tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-107150072024-03-13T17:07:12.138-05:00Topography of IgnoranceBlag of the year(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.comBlogger465125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-51984688230649595802013-04-13T10:59:00.000-05:002013-04-13T11:19:25.646-05:00Moving on over<a href="http://aitchbar.wordpress.com/" title="They blew it up! Goddamn them! Damn them all to hell!"><img alt="" border="0" height="173" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5781499970126913154" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dQLTj9nmOfI/UDwDl1RYnoI/AAAAAAAADuw/68bs3ilpq4k/s400/planet-of-the-apes_full.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" width="410" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Grad School has taken a lot out of my blogging frequency. Yet after a couple years, I have started to feel that my many witty remarks and insight are just going unshared with the world. So my buddy Dave and I have created a group blog called <a href="http://aitchbar.wordpress.com/" title="Pronounced like h-bar">Aitch-bar</a>.<br /><br />Will I ever return to Topography of Ignorance? Maybe. Probably. Even so, it is sometimes necessary to "blow it up" when it comes to certain marginally creative endeavors and start anew. I promise the new blog will be even more pointless and esoteric than this was.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Some good entries from it so far:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/observations-on-observing/">Observations on Observing</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/swimming-tips/">Swimming Tips</a><br />
<a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/boa-vs-python/" rel="bookmark" title="Permalink to “Movie” Review: Boa vs Python (2004)">“Movie” Review: Boa vs Python (2004)</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/physics-art-show-submission/">Physics Art Show Submission "Domeflat: SUPA00398520"</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/where-is-my-planck-beach-ball/">Where's My Planck Beach Ball?</a><br />
<a href="https://aitchbar.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/ask-a-nazi-officer-who-is-frantically-reacting-to-the-invasion-of-berlin/">Ask a Nazi Officer who is Frantically Reacting to the Invasion of Berlin</a></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-69267883790285422232010-11-30T16:04:00.005-05:002014-08-24T14:50:02.467-05:00The Guardian wonders aloud about science<img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 309px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TPVok-PNn4I/AAAAAAAABvM/wWczim-l6oo/s400/TennantTARDIS.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5545453500568018818" border="0" /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br />Once again, I am puzzled by how the British public has a better understanding of science than us, while the science journalism in that country seems to be much worse. Last week for example, I saw <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8141780/Antimatter-captured-by-CERN-scientists-in-dramatic-physics-breakthrough.html">probably the worst sub-headline ever</a> in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Telegraph</span>: <blockquote>Antimatter has been captured by scientists for the first time in an astonishing physics breakthrough that echoes the hit Hollywood movie Angels & Demons.</blockquote>I wrote about some of their other <a href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2007/06/wireless-electricity-threat-or-menace.html">shoddy work</a> <a href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2007/12/stupidity-supernova-part-ii.html">a while ago too</a>. The <span style="font-style: italic;">Telegraph</span> rarely disappoints (unless you are looking for it to actually be right). It seems like the headlines are particularly bad, so that might have something to do with having to compete with tabloids, or some cross-pollination or something.<br /><br />So today when I caught <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer">this piece in</a> the <i>Guardian</i>, often the least bad of the UK newspapers for science: "<a herf="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer">Ten Questions Science Must Answer</a>" I expected the worst. It is the 350th anniversary of the Royal Society and they were trying to come up with what challenging issues lie ahead of us in the near future. I usually enjoy lists like this, because they are a nice reminder of the big picture questions that many of us are working towards in a small way, or simply things that are unexplained by science, but part of common human experience. <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/125th/"><i>Science</i></a> did a good one a few years ago, for instance (and weirdly, there is a wikipedia article titled "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics">List of unsolved problems in physics</a>"). <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html">This page</a> is really good too. And there are white papers and yearly reviews in journals that are cool to look at, and more specific. So since the <i>Guardian</i> is just winging it, it has the potential for broad appeal, or disastrously poor scholarship. Because of the format though, it's a little of both. Instead of getting in, you know, scientists, who might know a thing or two about where their field is at the moment, and what is currently understood, and where it is ultimately all leading they seem to have been content to go halfway, and have non-scientists simply speculate about what they don't know about. I can't blame the random novelists and poets for not being on the cutting edge of organic chemistry, but why are they being asked in the first place? When they're cobbling together lists of "greatest movies of the past 50 years" or whatever, why aren't they getting <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/">Neil deGrass Tyson</a> in there?<br /><br />So most of the actual things they come up with aren't so bad:<br />What is consciousness?<br />Is there a pattern to the prime numbers?<br />Can humanity get to the stars?<br /><br />And a couple of the novelists manage to ask not-idiotic things like:<br />How are we going to cope with the world's burgeoning population?<br />Will I be able to record my brain like I can record a programme on television?<br /><br />Probably the most thought-provoking is Brian Cox's "Can we make a scientific way of thinking all pervasive?"<br /><blockquote>This would be the greatest achievement for science over the coming centuries. I say this because I do not believe that we currently run our world according to evidence-based principles. [...]<br />One only has to look at the so-called controversies in areas such as climate science or the vaccination of our children to see that the rationalist project is far from triumphant at the turn of the 21st century – indeed, it is possible to argue that it is under threat. I believe that we will only be able to build a safer, fairer, more prosperous and more peaceful world when a majority of the population understand the methods of science and accept the guidance offered by an evidence-based investigation of the challenges ahead. Scientific education must therefore be the foundation upon which our future rests.</blockquote><br />Which is followed by John Sulston saying essentially the same thing but with a focus on the tension between liberal democratic government and the inability of these kinds of governments to work collectively to solve large-scale problems that most of the population doesn't recognize or understand. Both interesting and important questions; so far, so good.<br /><br />Then we get this gibbrish by "broadcaster and writer" Joan Bakewell:<br /><blockquote>What happened before the big bang?<br /><br />To simply declare – as some scientists do – there was no space or time before the big bang and that the question is therefore meaningless is hard to accept, as it suggests matter was created out of nothing. But then if there was some kind of pre-existing primordial chaos that was fashioned into the universe by the hand of God, then where did the chaos come from?<br /><br />At the other end of the timescale, I'd like to know whether robots will ever supercede humans. We are told scientists have already created artificial intelligence that can respond to emotion, but will they be able to go beyond getting robots to affect responses and generate feelings spontaneously – such as falling in love?...</blockquote><br />And it goes on like that. OK, there is nothing wrong with wondering this about the big bang, and it certainly doesn't make you stupid to not understand the subtleties of cosmology, but this isn't actually an open question, which is the point of the article. Time is a dimension, and dimensions may be bounded. It is difficult to accept intuitively, because the passage of time seems like something fundamental, but asking what came before the big bang is analogous to asking what is north of the north pole. It is a singularity, the question simply has no meaning. It's like asking what the big bang "expanded into" or something -- not a stupid question unless you were born with an innate intuition for higher dimensions, but not actually a new area for discovery. Scientists aren't going around arrogantly "declaring" things to irritate you, if you asked one about it, she'd explain what it means, not spit on you for not majoring in physics. Acting like there is some attitude problem, where we all go along with something that non-scientists can easily poke holes in just to frustrate them is ridiculous and illogical. And what the hell was that jargon about robots? Why didn't someone read this before it got in a newspaper? This article was written or compiled by Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society and an astronomer, who surely knows that the time question is nonsense (at least the way it was phrased). Why doesn't anyone check these things?<br /><br />Then we have a poet laureate, Andrew Motion, spouting off on what reads like a genuine plea to have someone explain things to him:<br /><blockquote>Can someone explain adequately the meaning of infinite space?<br /><br />The idea of there being no end to space seems logically impossible. How can there be no limits to space? We know the universe is expanding, but what is it expanding into? Is it squeezing into something else and making that contract, or is the universe just venturing into nothingness? In which case, nothingness and somethingness appear to be much the same. We are also told the universe may contract in time; this raises similar questions. What replaces the space that was the something of the universe?<br /><br />On a more frivolous level, I'd also like to know whether my cat is fully evolved as a species. She certainly gives every impression of having pretty much everything she needs. Following on from this, I'd also like to know whether humans are the final step in the primate evolutionary ladder, or whether there will be another species running the world one day while we get locked up in zoos and forced to smoke cigarettes in laboratories. I'd die a happy man with answers to these questions.<br /></blockquote><br />Hey look! I wrote that thing about what space "expands into" and here he goes and wonders about exactly that! It's incredible. Again, these are questions that you could find out the answers to by googling -- they are not unsolved mysteries for the Royal Society to get around to. Here's an idea: instead of wondering aloud about your own ignorance in a national newspaper, <i>why don't you just read a book about it?</i> There are zillions of books about cosmology written for a popular audience. And then there is that nonsense about cat evolution that just demonstrates he doesn't know the basics of biology either. Why didn't the person who took down this quote just tell him that those aren't open questions? I am so annoyed by this guy getting his uninquisitive musings published that instead of kindly explaining them in the patient and eloquent manner that I am known for, I am going to dismissively and angrily jot down responses to each of the questions he poses. In order:<br />- There just can<br />- The idea of something being "outside the universe" is meaningless: counterfactual<br />- No and no<br />- Counterfactual<br />- All living animals are "fully evolved"<br />- There is no "final" step in evolution, species don't evolve "toward" something, they evolve to adapt to or flourish in their environment.<br /><br />There, I just solved 10% of the mysteries of the universe.<br /><br />Ironically, by seemingly not having anyone edit these, they're contributing to the science-education problems that two of the prescient commenters pointed out! With garbage like this, how are the people there better educated on science issues? I would genuinely like to know...maybe without researching it, I should try to get my pointless witterings published in a newspaper and then someone will tell me...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer">Guardian - Ten Questions Science Must Answer</a><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-37647880737997697312010-10-20T22:50:00.003-05:002010-10-20T23:00:54.497-05:00Sensitive Female Chord Progression<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >From <a href="http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/03/rundown-34/#5">Here and Now</a> on NPR a while ago, the revelation that many many songs have the same boring pattern. Having heard it explained, you will be forever cursed with the knowledge that these songs are derivative garbage.<br /><br /><blockquote>Entertainment writer Marc Hirsh <a href="http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/12/31/striking_a_chord/" target="_blank">has been noticing</a> the same chord progression in a large number of rock and pop hits over the past few years. He’s dubbed it the “<a href="http://sixfouronefive.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Sensitive Female Chord Progression</a>” because he first heard it in songs like Joan Osborne’s “One of Us” and Sarah McLachlan’s “Building a Mystery”. But guys can play it too.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/03/rundown-34/#5">Here and Now [Mar 4, 2009 -- scroll down to the fifth story to hear it] </a><br /><br />And as a related issue, nearly the same theme explored as a comic rant against Pachelbel's cannon (which doubtlessly has it coming)<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zt21DhIqUbw?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zt21DhIqUbw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-7244660730881566682010-10-17T23:06:00.003-05:002010-10-17T23:53:56.612-05:00The Modern Insane, Illegal, Fairly Pointless Cannonball Run<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">This is in no way timely, but I recently re-encountered this story and thought I would be deficient in not posting <a title="Wired" href="http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/magazine/15-11/ff_cannonballrun">this article</a> I saw a couple years ago, about the people attempting to record the fastest ever time crossing the American continent on land, for no purpose other than impressing their other independently wealthy, overcompensating, friends. The time to beat is 32 hrs 7 min (amazingly) from New York <i>City</i> to LA*. They have an enormous array of radar equipment, several co-pilots, at some points, an effing helicopter, and are regularly traveling at 100-140 mph along the normal highways. The technology is primarily aimed at averting police detection, because not only would it slow them down, but at these speeds they cross over into the kind of territory where you don't get speeding tickets anymore. Furthermore, even if they do accomplish it, they have to wait several years to claim the title, until the various statutes of limitation expire in the states where they have been recklessly endangering. Not to mention regularly <i>outrunning the police who spot them</i>. "To beat the record, Roy has calculated that he needs to maintain an average of almost exactly 90 mph from Manhattan to the Santa Monica Pier. For occasional spurts, 90 is not uncommon on the highway. But for a day and a half of barreling across the United States, 90 miles per hour is essentially insane...As a Cannonballer makes his way across the continent, the accumulation of his time and speed forms a rising and falling curve called a running average. For every second spent below his 90-mph target, Roy will need to compensate by investing a second going faster than that average."<br /><br />I don't think I have much to say about this, of my own, other than that although I can't really see the point of this kind of thing, and I would never want to be friends with any of these people, because they're probably way more into Vin Diesel than I could ever be comfortable with-- it is impossible to ignore how rare this kind of maniacal devotion to <i>anything</i> is. The story is just so strange and incredible that it is surprising that it isn't better known.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/magazine/15-11/ff_cannonballrun">Wired - The Pedal-to-the-Metal, Totally Illegal, Cross-Country Sprint for Glory</a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">*Or one of those annoying outskirt towns that is essentially the same thing.</span></span></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-26948938248428177802010-10-17T22:53:00.002-05:002010-10-17T23:01:38.816-05:00Electric Box 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.candystand.com/play/electric-box-2"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 318px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TLvGe6kTjDI/AAAAAAAABuY/sFVcp3AAvMY/s320/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5529231201947323442" border="0" /></a><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >A quality waste of time. By which I mean that it is a quality way of wasting time, by trying to be smart.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.candystand.com/play/electric-box-2">Electric Box 2</a></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-35245970488744769312010-09-21T14:07:00.005-05:002010-09-21T14:13:34.526-05:00Volcano Tornado!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TJkCwoW1znI/AAAAAAAABts/nYfUpKvRUaE/s1600/VolcanoTornado+09-21-2010.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TJkCwoW1znI/AAAAAAAABts/nYfUpKvRUaE/s400/VolcanoTornado+09-21-2010.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5519445852809449074" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;"><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/visualscience/2010/09/20/after-volcanic-eruptions-come-volcanic-cyclones/">Noooooooo!!!!</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Stephen & Donna O’Meara explain the chaos in above photograph: “As the hot eruption cloud swirls, a vortex is created that spins off rare volcanic cyclones. As red rivers of lava pour into the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii’s Kilauea Volcano, huge explosions blast fragments of hot lava and cinder upwards 1,000 feet or more. These pieces of fragmented lava are called tephra –the booming tephra explosions create arcs of color during long exposures. During the daylight hours the hot lava looks black. As sun goes down it begins to glow red and a vast steam clouds form as it meets with ocean water.”<br /></blockquote><br /><a style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/visualscience/2010/09/20/after-volcanic-eruptions-come-volcanic-cyclones/">[Visual Science at Discover]</a><br /></span></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-19341390243100683022010-08-27T11:59:00.001-05:002010-09-11T01:05:33.555-05:00Moher, Moore, More<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Been traveling a bit lately. In June I went to Ireland, the land of my impoverished potato-farming lineage. When we visited <a title="Wikipedia: Cobh" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobh,_Ireland">Cobh</a> in County Cork, the <a title="Cobh Heritage Center" href="http://www.cobhheritage.com/index2.html">departure point</a>* for most Irish emigrants to the US, we saw this statue depicting <a title="Ellis Island Website" href="http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/annie_moore.asp">Annie Moore</a> and her brothers out on the former site of the pier. Ms. Moore was the first person to pass through Ellis Island. Someone shoved her to the front of the line saying "Ladies first!" and an official gave her a $10 coin. Her brother is oriented so as to be pointing directly at New York City. So naturally, there is a picture of me with it, looking like a zombie:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/THf0t1AhZ3I/AAAAAAAABsw/eTveASYR5P4/s1600/DSCF0281.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/THf0t1AhZ3I/AAAAAAAABsw/eTveASYR5P4/s400/DSCF0281.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5510141737271650162" border="0" /></a>It is a bit weird then that there should be a statue of her in Ireland, since her importance seems primarily Ellis Island related. But that is because this is just one half of a <b>pair</b> of statues, with the other one being in New York! So somewhat by coincidence, when I was in New York last week, we went to see the other one:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/THf2MoxuyyI/AAAAAAAABtE/glD8kHSY-TE/s1600/Ellis+Island+Annie+Moore.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 314px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/THf2MoxuyyI/AAAAAAAABtE/glD8kHSY-TE/s320/Ellis+Island+Annie+Moore.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5510143366075960098" border="0" /></a><br />I'm trying to imitate her pose, but it just looks like I'm saluting -- an appropriate compliment to the other inexplicable photo. We expected the NY statue to be a mirror image of the Cork version, but disappointingly, she isn't even facing her twin. And where are her brothers? I want a $10 coin.<br /><br /><a title="Wikipedia: Annie Moore" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Moore_%28immigrant%29"></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">*My ancestors likely spent their brief time there nervous and heartbroken, I wandered around taking pictures of goofy wax figures and having a lovely toasted sandwich. Isn't history fun! (Advice: Get a sandwich at the Cobh Heritage museum, they're dynamite).</span><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-69740380000730338492010-08-27T11:10:00.003-05:002010-08-27T11:40:32.176-05:00'Roid Rage<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><a title="YouTube" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw&feature=youtu.be">Asteroids</a> that is. And they're not actually angry. They're just being discovered from 1980-2010. It's cool to see that many objects in orbit over time, who doesn't like a little Kepler's Law in action?<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S_d-gs0WoUw?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S_d-gs0WoUw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />From YouTuber's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg">szyzyg</a>'s description:<br /><blockquote>The final colour of an asteroids indicates how closely it comes to the inner solar system.<br />Earth Crossers are Red<br />Earth Approachers (Perihelion less than 1.3AU) are Yellow<br />All Others are Green<br /><br />Notice now the pattern of discovery follows the Earth around its orbit, most discoveries are made in the region directly opposite the Sun. You'll also notice some clusters of discoveries on the line between Earth and Jupiter, these are the result of surveys looking for Jovian moons. Similar clusters of discoveries can be tied to the other outer planets, but those are not visible in this video.<br /><br />At the beginning of 2010 a new discovery pattern becomes evident, with discovery zones in a line perpendicular to the Sun-Earth vector. These new observations are the result of the WISE (Widefield Infrared Survey Explorer) which is a space mission that's tasked with imaging the entire sky in infrared wavelengths.<br /><br />Currently we have observed over half a million minor planets, and the discovery rates snow no sign that we're running out of undiscovered objects.</blockquote><br />[via <a title="Twitter" href="http://twitter.com/neiltyson/statuses/22210511058">Neil deGrasse Tyson</a>]<br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-18241393639127583642010-08-23T12:10:00.003-05:002014-06-06T21:20:02.582-05:00Fluorine: It tastes like burning<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vtWp45Eewtw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vtWp45Eewtw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br />This is the first I've seen of Dr. Martyn Poliakoff's <a href="http://www.periodicvideos.com/">Periodic Table of Videos</a> but it's a good one. Each video is about an element, and this one focuses on Fluorine, one of those non-heavy elements that you still don't see very much of because of its extreme reactivity. That reactivity is on display in this as they use it to burn through steel wool and charcoal -- just by squirting it at them, even in cold, liquid form.<br /><br />Unlike most chemistry, this video comes with a moral: don't mess with fluorine.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">[via </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/19/fluorine-do-over-at.html">BB</a><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">]</span></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-53320970757442887992010-08-11T15:53:00.000-05:002010-08-11T15:53:12.784-05:00Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGLwwpiNY0I/AAAAAAAABsA/gYOcTWOg9qI/s320/wang.jpg" title="That's what I call Wang" width="192" /></td></tr>
<tr style="color: #666666;"><td class="tr-caption" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 70%; text-align: center;">Mr Rodriguez contemplating the<br />
implications of the Supreme Court's<br />
1972 Flood v. Kuhn ruling which<br />
upheld Major League Baseball's<br />
exemption from anti-trust litigation,<br />
despite what many observers<br />
considered an 'overly strict'<br />
reliance on <i>stare decisis</i><br />
...and Chien-Ming Wang's rash.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">While carrying out my usual research on the broader public importance of obscure facits of baseball I happened across this <a href="http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/157-1/Infield_Fly_Rule.pdf" title="PDF Link">unusual legal article</a> that explains, in excessively footnoted detail, the legal and societal precidents for the adoption of the Infield Fly Rule. For those sociopathic Americans who don't tivo spring training games, or humans who are from that wild and lawless land that <b>isn't</b> America, the Infield Fly Rule states that when there are less than two outs and runners on first and second, the batter is automatically out if he hits a pop-fly that could be easily caught by an infielder -- <b>whether or not the infielder actually catches it</b>. This prevents the defense from intentionally dropping the fly ball to make a double-play. The runners in this situation have no choice but to stand near their respective bags, assuming the ball will be caught, and then in the event that it isn't, would be too far from advancing to 3rd and 2nd to avoid an easy double play. It's baseball's equivalent of the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant">en passant</a></i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">The article, (which was published anonymously and later revealed to have been written by then law-student William S. Stevens), describes the invention and evolution of the rule in the 1890's in a scholarly/mock-scholarly tone that apes similar, less light-hearted works with overt formality. A footnote on the word "origin" reads:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">6: For a discussion of origins, <i>see generally</i> Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). <i>Genisis</i> 1:1-2:9. <i>But see even more generally</i> Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968); R. ARDREY, AFRICAN GENESIS (1961); C. DARWIN, THE DECENT OF MAN (1871); C. DARWIN, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (1859).</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"> Stevens mainly describes how the rule developed out of a widespread desire to preserve the 'gentlemanly' nature of the sport, and was later modified with the same goal in mind -- for instance by reducing the role that umpires originally had in enforcing it, whereby they would make a ruling on who was out and where they runners ought to be <i>after</i> the play had taken place. Since this could cause arguments (and a purpose of the rule is to let the game play out with everyone playing to their best abilities) it was changed so that the umpire calls it and gestures during the play, to put everyone on equal footing. Also interesting is his retelling of how the calls for such a rule arose out of a game in 1893 where an infielder intentionally allowed a fly to drop with a runner on first, but only in order to catch the runner because he was faster than the batter. He got only a single out, not two, merely substituting a fast runner on first for a fat, slow one, and this isn't even a situation that the rule applies to! And once this tactic had been realized, similar plays seemed to have the umpire calling out the runner regardless of the fact that there was no rule against intentional drops.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Evidently, there are a number of parallels between the standards that established the IFR and those that formed English Common Law. I'm not an expert on historical legal questions, but the comparisons he makes are fairly broad, so I doubt that they are too controversial. The idea that the academic world was begging for a comparison of these two things is a little more far-fetched, but it's still a great topic, due to the amount of analysis you can do on such an obscure rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Still, I can't help but wonder about one thing -- he rightly points out that the nature of baseball has its roots in 19th century English sporting culture, that it's intended goal was more about exercise and camaraderie than competition. The attitudes of this society and era, to "[keep] the rules simple and [allow] moral force to govern the game" is apparent in many aspects of modern baseball. For simplicity there are things like the fact that there are no rules about where fielders can stand (or that there are even any codified differences between them), or knocking over fielders covering a base (as long as you're not unnecessarily violent about it) what constitutes a pitch (the <a href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2007/03/eephus-chronicles.html">eephus</a> <a href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2008/05/eephuss-revenge.html">counts</a>), a strike, a fair ball, etc. There are even more examples of moral impulses codified in the rules*: balks, catcher's interference, crowd interference, uproar about sign-stealing, <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGMKuPIaEeI/AAAAAAAABsI/ESOt4UhNKxE/s320/slappy.jpg">slapping at balls</a> during a tantrum. It's not a rule, but people even get upset about <a href="http://letsgosox.blogspot.com/2010/05/braden-looper.html">running over the mound</a> when you're not supposed to. Not to mention steroids. Hmmm...a lot of these things are A-Rod related...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Anyway, the thing that I think I disagree with him about is the notion that these attitudes are primarily English. I don't doubt that they were originally, but if that is true, why does baseball, which has been developing in the US for at least 150 years, retain a strong sense that right and wrong are important to the sport while soccer, which was also arose out of this gentlemanly English attitude of fair play (and is most popular there) is more rife with unpunished deception and fake injuries than pretty much all other sports?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/157-1/Infield_Fly_Rule.pdf" title="PDF Link">"Aside, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule,"</a> anonymous, 123 Univ. Penn. Law Review 1474 (1975). </span></blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><span style="color: #444444;">*The primary counter-example to the moral prohibition against trickery in baseball that springs to mind is the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_ball_trick" style="color: #444444;">hidden-ball trick</a><span style="color: #444444;">, but it's overruled by the opposing desire for simplicity.</span><br />
</span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-63790976162714702342010-08-11T11:12:00.006-05:002010-08-11T11:55:44.727-05:00Battletrek Generatica<span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Some awesome bootleg covers that require no commentary:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGLMQv-XbxI/AAAAAAAABrQ/WnYCJZwbzgA/s1600/Battletrek.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 173px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGLMQv-XbxI/AAAAAAAABrQ/WnYCJZwbzgA/s400/Battletrek.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504186282728189714" border="0" /></a>A good-hearted tween comedy! <span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">[via </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" href="http://www.nerdist.com/2010/08/battlestar-engrish-an-epic-of-sci-fi-lulz/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=battlestar-engrish-an-epic-of-sci-fi-lulz">Nerdist</a><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">]</span><br /><br />And this <span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">[via </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" href="http://gammasquad.uproxx.com/2009/11/9-funny-bootleg-dvd-covers/bootlegdvdcovers">GammaSquad</a><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">]</span>, which looks like it would probably be way more awesome than real Phantom Menace:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGLOCQnt2TI/AAAAAAAABrc/EG6pG1WiPPI/s1600/Schwartzwarz.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 259px; height: 400px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TGLOCQnt2TI/AAAAAAAABrc/EG6pG1WiPPI/s400/Schwartzwarz.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504188232816777522" border="0" /></a></span></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-90201113519273656942010-08-03T11:19:00.004-05:002010-08-03T12:57:16.844-05:00Some Reminders<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >-Like all (science) graduate students, I am woefully behind everything happening in the world of entertainment. So even though it's probably not news to anyone normal, I was surprised to find out recently that there is a <a title="IMDB: 'The Social Network' (2010)" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/">Facebook movie</a> coming out soon. I can't think of anything other than this:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvepYYNjfBk">Facebook/off</a><br /><br />And as usual I can remember the wild early days of Facebook where that "Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns" tag-line comes from. Back before they started changing everything and letting in all the riff-raff who didn't go to Elite East-Coast Colleges.<br /><br />I'd also like to point out, as I usually do in these circumstances, that the guy who founded facebook dated my ex-girlfriend's suitemate when we were freshmen at our Elite East-Coast Colleges. The only thing I remember about him was that he made an incorrect, but still lame, joke about trigonometry while playing frisbee in the common room. He said tangent when he should have used sine...or nothing. Also, that that girl dumped him shortly before he created that website and became a billionaire.<br /><br />-I found out a few days ago that the expression "kid gloves" deals with gloves made from the skin of young goats -- not the kind of kids who are young humans. Please adjust your speech accordingly.<br /><br />-I am sure that I have learned many other delayed or otherwise interesting things recently, but I've been busy doing astronomy stuff, and more importantly, programming, so that I can reduce images without having to think about each step of the process manually. For some reason, scientific (or even basic) programming is not yet part of any physics curriculum, though it seems like the primary thing many of us spend out time on. I've had to learn how to use various things, but never formally, and almost always in the context of "figure out how to do this for your job." It seems as though somewhere around your 3rd or 4th year of undergrad, professors start assuming that you know how to use most command-line programs, or write code in fortran or C, despite there never being any (even suggested) instruction on these things. Plus, many intro comp-sci classes tend to cover topics that are mainly useless to science majors. I wish my college had had some kind of "Unix-study abroad" style immersion program where that was the only way they let you communicate. (Hey, at least we'd get to travel...) I've gradually gotten proficient, but it's a lot more painful when you don't know how to phrase your (surely) stupid questions to get an answer out of the internet. Fluent or not, at least the end result is pretty:<br /><br /><a title="Part of CL1604" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TFhTPsiwZbI/AAAAAAAABqw/fkxY7ALAo0U/s1600/Picture+1.png"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 266px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TFhTPsiwZbI/AAAAAAAABqw/fkxY7ALAo0U/s400/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501238473953142194" border="0" /></a></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-69974186253188912322010-07-04T12:02:00.002-05:002010-07-04T12:04:33.776-05:00Happy 4th of July!<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><object width="425" height="319"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x5670m"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x5670m" width="425" height="319" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-45040771303211132462010-06-26T09:47:00.009-05:002010-06-26T10:30:53.347-05:00Odds and Ends<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><ul><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08xQLGWTSag">As Seen on TV: A Tribute to Doing it Wrong</a></i></li></ul><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08xQLGWTSag&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08xQLGWTSag&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><ul><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjcFQquHipE">Super Mario Brothers with real time accompaniment</a></i>. Includes sound effects! I think hiring a guy to play for you like this is how to play Nintendo if you are extremely rich. (Mario 3 is also featured <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sd99VT9C4M">here</a>)</li></ul><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vjcFQquHipE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vjcFQquHipE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><ul><li>Lastly, there is so little reason to bother with the World Cup -- the most complicated part of the sport seems to be the ranking system whereby they determine exactly how many draws are needed to move on to the next round, which teams that actually win their games deserve to be eliminated, and how many you have to lose before advancing.<br /><br />Nonetheless, everything involving North Korea is a candidate for humor, and they're seized the chance by <i>hiring Chinese people to pose as fans for their games.</i> It sort of makes sense that they're not going to allow actual North Koreans to leave their impoverished Stalineque nation just to attend a soccer game. On the other hand, it would look bad to have <i>no one</i> cheering for them, hence the idea of sitting, like, 100 identically-dressed Chinese guys in the crowd and <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/north-koreas-fans-are-paid-chinese-actors">paying them to cheer</a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TCYanTq-PPI/AAAAAAAABps/5XyjOaVdZwU/s1600/northkoreaatwc.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 265px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/TCYanTq-PPI/AAAAAAAABps/5XyjOaVdZwU/s400/northkoreaatwc.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5487102458595261682" border="0" /></a></li></ul></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-67791882913864533862010-04-28T19:24:00.004-05:002010-04-28T20:07:35.731-05:00Tipping the Scales<object height="300" width="400"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=6150677&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=6150677&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="300" width="400"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/6150677">Powers of Ten</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user1110220">Heinz Legler</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >A cool interactive take on the indelible 1968 <i><a href="http://vimeo.com/6150677">Powers of Ten</a></i> film (above) (or this a cheap, probably pretty expensive, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlP6znMKnr8">Morgan Freeman-narrated knock-off</a>). I've never actually heard anyone use the term "Yoctometer" but I support anyone wanting to.<br /><br />It is an interesting fact that the divisions between different areas of science is based mainly on the scale they study. You could reasonably argue that everything important having to do with chemistry, for instance, takes place between roughly 10<sup>-7</sup>m and 10<sup>-9</sup>m. Counting molecular stuff, biology gets everything from the </span><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >10<sup>-7</sup>m to 1 m scale or so. Physics, of course, is everywhere...</span> <br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br /><a href="http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347">The Scale of the Universe</a>:<br /><br /></span><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><i><a href="http://vimeo.com/6150677"></a></i><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 230px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/S9jTLsPtEQI/AAAAAAAABoM/eECy5_oXaKE/s400/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5465350345623146754" border="0" /></a></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-71275828337536859322009-12-21T11:47:00.004-05:002009-12-21T11:59:38.596-05:00What YOU Need To Know About Space Combat<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Sy-paCnkK4I/AAAAAAAABm8/PZk8fAr5yrA/s1600-h/1958_06jun.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 267px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Sy-paCnkK4I/AAAAAAAABm8/PZk8fAr5yrA/s400/1958_06jun.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417735141594508162" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Cool post by an aerospace engineer about the kind of stuff we all know we spend more time contemplating than we ought to, Gizmodo considers <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles">The Physics of Space Battles:</a><br /><br /><blockquote>First, let me point out something that Ender's Game got right and something it got wrong. What it got right is the essentially three-dimensional nature of space combat, and how that would be fundamentally different from land, sea, and air combat. In principle, yes, your enemy could come at you from any direction at all. In practice, though, the Buggers are going to do no such thing. At least, not until someone invents an FTL drive, and we can actually pop our battle fleets into existence anywhere near our enemies. The marauding space fleets are going to be governed by orbit dynamics – not just of their own ships in orbit around planets and suns, but those planets' orbits. For the same reason that we have Space Shuttle launch delays, we'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets: the launch window. At any given point in time, there are only so many routes from here to Mars that will leave our imperialist forces enough fuel and energy to put down the colonists' revolt. So, it would actually make sense to build space defense platforms in certain orbits, to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space, or even to mine parts of the void. It also means that strategy is not as hopeless when we finally get to the Bugger homeworld: the enemy ships will be concentrated into certain orbits, leaving some avenues of attack guarded and some open. (Of course, once our ships maneuver towards those unguarded orbits, they will be easily observed – and potentially countered.)</blockquote><br /><br /><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-39879369147449358962009-12-18T10:25:00.005-05:002009-12-18T12:07:13.278-05:00Dark Matter Matters<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Syu1rTyh2fI/AAAAAAAABmc/QvzFKUF0tKQ/s1600-h/darkmatter.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 265px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Syu1rTyh2fI/AAAAAAAABmc/QvzFKUF0tKQ/s400/darkmatter.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5416622732494363122" border="0" /></a><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >As a card carrying astro-related blog owner I am contractually obligated to comment on yesterday's <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-cdms">kinda-sorta-it-might-be-dark-matter-semi-quasi-announcement</a> by the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%20http://cdms.berkeley.edu/">CDMS II</a> group.<br /><br />There had <a href="http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2009/12/dark-matter-discovered.html">been</a> <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/12/09/dark-rumors/">rumors</a> about this thing for over a week that CDMS had some kind of watershed announcement. That they had discovered dark matter (what other important announcements can DM detection projects make?), that they were publishing in Nature today, that a torrent of papers was about to hit the arxiv with analysis of this last night, that they had all learned the true meaning of Christmas and were going to be nothing but kind and generous from now on.<br /><br />Yesterday, with the hype reaching a fever pitch, they held a seminar on their findings, broadcast online. Unified in the concerted effort to drive everyone crazy in anticipation they began the lecture with about 10 minutes of freshman-astronomy-level rationales for the existence of cold dark matter, before moving on to another 10 minutes of descriptions of things that were important to them but not to us, like the arrangement of the detectors and the way the data was collected. Then she threw in a joke about a spherical cow, and stalled for another 5 minutes. Finally, she got to a slide that said "Results" or something at the top, and the video completely froze. Of all the panicked, oh-my-god-just-tell-us-already, freakouts I can imagine something causing, this was way up there. When I regained consciousness and the video started working again she was on a slide that said "Conclusions," and before I could make out any of the bullet points, the camera quickly panned away and she started taking questions. It was awesome.<br /><br />Anyhow, in the aftermath of that humbling experience, what actually transpired during those missing minutes has come to light. CDMS detected TWO events. But because of the way they pull events out the noise of other stuff hitting the detector that could appear as a false signal, they'd expect to find about 0.8 events in the time the experiment ran. There is a 23% chance that what they saw was just random noise. I read someone describe this as the least helpful possible result and I have to agree. It isn't enough to be a conclusive discovery, and it isn't enough to say that dark matter definitely ISN'T being seen in this kind of detector either. So unfortunately, not enough for solid results, and not much to come up with a decent parameter space constraint either. It could certainly turn out they did find it, but that will have to wait for later confirmation. Just a lot of build up, a suggestion that we might be on the verge of learning something really interesting, a clue, and then the realization that nothing has been settled and you'll have to keep waiting for answers. Kind of like an episode of <i>Lost</i>.<br /><br />Links:<br />Best popular article about this I've seen: <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-cdms">Scientific American</a><br /><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/12/17/dark-matter-detected-or-not-live-blogging-the-seminar/">Cosmic Variance Liveblog</a> of Yesterday's SLAC seminar.<br />Basically alright article with a non-sequitur about supersymmetry: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?hpw">NYTimes</a><br /><br /><a href="http://cdms.berkeley.edu/0912.3592v2.pdf">Actual CDMS Paper</a><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-1887165728221539442009-12-18T10:10:00.004-05:002009-12-18T10:25:30.731-05:00Evolution<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.theonion.com/content/magazine/three_eminent_biologists_and"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 313px; height: 400px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SyubjYOgt0I/AAAAAAAABmI/Whvb3i7Sk5U/s400/evolution.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5416594008944195394" border="0" /></a><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >Why does it feel as though stuff like this actually happens? Oh yeah, <a title="Chuck Norris: 'Evolution is not real'" href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/25/chuck-norris-facts/">because it does</a>. Better these guys than James Inhofe at least.</span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-36658549055554844102009-12-15T10:34:00.003-05:002009-12-15T10:40:22.447-05:00Season's Greetings from a Telescope!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Syetab4OJfI/AAAAAAAABl0/FiVIe786btM/s1600-h/hubblecard020_7x5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 286px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Syetab4OJfI/AAAAAAAABl0/FiVIe786btM/s400/hubblecard020_7x5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415487746608080370" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><br />Merry Christmas, <a href="http://hubblesite.org/gallery/holiday/">from Hubble</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>This year, say it in stars! Send your friends and relatives best wishes for the season with our printable holiday cards. Messages of joy and peace are illuminated by the natural splendor of the universe.</blockquote></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-47935277497112968002009-12-13T12:57:00.004-05:002012-08-10T22:57:01.989-05:00Worst Article Ever<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I like Slate, but <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2009/12/mom_the_eagle_has_landed.html">this lady</a> seriously has nothing to offer. Unless you count her frequent attempts to be the worst parent ever. Without ever really meaning to, I've stumbled across her various articles about <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2215160/pagenum/all/">freaking out because her sons wanted to see Star Wars</a> (she was afraid they might like it), <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2236142/">freaking out when her son went unsupervised in the woods of suburban Connecticut for 45 min</a>, and <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2233986/pagenum/all/">discouraging her son from being curious about how magic tricks work</a>.<br /><br />Still this is a new low: "<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2009/12/mom_the_eagle_has_landed.html/">My boys love astronomy. I couldn't care less</a>." And that's just the title.<br /><br />Basically she spends the whole article complaining about how boring space is to her and bemoaning the fact that her boys are always all interested in science, instead of..well, she never really says what. Except maybe some ponderous <i>New York Times</i> article about the 10th year of some couple's marriage -- everyone knows how <i>normal</i> kids really eat that stuff up.<br /><blockquote>I have never willingly studied a single page of astronomy. My knowledge of the planets begins and ends with My Very Elderly Mother Just Sat Upon Nine Pillows. [...] And yet my boys are in love. They ask for library books about outer space. They had a DVD of the moon landing. They go to the local planetarium. They recite facts about planetary gasses and burned-up stars and black holes and something else called a white hole. "Mom, did you know?" they ask before launching into a minilecture. I never do. Nor, if I'm honest, do I care to find out. The other day, Eli interrupted himself in the middle of a shooting star explanation and said, sagely, "Mom, sometimes you don't really listen to me."<br /><br />This leaves me with a guilty question: What do you do when your children's interests don't match your own? Do you do your utmost to cultivate genuine enthusiasm and expertise? Do you fake it? Or do you keep the faith with your own passions, figuring you're teaching a lesson about assertion of selfhood and independence?<br /><br />I am tempted to stray down the last path—is that the one for the lazy, self-involved parent, or is it the proudly resolute one?</blockquote>Um, lazy and self-involved. Next question?<br /><br />What kind of quandary is this? These are elementary schoolers. Is she aware of the range of stupid crap they could be into? And she's second-guessing the one that's actually educational? Sure, they're just kids and no one is saying that they're going to do whatever they're interested in now, but having your mother casually dismiss your nascent curiosity in the natural world is not helpful.<br /><br />And then there's this garbage:<br /><blockquote>Maybe he'll be a rebel astronomer, and someday reform NASA, or call for an end to manned space missions so that the money can be used to fix Social Security? A mother can dream.</blockquote><br />There are so many things wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, NASA's budget is insignificant compared to Social Security (or practically anything else the government spends money on). It was $18.7 Billion in 2008, while SS was $696 Billion*. Studies show that <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/average-america/#more">Americans overestimate</a> NASA to be one of the largest federal agencies, believing that it receives a <span style="font-weight: bold;">quarter of the budget</span>, when in reality it gets <span style="font-weight: bold;">less than 1%</span>. Plus a large fraction of astronomers <span style="font-style: italic;">do not</span> favor manned space exploration, other than the role it plays in maintaining space-based telescopes, which <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> tremendously important.<br /><br />Eliminating NASA, and all other publicly-funded science for that matter, and spending that money on other stuff would increase funding for social programs by ~2%, does anyone think this would make a huge a difference? This is one of those <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1">non sequitur</a> "let's solve our problems on Earth first" (before ever doing science, apparently) statements that stupid people make without considering where their iPods and laptops come from.<br /><br />Oh, and she cites <a title="Topography: Stupidity Supernova, Part I" href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2007/12/stupidity-supernova-i.html">Gregg Easterbrook</a>. So all in all, not good.<br /><br />*<a href="http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/">This chart</a> is pretty good for showing federal expenditures visually.<br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-42000350098768663582009-11-07T10:25:00.003-05:002009-11-07T10:50:19.536-05:00Possibly the Best Post on Wikipedia<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SvWW2Z_D62I/AAAAAAAABlo/_XAGUJNPFkY/s1600-h/100_0097.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SvWW2Z_D62I/AAAAAAAABlo/_XAGUJNPFkY/s320/100_0097.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401389189533264738" border="0" /></a><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cats_with_fraudulent_diplomas">List of cats with fraudulent diplomas</a><br /><br />My only quibble -- why "fraudulent"? Are there cats with legitimate degrees?<br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-85993140353064289572009-10-14T11:23:00.002-05:002009-10-14T11:33:18.486-05:00Shooting things in slow-motion<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/36977">Slo-mo bullet porn</a>. Videos like this are only quasi-illuminating, but they are certainly hypnotic. I love the way that the bullets appear to behave like a liquid-- presumably the energy of the impact does actually melt them. The world certainly looks very interesting at very high, and very low speeds.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QfDoQwIAaXg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QfDoQwIAaXg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />For more slow-motion impacts, see <a href="http://two-sheds.blogspot.com/2008/05/blowing-things-up-in-slow-motion.html" title="Topography: Blowing things up in slow motion">this previous post</a>.<br /><br /><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-31196678882919465192009-10-07T08:39:00.005-05:002009-10-07T09:57:15.866-05:00Simply the Best<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://xkcd.com/214/"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 398px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/Ssyb-bYKLZI/AAAAAAAABlg/J-5A2j2RZJQ/s400/the_problem_with_wikipedia.png" title="'Taft in a wet t-shirt contest' is the key image here." alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5389854350858923410" border="0" /></a><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://bestofwikipedia.tumblr.com/">Best of Wikipedia</a> is my new favorite site. As someone who too frequently has to resist the urge to spend hours link-hopping around obscure wikipedia articles, BoW is a dangerous place. They simply put up a couple of unusual and fascinating articles a day. For those of you with more self-control a sample of some of their recent entries includes:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer" class="link" target="_blank">Gruen Transfer</a>: In shopping mall design, the Gruen transfer refers to the moment when a consumer enters a shopping mall, and, surrounded by an intentionally confusing layout, loses track their original intentions. Spatial awareness of their surroundings play a key role, as does the surrounding sound and music. The effect of the transfer is marked by a slower walking pace and glazed eyes.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraprosdokian" class="link" target="_blank">Paraprosdokian</a> <span class="description">A paraprosdokian is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax. For this reason, it is extremely popular among comedians and satirists. An example by Groucho Marx is, “She got her good looks from her father, he’s a plastic surgeon.”<br /><br /></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation" class="link" target="_blank">Semantic Satiation</a> <span class="description">Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a cognitive neuroscience phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who can only process the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.</span><br /></blockquote><br />So there you go.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">[Comic via </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" title="Also about wikipedia" href="http://xkcd.com/545/">XKCD</a><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">, obviously.]</span><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-37616492344950085062009-09-30T15:53:00.008-05:002009-09-30T16:45:24.962-05:00Wrath!<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I think I can scoop <a href="http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/">Strange Maps</a> for once. <a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/education/magazine/17-09/st_sinmaps">Wired</a> posts these infographics of what Kansas State geographers consider maps of the 7 Deadly sins. (Red is sinnier, Yellow is more good)<br /><br /><blockquote><img alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPJLvJ2-gI/AAAAAAAABko/nAMvCxee9yQ/s200/greed.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Greed</strong><br />Average income compared with number of people living below the poverty line.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPJoiHtLhI/AAAAAAAABkw/W4p3MfMQk2M/s200/Envy.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Envy</strong><br />Total thefts (robbery, burglary, larceny, and grand theft auto) per capita.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPMKUcBEPI/AAAAAAAABk4/tIoqwgPdU5o/s200/wrath.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Wrath</strong><br />Number of violent crimes (murder, assault, and rape) per capita.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPMZV2XOlI/AAAAAAAABlA/1anOIYoTDKE/s200/sloth.jpg" width="200" /><br /><b>Sloth</b><br />Expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared with employment.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPMgR1uvUI/AAAAAAAABlI/lYsDO424XgQ/s200/gluttony.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Gluttony</strong><br />Number of fast-food restaurants per capita.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPMnKbPJKI/AAAAAAAABlQ/fR0OEn-2Bmo/s200/lust.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Lust</strong><br />Number of STD cases reported per capita.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l9ZU6INPkRc/SsPMu_UE0iI/AAAAAAAABlY/RAjKuC0AkCA/s200/pride.jpg" width="200" /><br /><strong>Pride</strong><br />Aggregate of the other six offenses—because pride is the root of all sin.<br /></blockquote><br />So this is sort of a cool little thought experiment, but the methodology doesn't seem right for all of these. Greed, envy, wrath, and lust make sense. But what is the deal with gluttony? Aren't we one of the fattest countries? Why didn't they just do obesity rates? I'm pretty sure there should be more gluttony. And I don't really agree with the criteria for sloth. They should have done something a bit more sloth-related than entertainment spending. How about density of delivery restaurants, or cable subscriptions versus income? Not to mention the laziness of just making Pride the composite one. It would have been better to just use Porsche ownership or bloggers per capita. Not bad though.<br /><br />As usual, those hypocrites in the bible belt stick out as the region least able to live by the rules they're always telling us we don't follow...<br /><br /><i>Kansas State University Geography/USACE</i><a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/education/magazine/17-09/st_sinmaps"></a><br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10715007.post-61936094554305881842009-09-30T10:36:00.003-05:002009-09-30T11:30:32.838-05:00How many roads again?<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;" >I remember hearing a while ago that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/bob-dylan/6082578/Bob-Dylan-to-become-the-voice-of-your-satnav.html">Bob Dylan</a>, of all people, was considering recording the voice for a GPS navigator. If his speaking voice is anything like his singing voice, a lot of people are going to end up in ditches.<br /><br />So I was surprised to find out that there are actually <a href="http://navtones.com/products/tomtom/?SID=3ace3594d360f1747748a94fefb6d6df">already a bunch</a> of these celebrity voiced gps units. Mr. T (I think he just yells at you)? Gary Busey? Knight Rider? And last of all, and for reasons no one can understand, Curt Schilling.<br /></span>(Ryan) Michneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02623080141788392318noreply@blogger.com0