering pillowlike stuffing'... imagine if an airline company announced that in response to systems malfunctions, engineers were 'wiggling wires'... imagine an airline company faced with engineers who say that two inches of harmless foam could blow up the plane.

"Why is it that the press is having a field day portraying the 'heroism' of this "breath taking adventure" when in fact any third grader can see that this is utter black comedy of the creepiest sort?"

He also points out the irony that NASA spent over a billion dollars to prevent falling pieces of foam from destroying another shuttle, and then on the very next launch the world watched as more foam fell from the fuel tank.

Scrap the shuttle program.

Labels: science

According to an article on their web site, MIT has created a cure for cancer, using nanotechnology.

Awesome. Now, let's see how much red tape and beurocracy the government puts up to keep us from getting this.

Labels: science

Discovery lifted off Tuesday without incident, and the crew made it safely into space. Video monitoring of the launch, however, found evidence of foam falling from the tank during seperation... the same thing believed to have been the cause of the Columbia disaster. NASA has halted any further shuttle missions until the issue of falling foam is resolved.

There are some who believe the shuttle program should be cancelled altogether. Most notably in my mind is Gregg Easterbrook, who first expressed this opinion in the Washington Monthly 25 years ago. His thoughts - particularly those regarding the heat shield tiles - were considered eerily prescient when tragedy struck Columbia, and to a lesser extent when the Challenger exploded. He expressed his disapproval of the shuttle program again in Time magazine days after the Columbia disaster.

Notable scientist Michio Kaku, who has spoken out in a similar vein against the Cassini mission, recently called the space shuttle the single most efficient method of wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars.

Other critics say the Columbia disaster demonstrates that the space shuttle is the wrong tool for NASA's job". And James Oberg opines that NASA's problems start at the top.

I agree with the likes of Gregg EasterBrook, Michio Kaku, and other critics. It's time to scrap the "flying brick". Thanks to efforts like the X Prize, privately funded crafts are reaching outer space, and their sponsors are motivated by far loftier goals than those of NASA. But best of all, they don't cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Labels: science

Intelligent Energy is proud to introduce the ENV (pronounced "envy"), a fuel cell powered motorcycle. Introductory cost is targeted at $6000.

Andy Eggleston, vice president and ENV project director for Intelligent Energy, says "Hydrogen is readily available. One phone call in any major city and a truck can drop off a canister." A 5-ounce fill up costs about $3 or $4 dollars and will carry you 100 miles.

So where do I sign up?

Labels: science, tech, wishlist

By way of the Autonomics blog I came across this debunking of the 10% myth.

Labels: science