Archive for Science - page 5

Some people seems to have a pathological need to see crises everywhere.  The current panic I am referring to is the illogical paranoia over “gentically modified organisms” or GMOs or more commonly Genetically Modified Foods.  Some people (yes, those “some people”) are upset becasue GMOs are “unnatural” or that GMOs are part of some plot by Big Ag to poison the world.  Never mind that GMOs have been around for almost 20 years (longer, really) and the most destitute populations of the world will reap the most benefit from them, literally in this case, since most GMOs take the form of modified strains of corn or rice that will increase yields, nutrition or resistance to pests to help feed a hungry third world.

BAD corn…BAD!!

We have been eating GMOs for almost two decades now;  there have been approximately 2000 studies done without a single documented case of illness, disease or harm caused by GMOs.  So enough with the panic already.  Besides – if worse comes to worse, you can always live on Soylent.

Cross posted at Men Out Of Work Blog

…or both?  The New York Times ran an article on May 19th, titled “The Big Melt Accelerates”.  You see, the BIG MELT is on…and accelerating!  Women and minorities hardest hit!  OK, I added that last part.  At the top of the story are two pictures of the Muir Glacier in Alaska;  the first is taken in 1941 and shows the huge glacier, the next photo is August 2004 and shows the glacier has retreated far up the valley.  Wow…but wait.  Some cursory investigation reveals an interesting fact.  Extensive records exist about Alaska’s glaciers from about the time it was settled by Europeans in the late 18th century and the Muir Glacier and indeed Alaska’s glaciers in total have been retreating for the last 200 years, with the lion’s share of that occuring before 1900.  Steven Hayward at Powerline shows us a picture of the Muir Glacier taken in 1951 that appears identical to the Times photo from 2004 – so no or very little retreat from 1951 to 2004.  That’s some acceleration!  I didn’t want to steal the photos and chart form his post, so click over and read the whole thing there.  Definitely worth your time.

The Times then moves on to quote experts worrying about the sea level rising due to the retreat of Greenland’s ice sheet.  A few minutes on wikipedia tells me that Greenland’s ice sheet has varied over time, but most notably that:

“Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the some of the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. “

Got that?  Half a million to almost a million years ago, Greenland was covered in a large arboreal forest which is NOW under 2Km of ice.  Furthermore:

“These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.”

A hundred thousand years ago (give or take) temperatures were higher than they are now and the glaciers did not melt away. I found this information in a few minutes and so could the Times reporter if he wanted to give the story a little balance.  But they don’t want balance…the science is settled, don’t you know?

Next, let’s not forget all that ice in Antarctica.  The Times experts say it is melting and “Scientists say that the melting will continue as long as the heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Even if carbon dioxide and temperatures stabilize, the melting and shifting of glaciers will continue for decades or centuries as they adjust to the new equilibrium.”  Have they already forgotten about the global warming researchers whose ship was trapped in the expanding and larger than normal Antarctic ice sheet last January?  The Times article closes with this paragraph:

“But a vast majority of the ice is not yet destined to melt. “We have not committed to a lot more that could be committed if we keep turning up the thermostat,” said Dr. Alley of Penn State.”

Buhhh…what does that even mean?  I do not deny that the climate may be changing – it always has!  I just don’t buy into the hysteria that The Climate Is Changing and The Government Must Do Something Now!!!  I will bluntly say that if you believe that Government Action will solve this (non) crisis then you are a fool.  Sorry if I hurt your feelings.  And if someone tells you that the solution to global warming is carbon taxes and communism, you should mock them.  Mercilessly.

OK, look at some bears now.

Grillin’ an chillin’

I’ve been reading lately about something called “The Internet Of Things”.  If you don’t know what that means, it refers to the increasing interconnectivity of devices that is  happening today, devices other than typical ones like your computer, smartphone or tablet and your printers.  Some examples that currently exist are your household alarm system, your household thermostat, one or more of your major appliances.  Other examples bandied about for the future are clothes, medical devices and cars.  The interconnectivity of these devices is ostensibly to make your life easier, save energy or save you money.  Or we might say to enhance your life’s “user experience”.  Will having an interconnected world make your life better?  I have my doubts.

According to the Wired Magazine article, “Why Tech’s Best Minds Are Very Worried About The Internet Of Things”, tech’s best minds are..umm.. very worried.  Some of their worries are valid from my viewpoint;  concerns over security or privacy, for example.  Other concerns are PC handwringing in my opinion – developing countries might be left behind!

The Internet of Things is coming. And the tech cognoscenti aren’t sure that’s a good thing.

For years, the prospect of an online world that extends…into wearables, thermostats, and other devices has generated plenty of excitement and activity. But now, some of the brightest tech minds are expressing some doubts about the potential impact on everything from security and privacy to human dignity and social inequality.

And I’m pretty sure if we ever find a cure for “social inequality” (hint: we won’t), it won’t come from the tech community.  Wait a sec…if in the future all human reproduction was done by cloning and all humans came from test tubes and had identical appearance and genetic makeup, that would be technical, wouldn’t it?  Still wouldn’t work.  Never mind.

It is quite possible that in the quest to simplify our lives, we will overcomplicate them.  I can see it coming – I’ll use the example of “the kitchen of the future” since that’s something people of my vintage can relate to.  Antique stores these days are full of kitchen of the future kitsch.

Sales Brochure: In the All Digital Kitchen Of the Future, your appliances are members of the appliance universe!  They talk to each other – they talk to other appliances like them all over the world and learn how to serve you better.  You’ll never run out of butter again!  You’ll never forget to run the dishwasher!  

Sounds dreamy.  In reality, on Monday morning your toaster goes offline and you have to make toast with a bic lighter.  The coffee maker refuses your login request and the password reset email never arrives.  The grocer delivers 200 cases of dill pickles that your refrigerator ordered.  Then you come home from work to find that your auto-chef range has made Lutefisk for dinner.  No thank you.  I’ll stick to analog.

Hey! you kids!  Get your internet off my things!

UPDATE!: Red Button Flaw Exposes Major Vulnerability in Millions of Smart TVs.  Just great!  In the home of the future, TV watches YOU!

Cross Posted at Men Out Of Work Blog

If we had storms like this in California, the public would be in a constant state of hysteria.  Not like the constant state of hyststeria that exists over disposable plastic shopping bags or people smoking e-cigs.  No, I mean pants-wetting, screaming hysteria.  What’s that?  Oh, I guess your right.  Pants-wetting, screaming hysteria is what exists here over disposable plastic shopping bags or e-cig smokers.  So I guess there would just be more pants-wetting, screaming hysteria than there is now.  OK, whatever…watch this awesome video which I found at Althouse:

I haven’t written lately about the diappearance of the Malaysian Airline Boeing 777 for awhile since there was really nothing new to report.  As of my last post, the plane was presumed crashed in the Indian Ocean, with all passengers and crew lost even though not a trace of wreckage has been recovered.   The presumtion of a crash and also the presumed crash location (vague as it may be) have been inferred by analysis of communication signals between the plane and  a satellite done by the satelite’s owner, British telecommunications company Inmarsat.  Authorites have based their search on the assumption that the plane was somewhere within a large area of the Indian Ocean where no possible landing could have occurred when the signals stopped and this assumption was based on the sattelite data analysis done by Inmarsat. Since no trace of the airliner has yet been discovered, outside experts are attempting to confirm Inmarst’s analysis – and they are finding inconsistencies which call into question the accuracy of the analysis that all investigative assumptions have been based on so far – mainly the assumtion that the plane took a southern flight path over the Indian Ocean instead of north toward Pakistan.

Apparently since I am over 50, I am a dinosaur as are most of my family and acquaintances.  I know this is true because when I tell people I know to read my blog, they say “what’s a blog?”  I am so screwed – since I don’t write about Beyonce or Justin Bieber no one under thirty will ever read this and no one over thirty knows what a blog is.  So let me tell you a little bit about how I found out about blogs, became a reader of blogs and then went on to blogging.

I have never thought of myself as an early adopter of technology but I have been using the internet since the early 1990’s.  Thinking about it now, it was the dawn of time.  My chosen portal: AOL, now just a footnote to history.  I started out reading what they called “newsgroups” which were kind of like discussion boards where someone would post an article or website adress, people would read and discuss.  Usually I would “lurk” in these newsgroups, a term that means to look in, read the article and discussion but not participate – if you don’t speak up, no one knows you’re there.  This evolved into general web surfing and a few sites helped fuel that, mainly The Drudge Report (which started out mainly as movie industry news and gossip) with it’s many links to news stories.  Another was Lucianne.com founded by Jonah Goldberg’s mother, Lucianne Goldberg.  It’s still around.  Finally, sometime in the early 2000’s a Radio Talk Show host I listen to named Hugh Hewitt began talking about this new thing on the internet with a funny name.  Blobs?  No, that can’t be it.  BLOG!  That’s it – internet lingo shorthand for weblog.  Weblog = weBLOG = BLOG.  He wrote a book about it.  Anyway, the amount of information and perspectives on information available to me online took a quantum leap with that revelation.  There are blogs about everything you can think of.  I zeroed in on politcal blogs mostly, but also branched out into Law, and Science as well as general interest.  Many bloggers write about other subjects in addition to their area of expertise if they have one.  When 9/11 happened, I started reading the military blogs or MILblogs.  Yes, the blogosphere has covered the War on Terror.  Over the course of years, I came to admire some of these bloggers (whom I have never met, nor communicated with) and at some point decided that imitation would be the best form of flattery.  On the sidebar to the right you will see a heading that says “Some Blogs I Like”:  Click on any of those, they are worth your time.

The subtitle of Hewitt’s book sums up the what Blogging is to me and why I decided to become a participant instead of just an observer:  “Why You Must Know How The Blogosphere Is Smashing The Old Media Monopoly And Giving Individuals Power In The Marketplace Of Ideas”.  I have decided to exercise my power and transform my exploration of life into a creative exercise – and to invite you along.  If you are lurking here, your journey has already begun.  Step into the light, introduce yourself and we can all continue our journey together.

I write about anything that happens to be of interest to me, and the subject matter is varied.  The posts are  in chronological order, the newest at the top – you can keep scrolling down to the bottom of the page and keep going back to view older  posts, all the way back to the beginning of time…err.. when I started this blog in February of 2014.  If you like what I write about some subjects but don’t care for others, look on the sidebar to the right.  You will see “categories”.  All my posts fit into one or more of these categories.  Click on the category you are most interested in, and you will see only posts in that category.  Simple.  Within my posts I often link to additional information and/or another blog or article that inspired the post.  When you see a word in red text, that is a link to additional information.  Click on it and the link will open in a new tab.  Any pictures within a post can usually be viewed in a larger version by simply clicking on the picture.

Please comment! To the left of the title you will see a box with the date and below it a box that says comments.  Click there and a dialogue box will open where you will be able to write comments on the article. This is how I know you’re reading and I welcome all feedback on my writing. You will be asked for your name and e-mail adress but don’t worry!  You can use an alias if you don’t want to disclose your name and your e-mail adress will not be displayed, nor will I spam you.  I moderate all the comments so I will see your comment.

Thanks! and Enjoy!

….it could also be the last”.  D’oh!  In an article published yesterday in The Independent, Steven Hawking (et al.) lay out some of the benefits to be reaped from the development of Artificial Intellligence (AI) and some potential downdsides:

One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

It’s a short article and worth your time to click over and read the whole thing.  Go ahead, I’ll wait….back? OK, good.  It seems that some very serious thinkers believe there’s a possibility that if AI is developed, human beings could become second-class citizens to it.  Subjugated by a servant of our own creation – that’s some serious irony right there. But…I wanted to tie this into our earlier discussion of “what makes humans human” and “do animals have rights”?  The answers to those questions are usually decided by “the biggest kid on the block”.  Right here, right now that means humans, people.  What if we get knocked down a notch and are no longer the deciders?  Because in a possible post AI future, machines might be asking the question: “Do living things (humans, “organic beings”, “meat machines”) have rights?  Are we going to like the answer?

I’ll bet this is how it goes down

Dinoasurs like me who have an affinity for muscular cars powered soley by our long deceased dinosaur cousins will have to get used to the fact that the sports cars of the future are going to be driven at least partially by electrons.  Of course, those electrons are still produced by our long deceased dinosaur cousins.  But I digress…

Now BMW has unveiled it’s new plug-in hybrid sports coupe for 2015, the i8.  Gone are the days when a BMW’s model number would tell you the specifics about the car – engine displacement, body style, etc. – apparently this one was named after an Interstate Highway?  No matter.  Autoblog gives us a complete and thorough road test of the $130,000 plus coupe which is powered by a 129 horsepower 96 Kw electric motor up front and a 231 horsepower turbocharged 1.5 liter 3 cylinder gasoline engine in the rear.  My guess is they took the venerable 3 liter six and lopped it in half.  A computer decides whether you get gas powered rear wheel drive or electric powered front wheel drive (or a combination of both) based on settings chosen by the driver and the heaviness of the driver’s right foot.  The tandem power plants deliver a combined 362 horsepower and 420 pounds feet of torque which will propel the i8 from 0-60 in a non-hybrid like 4.3 seconds.  This is due in large part to the coupe’s miniscule curb weight of 3,285 lbs. which translates into a horsepower to weight ratio of a shade more that 220 hp/ton.  Not bad.  And looks – wow!  Like a concept car.  I keep asking where are the flying cars that futurists of the sixties promised us – this one doesn’t fly, but looks like it could (or should).

Impressive design, impressive engineering and impressive performance.  I would expect no less from BMW.  However… as deep as it is in design, engineering and performance, it comes up short in convenience and practicality.  There are no cupholders for the occupants of the front seats (!) and with an engine in the front and the back, there is no trunk for your junk.  BMW has yet to release economy figures.  $130K + seems like a stretch unless you’re just trying to out status the neighbors.  I still think for the money I’d have an Audi R-8.  Screw the environment.

Cross posted at the blog: Men Out Of Work

Or what makes a human “human” and an animal “not human”?  Well, it’s not physical charactersitics because there are animals that share our physical characteristics.  Humans have a soul and animals do not?  There is no physical proof of the presence or absence of a soul in humans or animals for that matter.  These questions and rebuttals can proceed ad infinitum.  Eventually the question is begged: Do Animals Have Rights?

I don’t think this stuff up on my own.  Usually someone a lot smarter and more articulate than I am writes something that get me thinking.  And this time it’s no different.  Via Althouse I found this article:  http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-his-animal-law-classes-wise-told-me.html

Which in turn led me to this NYT article: “Should a Chimp Be Able To Sue It’s Owner?”

Both of these articles look at the question more from the perspective of “in the eyes of the law, what makes a human different from an animal?”  For one thing a human can communicate with his/her attorney or the court.  If the client can’t then someone is given power of attorney and the right to speak for the one who can’t.    Well that could be done for an animal as well, right?  Hmmm…  One thing seems for certain – humans are unique among the other animals of the earth and I don’t make that statement simply from the arrogance of being the Apex Predator.  And since we are unique, there is something that makes us so.  But exactly what is it?  Up for debate – ad infinitum.

And it will only get more complicated…

What about Robot Animals?