Sandy: How Good Is Our Weather Prediction Ability?

I have been critical here on numerous occasions about "global warming."

Recently I have been interested in matching the predictions of hurricane Sandy against the actuality.  The site I used for the predictions was the National Hurricane Center.

There isn't a lot of concise, direct prediction, e.g., the path it will take, and so on.

But there is a lot of "probability maps" showing, for example, where the most likely rain fall will be.

The main predictions as I saw it were (I am using "consumer" predictions - not any special weather data):

1) The hurricane will move up and along the coast from the Bahamas (I only really paid attention as the hurricane left the Caribbean).

2) The hurricane will shift inland to mid-Pennsylvania.

3) The hurricane will move off to the north.

(Edit - here is an image from the prediction period...)

The destruction in NYC and NJ were a given as long as the hurricane went inland below New York harbor.

So how did the predictions work out?

Well, at a gross level they were generally accurate in terms of basic direction and movement.

The storm moved up along the coast as predicted.  It moved inland starting Monday morning.

By about 8 PM Monday night the "eye" (rotation center) reached the NJ/Pennsylvania border.

By Tuesday the center reached Pittsburgh.

Today, Wednesday the "eye" has moved to western New York state.

So over all this was what was predicted.

The low-level details, however, were all over the place.  The "eye" reaching NJ from the traversal up the coast was much more rapid than predicted.  There wasn't a lot of precision where the storm would reach the shore.

Once the storm reached the shore a lot of strange things happened (I talked about the "shock wave" yesterday).

The storm changed from a hurricane to something else as it moved inland and its unclear what the path it took was.

The rain and snow levels shifted around and changed dramatically from day to day (the predictions are posted periodically on the site but I checked them once or twice a day).

So in general each event was predicted as something of a probability curve.  The higher the curve the higher the probability.  So the storm followed along within the curve but not always along the highest probability predictions.

The key game changer was a low pressure system which had a front along the western Pennsylvania/Ohio border.  This created a low pressure "trough" that Sandy slipped into as it approached.  Sandy then followed this inland.

The only assessment of all this is that in terms of gross prediction things went well - but in terms of precise detail things were all over the place and there was little correspondence between predictions and actuality.

Now there was talk about how the "low pressure" affected the hurricane model's prediction ability.

The model seemed to work only after the hurricane was on-track to move up the coast, i.e., before that point it was unclear what the hurricane would do exactly (a slight change in course, for example, would have simply sent it out to see as often happens with hurricanes that move up the coast).

So clearly there was a prediction "model" involved which worked at a gross level.

So let's compare this to recent talk we see about global warming (here for example).  This article talks about "improved" models that provide "less certainty."

Advances in computing power, for example, allow models to use more data points, provide more complex and sophisticated modeling, and so on.

However, the "output" of the model shows less certainty about what will happen.  Temperature goes up but what this means is less clear.

Not really much different than what is accomplished for the hurricane.

On the other hand, the hurricane model doesn't work too far in the future, i.e., determining where it will go once it enters the Caribbean.

The question becomes this:

1) If we cannot predict what a major storm system will do over the course of say, two weeks, how can we predict anything more accurately at a larger time scale?

2) How can we be certain about the precision of, for example, small temperature changes from climate models when even within a day or two we cannot precisely predict landfall for something simpler (in terms of climate) like a hurricane?

This is like saying while I cannot predict the precision of each shot in a pool game I can say who will win based on a large collection of such unpredictable shot predictions.

One thing that to me reenforces the foolishness of this "climate modeling" is how nothing available to the public shows the relative accuracy of past weather predictions.

For example, each day sites like AccuWeather show predictions for the next day, week, and so on.

But where is the historic comparison, i.e., we predicted X for next week but Y actually happened?

No industry I know of operates in this way, particularly when public safety is involved.

It would be like never analyzing failures.  For example, as suspension bridges were built over the years various bridges failed quite publicly (for example, the Tacoma Narrows bridge below).

Similarly for financial investments and any other human endeavor that involves learning from past mistakes.

But with weather the past weather predictions just seem to vanish.

What I don't understand is why?  How is this science?  Where is the regression comparison of what we predicted in the past and what actually happened?

My guess is that the public would have little confidence in the science of "weather prediction" if they could see the accuracy.

Some science, such as chaos theory, tells us that we cannot accurately predict the weather.

Yet we continue to try?

The real question is more basic: Can we even reliably predict the weather beyond several hours?

I don't think anyone knows the answer.  But from what I know about chaos theory I would say no, its simply impossible to make accurate long term predictions.

Here is a good NY Times article about this very subject: "The Weatherman is not a Moron."

Personally I think of weather prediction, at least at the consumer level, as more of a "comfort food."

I've noticed that radio stations, for example, always try and put a good spin in "weekend weather."

For me, I simply look at the radar.  Is something "green" (for rain) coming?  You can predict fairly accurately (even given the diddling that removes the precision from the radar) when you are going out for the afternoon.

Predicting a full day or a weekend, though, is less simple.

Perhaps as a society we need to think about how our education system, particularly a government-backed one such as we have, can be used to assist us.  Instead of turning out poets with $100K USD in debt perhaps we should look at building a reliable weather prediction system over a decade - as JFK did with the "race to the moon" in the 1960's.

Real Zombie Dogs: (Not for the Squeemish)

I am posting this for Halloween.

If it reminds you of a Frankenstein movie don't be surprised.  Its basically the same thing except that A) its real and B) the Soviets (CCCP) got quiet far in their experiments with live animals.  (If you think its not real visit this site, download the PDF and go to page 1141 and read the last line of text).

According to the video the technology displayed formed the basis for blood transfusions used in the war.

Things were different in the 1940's.  You can read more about similarly disturbing things here.

On the one hand all of this is obviously quite disturbing and cruel.  On the other many, many people alive today would not be if it weren't for this line of experimentation.

These videos are real so don't watch it if disturbing videos involving animals will trouble you in any way.

WARNING: VERY DISTURBING VIDEO.
Part I



Part II


More disturbing reality here.

What Kills More World-Wide than AIDS, TB and Malaria Combined?

In order to meet US Environmental Protection Agency requirements more than 13.8 billion gallons of corn ethanol are mixed with the fuels used by US consumers each year.

To accomplish this about two of every five bushels of corn in the US are diverted from food use to ethanol production.

So, instead of the US feeding people world wide, we starve them.

An estimated 192,000 people could die due to food shortages tied to biofuel production.

More than AIDs, TB and malaria combined worldwide.

Of course, other sources of fuel could replace corn ethanol.

But the EPA, so far on its third 90 day "extension" to evaluate this has yet to decide if its policies are killing people.

There is a shortage of corn due to the US drought in 2012.

This will compound the problem. 

I am pretty sure you can't enjoy a cleaner environment if you are dead...

For further details see this article as well as this one.

Hurricane Sandy: Highly Unusual Weather Patterns

10:30 AM EDT Monday - Eye 300 miles off-shore

A number of remarkable weather events happened between the time I wrote my blog entry yesterday morning and this morning.

Yesterday about 10:30 AM hurricane Sandy was about 300 miles off the coast of Delaware/Maryland.  Less than six hours later it was on-shore at Atlantic City, NJ.

What's interesting is that the eye moved so rapidly.   A "low pressure" trough which I have only seen one video about (unfortunately I have no images) showed how the trough extended out into the ocean.

As Sandy moved up the Atlantic coast of the US it literally was shuttled west when it encountered this trough.

By about 4:00 PM yesterday in western Pennsylvania we had the the first of two significant rain bands pass through the area.  Normally in hurricanes that survive to reach our area the bands are very distinct just like in someplace like Virginia or North Caroline in a more traditional hurricane.

Soon after, I believe around 6:00 PM or so the eye, visible in the image above as a small bright-green dot in the lower right, touched Atlantic City.

After that point something I have never seen happened.

What appeared to be almost a shock wave started to move inland from Atlantic City toward western Pennsylvania.  The shock wave looked like a "stalling" of the classic hurricane rain bands.  Almost as if their moisture supply had been shut down.

By about 8:00 PM or so in western PA the second rain band was dumping a lot of rain and wind on the area.

Over the course of the next three or so hours the "shock wave" moved toward the Ohio/PA border.

Here it is (edited in at 1:16 EDT):

The "shock wave" appears as a red bow in the middle of the state.

As it moved it "pushed" the the classic hurricane rain bands west and replaced them with a light wind and drizzle.  By midnight or so the rain band was gone for the western PA area.

The "eye" of the storm - the low pressure point - was only near Philadelphia at this point.

So my first question is what was this "shock wave?"

It moved across the state of PA at about 50 miles per hour literally pushing the hurricane bands out of the way as it moved.

The counter-clockwise motion of the storm, mean while, has brought cold arctic air down from Canada to dump more than three feet of snow on West Virginia and western North Carolina.

The small "pin" at the center of the image is the current rotational center (11:00 AM Tuesday October 30) of Sandy.

I have marked how the cold is being drawn in from Michigan and deposited as a blizzard in WV and western NC.

Meanwhile warmer air is still being drawn in on the back-side of Sandy contributing to the flooding of Manhattan, Long Island and New Jersey.

We can expect Sandy's rotational center to move north and, most likely, draw the colder air into western Pennsylvania.  So I expect some level of snow as this occurs.

I have been carefully following the predictions for this storm.

In general the gross movements appear to match what was predicted.  But beyond that I think things behaved in a unique way - particularly the "shock wave."  The blizzard and snow areas are much larger than predicted as well.

In terms of rain we received far less than the predictions showed.

In general I think that the "hurricane" Sandy lost much of its moisture as it touched land.

The rotation continued but the hurricane was literally starved of moisture.  So the winds kept rotating from inertia but there was no moisture to full the traditional rain bands.  The relatively dry winds created the "shock wave" pushing the traditional bands, created while moisture was still available, out of the way.

Unfortunately these traditional rain bands and their moisture are now being drawn into the cold arctic air being pulled down from Canada further compounding the blizzards.

Sandy: The "Big One" for NYC?

Hurricane Sandy is approaching central New Jersey and is expected to make landfall by this evening.

AccuWeather provides the most interesting set of "loops" that show the storms progress.

There is a classic radar loop:

As well as the enhanced loop shown above.

The "enhanced water vapor loop" shows this:

The more "orange" areas indicate more "dryness" - greens and yellows more moisture.

The "water vapor" loops shows (at 10:15 AM EDT) a distinctive "sharpening" of the eye (it becomes smaller and a more intense green).

If you draw a line from the center through the center of the New Jersey coast this is more or less the track of the storm's landfall.  But of course it may vary up or down depending on winds and the "low" near the coast.

The most destructive aspects of the storm will be north of the eye as the flow is a strong, counter-clockwise one.  This flow is what pushes water into the coast as part of the "storm surge."

The real potential damage will be in the urban coastal areas from landfall north - most likely including all of Long Island and the NYC harbor.  The governor of Connecticut is calling for tremendous damage.

For the global warming enthusiasts you can see here how this store is not an effect of global warming but instead a series of unfortunately coincidences.

I've been in a hurricane or two over the years.  There's little to compare the power and majesty of these store with and, at least at this point, there isn't much humanity can do about them.

Like everything else government funding for weather satellites is part of the larger political football (see this NPR article).   Making liquor, cigarettes, and Twinkees available to those who least need them seems to be a priority over having a consistent country-wide policy on tracking dangerous weather systems.

In any case this will have a big impact on, among other things, voting.

Save for Sandy being (at the time of this writing) only a Category 1 Hurricane this looks like the big one for NYC.

Not that the buildings themselves are structurally in danger from the wind (the World Trade Center was designed to handle the impact of a Boeing 707 at the time it was built).  Its the storm surge that presents the most difficulty.

Much of NYC exists underground - subway, water, power, sewer, and so on.

The "shore" is only a few feet above sea level and a storm surge of just a few feet will severely test these systems.

For the rest of us in the Mid Atlantic this most represents a wet and windy nuisance - unless you live in the higher elevations of Appalachia where upwards of four (4!!) feet of snow has been predicted.

I think that if nothing else this one will go down into the record books as the one that flew down the "harbor" of NYC...

Harassing Geese or Saving Syrians?

I was saddened to read that the task of "harassing geese" - and yes, "harass" in the sense of to make noise, annoy in some way, to have a loose dog, to clank pots and pans, etc. - is a recognized profession.

Apparently a small town has a number (50 to 70) of non-migrating (resident) geese which are nuisance.

One can only imagine the EPA red tape involved in such a difficult decision and profession: "Since the geese are federally protected birds ... you have to be careful what you do in harming any..."

There are lots of nuisance animals, such as black bears which I wrote about a few weeks ago, present in cities and populated areas.

Of course, at least black bears are governed by local hunting regulations, so, like the geese, they cannot be eliminated even if they become a problem or danger.  (Geese can be dangerous in close quarters and are also a significant danger to aircraft.)

Now you have to wonder, given our country's fiscal state if spending a lot of money on regulating the business of "goose harassment" is a good "investment."

For example, I wrote about Syria recently and there's a lot more interesting going on there were the same funds might do humanity more overall good.

For example, the Assad has a significant investment in chemical weapons which he is working on expanding.

Here the problem is that the "Syrian rebel's" have discovered, according to CNN, of these installations.

Like most second rate terrorist states Syria has to use technology far less capable than nuclear weapons - for example, a common, easily-made staple for terror is sarin gas.

Sarin, is made with isopropyl alcohol and DF (Methylphosphonyl difluoride).  Sarin is itself unstable and degrades over a period of weeks so its typically stored in "binary form."

"Binary form" means that the weapon is stored as two parts which do no degrade on their own and, when needed, the parts are mixed to activate the weapon.

In the case of the CNN story the Syrian rebels have discovered sites with these binary forms.

The larger problem here is that Syria initially intended to use these weapons internally but, back in July, sufficient pressure (I suppose there was a break in policing goose harassment) was put on the regime to stop it.

(There is also the question of what exactly Iran is supplying Syria with its "shipments.")

Today Syria claims it will only use these weapons on "external agressors."  (Pulling back from threatening to use it on the "rebels.")

How nice.

Yet this stuff is laying around in numerous locations in the country easily accessible to "rebels."

A guy I know, let's call him "Frank" spent some time explaining "Syria" to me.  Born there he had left about ten or fifteen years ago along with his other family.  Only his sister remained.

He had access to a number of current YouTube videos showing the violence.

It was quite disturbing.

He described genesis of the current violence as various sects of Islam diametrically opposed to each other - nothing new for that region - but for whatever reason had boiled over to affect the government and the people.

Like most middle eastern people I know here in the US he was thankful to be here though greatly concerned for the life and safety of the family left behind.

Of course he viewed the US as a tremendous potential ally to the "Syrian" people.

But, like me, was puzzled by the notion and importance of things like EPA regulated "goose harassment" when literally tens of thousands of his countrymen were dying.

Unlike the Syrian rebels at least geese are harassed on a "regular schedule" - at least according to this site.

I also have to ask myself if I am better off with a few dead geese lying around a lake where no doubt local wildlife or hunters will quickly consume and dispose of them than a large collection of Syrian rebels with unknown intentions wielding sarin gas rockets, mortars and missiles.

Perhaps the Syrian people should claim themselves to be Canadian geese from the US?

Dissonance or Ignorance?

 My post on "Iran's "Route" to the Sea" generated some interesting food for thought.

How intelligent and/or how "up on foreign policy" do you need to be in order to gain meaningful insight from the debate?

From my posts "By The Way..." and "The Ignorance of One..." makes it quite clear that far and way people know very little about politics - not even, for example, that debates have actually happened much less what they were about.

So how responsible is the "electorate" for understanding what a debate or election is really about?

Back in the 1960's its pretty clear that, at least from the perspective of John Kennedy no ignorance was the "gold standard" for the electorate.

As a kid and young adult during the 60's and 70's I clearly saw this.  There was a push for "empowerment" which involved education.  There was the notion of you, the peon, gaining knowledge because knowledge was power.

As a young adult coming of age in the 1970's this was present everywhere.  Particularly in the college I attended.

However, it was taught far differently than today.

In those days you, the student (literally or figuratively) sat listening to someone who spoke directly and non-stop about some topic.  It was your job to "fill in the gaps."  A professor or lecturer might mention a name or event in passing - so-and-so said "X" about "Y" - and then move on.

If you didn't know about "X" or "Y" is was your job to find out via research.

We called this the notion "learning to think" because you might also apply it based on a filter - did I believe what so-and-so was telling me or did I think it was false, misleading, or somehow otherwise untrue?  If so it was my job to research the topic until I was satisfied one way or the other.

We also called this "critical thinking."  The idea that just because an "authority" claimed something was true it was.

Nixon was probably the quintessential example of this - Nixon lied, Watergate, and so on.

The entire nation heard the Watergate hearings, discussion of what people said and did, and so on to an incredible level of detail.  Similarly for the Vietnam war - every news report processed and kicked about to determine the direction of the war and the country.

And all this parsed for understanding by the "electorate" to be used as fodder in the next election.

What I and I assume many others learned was that the world did not stop to explain itself to me.

I was nobody and it was up to me to figure out what was going on.

This was reenforced in various classes - ancient Greek in particular.  The professor did not stop for you to catch up - you had to keep up.

As an older adult today I assume I am responsible to be at least as informed as any candidate in a debate because, after I, based on what they say I need to ascertain whether or not they are telling the truth.  If I don't know I need to catch up.

I chose to keep up.

And clearly, at least in 1960, the rest of the US was on board with this as well vis a vi the quote from Kennedy.

But today, as I have written extensively here, the vast majority of people, particularly college graduates, seem not to posses critical thinking skills - mostly as I have mused - because they are today taught what to think and not how to think.

We can liken this a debate to live music performance - in this case Jazz comes to mind.

The musician is like the debater.  On the stage, under hot lights, people watching, no one wanting to hear a mistake, video recording, the rhythm section pounding away at 200 beats per minute.

At this speed you have only milliseconds (.001 seconds or 1/1000th of a second) to decide what note to play next.

Now depending on the song, the instrumentation, and so on there maybe be more than one choice.

And some choices may be better than others.

I can choose basically between a note which is dissonant or consonant.  (A dissonant note might sound "bad" or "out of place" while a consonant note sounds like it "goes along" with the rest.)

Everyone expects, particularly if unfamiliar with certain types of Jazz, consonant notes.  Virtually all popular music outside Jazz uses consonance over dissonance because the music flows much more smoothly to the musically uneducated ear.

But as I wrote in "Monk: The Birth of Be Bop" dissonant notes are not necessarily wrong or out of place - particularly in Monk's form of Jazz.

So from a musical perspective, on stage and under pressure, I chose a note.

To an untrained ear the note may sound "wrong."

So do I, as an audience member, rush the stage to criticize the Jazz musician?

Publish rude humor indicating that the musician cannot play?

Or is it my job to think about what I am hearing using critical thinking (maybe I like the dissonance or maybe not).  In any case the point of Jazz is that its intellectual in this regard.

But like modern political debate today's audience is no longer able to grasp the underlying meaning because they lack the critical thinking skills required or, worse, simply don't care or are too lazy.

So today, presumably a much more modern age than, say 1950, I can listen to Katy Perry or rap songs with three or fewer chords and perhaps a dozen (mostly not foul) words instead of this:

The reason, of course, is that it requires effort to listen to Monk play this.  You must think about what's going on musically.  How it fits together.  How the "big picture" is being painted.

With Katy Perry you merely need to jump around to a beat (not that there is nothing wrong with this but the musical direction from 1950 to today to me simply going the wrong way).

So similarly with political debate today - the audience no longer has the skill or ability to listen critically.

Dissonance today is always interpreted as ignorance.

And, of course, sometimes it is - but without a "critical ear" how would you really know?

So the question is simple.

Given that the vast majority watching the debate are "intellectually deficient" with regard to whose running for office much less the nuance of horses (used in Afghanistan today by US Marines) and bayonets (also used today) what can we expect?

I think we can expect dissonance to be portrayed as ignorance.

One reason I don't directly post political content here is exactly this reason.  This blog is intended to evoke thought.  To require critical think skills to process.

(Fortunately the bar is low for deceiving the "intellectually deficient" in this regard.)

Politics today is simply about simple emotion - like a Katy Perry song.

There's grandma going over the cliff in her wheel chair - there's small minority children starving in their rural hovel - crude jokes mocking dissonance - emotional pictures for sure.

But these are designed, like the wordless books in Fahrenheit 451 to keep people from thinking and asking their own questions.

Quite honestly I think we live in Ray Bradbury's dystopian future.  A future ironically manufactured by the very intellectual elite who are the silent heroes in the novel.

Today we are without the tools as a society to even watch a political debate much less a foreign policy debate.  There simply is not enough horsepower left in society for meaningful critical analysis.  The world is a complex place and does not stop or slow down for the ignorant.

The "factoids" Bradbury chose to condemn Fahrenheit 451 today rule instead.

Simply listen to the voters in the linked videos who cannot identify major congressional figures, parties or people running in opposing parties in the election they are voting for deride Sarah Palin.

A world and society ruled by "factoids..."

Yet somehow today I am expected to "slowdown" so the society which, outside of my control, has somehow slowed to a crawl as I pass by.

I think not.

Instead I think society and academia must be held accountable for the products they have produced.

Fortunately for me I am old and I am not going to hold my breath.

Iran's "Route" to the Sea...

On many Facebook pages the image to the left appeared after Monday's debate.

The gist of this is, of course, Romney is ignorant of geography and does not realize that Iraq separates Iran and Syria.

Now gaffes are common in "live" television and debates in paticular, like with live music and other "live" activities its always difficult to deal with unforeseen situations, too little time, and so on - particularly when attempting to speak credibly with a lot of intense surrounding activity.

In political debate there are, to my mind, four main types of "gaffe."

First there is the pure "ignorance gaffe" - no, I don't know where the Iran/Syria boarder is - a comment made in true ignorance.

Then there is the "simple mistake" gaffe - for example the Obama "57 state" quote - and, no, I don't believe he believes there are 57 states in the US.

There is what I call the "Freudian gaffe" - Joe Biden and his "buried" middle class.  The "Freudian" aspect being either "a gift to your opponent" or "a slip telling your real feelings."

And finally there's the "non-gaffe" gaffe.  This is a bit more interesting.  Clearly in "live debate" there is often very little time to state your full case.  So, when presented with an opportunity, some part of a fact comes out, but not all.

Perhaps enough to get the message across, perhaps not.

I would put the title quote in the image above into this category.

Now, of course, you could interpret the quote as a "simple gaffe" meaning Romney merely lacks understanding of the geography of the middle east.

But "route to the sea" is an odd choice of words to make a gaffe with.

So in response to seeing this I did a bit of research and came up with a number of articles (this and this for example) talking about Iran, its navy, and its actions in the Mediterranean Sea (military exercises with China and Russia among other things).

It would seam Iran has clear military interest in creating a Mediterranean Sea port in Syria.  (There are various links to various agreements between Iran and Syria in this regard which can be easily Googled.)

Now this is quite interesting.  While I was aware Iran had a navy I was unaware of its interest in the Mediterranean Sea (prior to this I was aware of the Iranian navy but not of any details, to wit, they are helping police their coastal waters for pirate).

A bit more work turned up this NY Times article on the subject of "Iran Supplying Syria Military via Iraqi Airspace."

This is a tremendously detailed article about the current geo-political activity in the region.  Not being a regular read of the NY Times I was quite pleased to be able to find it.

In particular it discusses the effort "... Syrian rebels have made to seize several border crossings where Iranian aid has been trucked in."

Now here its clear that the only means to "truck" military supplies into Syria from Iran is via northern Iraq.

Once the Syrian rebels had closed the ground-based boarder crossing Iran took its supply-chain to the sky: “The Iranians have no problems in the air, and the Syrian regime still controls the airport,” said a retired Lebanese Army general, Hisham Jaber.

So instead of driving in they can fly them in.

In this context having Iraq in the Mediterranean Sea makes a good deal of sense - should Iraq close the airspace between Iran and Syrian the sea will be the only means to supply Syria.

Additionally the sea offers open access to Syria albeit via the Egyptian-controlled Suez canal.

Now of course I could be completely wrong here but the statement "route to the sea" came up in the context of a discussion on Syria.  In particular, the current Administration seems unable to convince Iraq to close its northern airspace to Iran-Syria supply chain.

The current Administration hastened the US withdrawal from Iraq (and supplied a detailed timeline to boot) and in doing so has left either a weakened Iraq unable to stop the overflights or an "independent" Iraq that sees other "benefits" to Iranian support of Syria.

How unfortunate for the 30,000 Syrians killed so far.

One imagines that any presidential debate should have at least this level of active knowledge about Iran, the Mediterranean Sea, and Syrian at their finger tips during a debate.

The above information says to me that "route to the sea" is unlikely a simple or ignorance gaffe and much more likely part of an incomplete statement about the current situation in Syria coupled with recent Iranian naval activity - particularly when considered in the context of what was being discussed.

The bottom line is the NY Time article provides a great deal of relatively (Sept 4, 2012) current data on this subject.  Interestingly other than the Times article there is very little information about the current activity of the present Administration with regard to Iran, Syria and Iraq.

Italian Earthquakes and "Responsible" Science

Italian earthquake destruction - from Ars Technica

So Ars Technica reports (as well as others) that several Italian scientists were convicted of manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake.

Now the Ars article talks about the superficial issues related to this but I think there is a lot more to think about.

The basic idea here is that the "government" contract with scientists to create a realistic assessment of danger - in this case an earthquake.  But it could be anything - a dam ready to burst, a faulty airplane part, etc.

No one, as far as I can tell, was asking for a specific time and date.  Instead there are the need for some kind of risk assessment in terms of "should people be evacuated."

This kind of thing happens all the time outside science - airplanes are grounded when "cracks" are found, for example.

Now if you are in a position as an expert I feel its your duty to ensure that, if danger or money is involved, you are as clear about risk as possible.

Its better to err on the side of caution.

So what about science?

Well, if I am in a lab running rats through a maze or spinning quantum quibits around in a vacuum chamber there is little danger, save for the apparatus exploding, of causing anyone harm.  If I publish reports of my findings, say that airplane wings made of spider silk test out well in my lab, its up to others to make realistic industrial tests to determine whether or not such an airplane wing is safe.

But there are other kinds of science for which things are, I think, less clear.

One is the "flu shot" model.

Now flu exists regardless of science and people will get it regardless.  No one knows what flu will strike in any given year so only an educated guess can be used to create a vaccine for the next winter's flu cycle.

Statistically it can be argued that even a bad guess as to what flu will strike might save lives even if the vaccine kills some number of recipients.

In this case victims (those that are harmed by the vaccine) have legal recourse against the maker if it harms them.

Like the earthquake model we have the "potential danger" model.

Here there are two flavors.

One is the "asteroid model" - scientists discover a large object that might impact earth but are unable to precisely calculate its path.  What do we do?

Here science has done "as much as it can" to alert us and has told us that precise knowledge is impossible to obtain.

My view is that these scientists are blameless whether the asteroid hits or not - they've done their best to make it clear that there is a potential danger of an unpredictable sort.

The second flavor is where scientists are asked to "rule" on some sort of public policy - either a specific danger as in the case of the earthquakes or on potential danger, e.g., climate change.

Here there is a specific "cost" associated with the "ruling."  In the case of the earthquake people will die depending on the ruling.  (If I rule there is danger people would flee and be saved.  If rule there is no danger people stay home and get killed.)

But the "cost" could be monetary instead of a life risk, e.g., what is the risk of building a plant near a fault line.

Again here industry and insurance play a role and the scientific advice is built into a larger "risk" model.

But the other side of this is something like "global climate change."

Here science claims there is a specific risk (and cost) associated with something.  Like the asteroid there is a claim that harm will come if "something is not done."

But there is a cost associated "doing something" and no guarantee that the risk is real.

Who bears this cost?

I think science must if it is science that puts out the risk.

For example, if "science" claims asteroid XYZ123 "will" hit the earth on December 21st, 2012 at 12:45 PM and it doesn't then the "science" must be held accountable.  If "science" claims a mere "risk" its different - others make decisions on the validity of the risk.

For too long many quasi-scientific groups from archeologists to climate scientists make claims about things based on "consensus" and not fact.

An asteroid has a trajectory which, if enough information is present, can be calculated precisely.  This is science.

If we can only guess at a trajectory (or whether CO2 is destroying the planet) this is "consensus" and not science.

But if we act as if a "consensus" is concrete science and we fail then I think science must be held accountable - which is what happened in Italy.

If I alone calculate a trajectory for an asteroid and shout "danger danger" I should be liable if the danger is not real.  Instead I should openly share my calculations.  If everyone computes the same results then it becomes a societal risk.

The reverse is also true.  If the "consensus" calculates a risk, not on mathematics but on agreement, and foists this off on society then those creating the "consensus" are responsible for it.

I guess it all comes down to objective facts and reproducibility.

An asteroid's path to hitting the earth is object and can be calculated if enough information is present.  Then the calculations are either right or wrong.  If they calculations are not certain then its not science but merely consensus.

In any case those creating the consensus should be responsible for the cost of their consensus right or wrong.

Which to me says that before you claim the "end of the world" you should be quite certain about it.

Today's science is mostly "consensus" building about things science collectively "feels are important" or are serious "social issues."

But going on TV and making claims is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  However well intentioned the claim of "fire" might be there is still a cost to those in the theater if the one shouting "fire" is wrong.

Today's consensus science is given a free pass in this regard.

If we spend trillions of US dollars to stop global warming but it happens anyway will "science" step up and accept the responsibility?

These kinds of science are not "objective" and never can be - no one can know who made cave paintings or, in an open system like the earth's atmosphere, pin down objective specifics about why something is the way that it is.

As long as "'science" has no responsibility we cannot take it seriously.

Vitamins: Live Long or Die Young?

What a surprise.

It turns out that vitamins have an effect in cancer (both pre- and post-) in men (see MedPageToday and WSJ).

According to the WSJ "multivitamin Centrum Silver had an 8% reduction in risk of developing cancer compared with those taking a placebo."  The men in the study were followed for approximately 11.2 years.

According to MedpageToday "men with a history of cancer appeared to derive even more benefit from the multivitamin, as they had a 27% lower cancer rate compared with placebo-treated men with a history of cancer."

Interesting that this goes along with one of my earliest posts "Contrary Thoughts on Health" from 2005.

The key issue is that exercise alone depletes your body of vitamins.

If you don't replace them then there is little point to the exercise.

These studies seem to indicate that vitamins can have a significant effect on cancer.  Note too that this is a multivitamin (Centrum Silver).

There have been many tests of the individual vitamin components in this vitamin but they do not show the same results - only the combination seems to work.

As far as I can see this study is quite remarkable.

I know of no other pill that has the known effect of reducing the rate of cancer.

Note that a good multivitamin cuts the rate of cancer, not the risk.

Now of course there could be other elements as well that people are doing, e.g., exercise, other dietary elements, and so on.

But whatever is going on a 27% rate cut in cancer is significant.

So one would expect medical science to say, "hey, this is important!"  But you can bet they won't.  The reason why is simple: money.  A bottle of Centrum Silver costs about $18 USD at Walmart for 180 pills - maybe $36 USD a year - for a 8% reduction in the risk of cancer (if you've never had it) and a 27% rate cut for those that have had it.

$36 USD a year.

So if vitamins affect cancer is it genetic?

It would seem that, at least directly, its not.  Otherwise how would the vitamins work since they don't affect genetics.

On the other hand there those that say all this is total hogwash: see this.

Vitamin usage is killing people according to this interpretation of the study.

I don't think science has any clue why some people live longer than others - some are healthier than others and so on.

On the other hand, if this study is true, there would be far less need for "big pharma" solutions - little wonder they pooh pooh it as wrong.

Why "Self Esteem" is a Killer: Dumb-ageddon

What if its the educator that's actually deficient?

A little over a month ago I wrote about "Education, Software and Agile Failure."

At the top of the article I supplied an example problem with Apples, Grapes, etc. that required the items to be placed "in order."

I then showed how there were multiple ways to consider the items ordered.

This story came from one of my grandchildren.

The poor child was, early on, "labeled" by the school as "struggling."

Now in today's educational system regardless of your level of intelligence "struggling" means that you are unable to do the work "as prescribed by the teacher."

So, as was the case of the "in order" problem if you understanding of how to display your answer differed from everyone else, even though you had a firm grasp on putting things "in order" you were a failure.

This failure model was compounded because once modern "teachers" discover that you are completely failing to provide the correct answer or show the work in the proper sequence you fall out of the normal educational order.

After all, its too much work for a teacher to figure out what you are doing wrong and work with you to correct it.

Once you are labeled as a "struggling child" the school brings in all sorts of "resources" - school psychologists, special ed teachers, and so on because there is more money in this than simply getting the teacher to work through the understanding issues with the child.

I always thought the idea of being a "teacher" was to solve exactly this kind of problem.

Instead today the solution, which the child's parents where emphatically told was that the child simply needed "self esteem."

"Self esteem," according to Wikipedia, is "overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth."

In this case the child was depressed and miserable.

The teachers gave the child repeated messages, to the contrary of what her parents told her, that her parents were "disappointed" in her work.

From the child's point of view she was providing correct answers, albeit in a form different from what the adults were asking for, but correct none-the-less.

So I imagine the child felt she was living in some sort of "dumb-ageddon" - crouching under an old blanket, living in fear of providing any answers.

She spent four years there.

When the break-through I wrote about a month ago happened the entire world of "dumb-ageddon" was washed away.  (Dumb-ageddon is the place where everyone seems to you to be stupid and unable to understand what you say or do even though what you are saying or doing is right or correct.  So you live by hiding yourself - a la Jurrasic Park - were the stupid (or dinosaurs) cannot find you.)

The child is now happy, works hard, and is accelerating her learning to the point where she will be caught up in short order.

The key, of course, was that her mother discovered that the child could be "right" but merely reporting the results incorrectly.  Far different than not understanding the problem.

The lack of concise direction being the fault of the school, not the child.

So we, as parents, kept encouraging our daughter, the child's parent, to not give up and work hard to help her (the child) as best she could.

And it paid off.

I predict the child will be on her own and caught up very shortly.

From the school's perspective the solution was "self esteem."

"If you simply give the child better self esteem she'll do better in school," they told my daughter.

They, of course, had a collection of "experts" to assist in this.

So the child knows that the answers she creates are "correct" but does not understand why the adults in the school don't see it that way.  (In math she simply wrote down correct answers without showing work - she could not explain how she got the right answer - but she did - so it was marked "wrong" without shown work.)

The child is struggling and depressed.

And the school's answer is to make the child feel better about herself - "say that's a good job even when its wrong."

Basically "feel good because you're stupid."

Now in basically no other societal endeavor do we this:  "Oh doctor, you tried to operate on the right arm but you operated on the left - good job!"  "Oh, you tried to turn the corner in the car but you missed and killed a bus full of kids - great try!"

So the concept that "self esteem" will solve a communication problem is beyond sad.

College educated "teachers" who push this moronic shit instead of teaching.

At the recent open house the teachers expressed shock that the child's "self esteem" had so dramatically improved.  But beyond this they said very, very little.

In my last few posts about voting you can see the impact this type of "education" has on people.

It makes them stupid and unable to cope with reality.  They simply crave boosts to their "self esteem" and care about nothing else.

Creating "Dumb-ageddon..."

In reality once the kid saw that someone was willing to figure out and understand the issues she was happy - she works hard now in school.

The high "self esteem" comes from success.

If the child was truly challenged then still self esteem would only come when the child had done her best.

But to label a smart child as "challenged and needed more self esteem" when in fact the teachers failed to understand that there was more than one "right answer" is beyond sad.

(NOTE: There was other evidence for the "educational establishment as well.  Erratic standardized test scores - very poor in a number of subjects, near gifted in others.  Always a sign of miscommunication.)

The "poster" at the top of this article is a nice display of the symptom of all this.

Virtually every child can contribute to society.  Its up to society to discover the gifts each child has - not the child to fulfill the society's fantasy about being a "conforming educational star."

To the teachers:  Your books full of stupid formulaic educational steps are garbage.  This is especially true when you cannot perceive the someone could solve the problem by going outside these steps.

Your job is to educate - not simply ape problem solving steps that are the only way you, yourself, can hope to find the answer.

Education of those smarter or brighter than yourself is hard work - something clearly our educational system is not up to.

Much better to get them all dumbed down into "Dumb-ageddon" where everyone has a lot of self esteem about being stupid.

Ultimately this is what they wanted my granddaughter to accept: having high self esteem about being dumb.

Thanks US educational system - its why I can't hire what you produce...

The Ignorance of One....

This quote really says it all....

Yesterday I posted a link to a Jimmy Kimmel video interviewing people who talked about the election as if it happened the night before it actually did.

This is not the only example of outrageous voter irresponsibility.

For example, a while back Howard Stern posted these interviews with black voters.

Bill Maher did interviews with poor white Mississippi voters as well.

Then there are these interviews with "Obama voters."

What's troubling in each case are those people who have zero knowledge of our political system.

How is it that they are "voting?"

Voting involves making an informed "choice" between multiple people in an election.

If you don't know what those people stand for or what office they are running for how can you in good conscience"vote?"

The answer is you can't.

You can guess - like a multiple choice question which you know nothing about.

And while you are, by the constitution entitled to simply guess in the voting booth you really have to ask yourself if that's a good think for all the other voters out there who are informed.

Does guessing in the voting booth really mean exercising your rights?

Or is it diminishing the value of all the rest of the votes?

You can be told who to pick - as is the case where someone who is otherwise apolitical acts based on encouragement from others looking to influence them.

This is even worse.

The person who votes for someone because someone else tells him to is further diminishing the value of a vote.

If I find someone weak-minded and cajole them into, say giving me money or sex, I would be considered taking "advantage" of that person.

But somehow cajoling a weak-minded person to vote for who you think they should is considered noble.

Further, by telling someone who to vote for rather than giving them facts in order that they can make their own, informed decision, is an even more basic violation - its true deception.


You can vote your own personal best interest - picking someone who will do good for you as opposed to good for all.

This is the saddest case of all: steering society toward the goal of "you" - not your children, not your elderly parents or neighbors, not anyone else but you.

This is simply selfish and wrong.

When the US Constitution was written only "stakeholders" in society could vote - those with land.  As time went on (say by 1850 or so) most white men could vote (though many states allowed blacks to vote as well).

Today anyone can vote - including dead people.

The videos above show what kind of "stake holders" our society values today.

People should ask themselves this:  Would I check random boxes off on my tax return or make random answers (or answers someone gives me) at a drivers test?

If the answer is no then you might want to consider becoming more informed when voting.

Its little wonder our debt is 100% of our GDP and we are falling on hard times.

By The Way...

Here is video asking how the debate on 10/16 went shot 4 hours before the debate happened.




It's little wonder our country is in the shape its in.

One Thing You Didn't See in the Debate Last Night

The US Postal service has a secret.

They need to borrow $800 million US dollars each month to continue operating (see this).

The Postal Service's last quarter ending June 30, 2012 saw a loss of $5.2 billion USD.

Their $15 billion US dollar "credit limit" at the US Treasury is exhausted (they had to borrow the $800 million a month from this to continue to "operate.")

According to the linked article this exhausted credit limit does not include the recently missed $11.1 billion in retiree payments not made in the last few months either.

Mail volume is declining.

I notice that our "junk mail" volume is on a significant decline again.  There's at least one day a week where I receive no mail at all (not that I am a big user but we get a lot of work- and catalog-related mail).

Fewer advertisements.

Even the state department of revenue has taken to use the phone to set up audits.

So here we have a quasi-government agency totally out of control with spending and debt.

Totally.

No one at the helm can do a thing about it apparently - or they don't have the balls or the will.

If the USPS were a train it would be out of control, full of nuclear waste, running at full speed, heading for downtown Chicago.

At the bottom of the USPS website it says that the USPS is a "self-supporting government enterprise."

This must be the new, government-based concept of "self supporting."

Ultimately the USPS cannot survive as it is.

No one below about 65 (or maybe 75) in age writes letters anymore.  Junk mail has converted to pop-up browser and web ads.  Newspapers are either on-line or out of business.  There is still a large newspaper-style add business via the USPS, at least in my area, but how long can this last?

One thing, though, the USPS will have for the next hundred years is more retirees than it can pay for.

No one thinks about the fact that the USPS will now be $25 billion in debt and have only declining business (one which got it into debt in the first place) to supposedly cover the debt.

If it can't cover the debt today how will it in the future with even less revenue?

No one in government has an answer for this.

One of the big problems with government is that there is no accountability.

Sure, at a very low level there is.  As a government employee you could be fired (at least theoretically for theft, etc.)  But most or all government jobs remove the personal responsibility from what goes on.  Run your agency into the ground or spend lavishly on expensive parties - maybe you get caught, fired or disciplined.  Maybe not - because the GAO is run by your coworkers and no one likes to dump on their coworkers.

So as the USPS runs aground there won't be, as there was with the Italian cruise ship disaster a while back, any sort of "trial' to find and punish the guilty because in government no one is every guilty of making a bad decision.

No one is ever held accountable.

Unlike evil business where shareholders, banks, customers and all the rest can inflict punishment, or worse yet, invoke the government to address wrong.

The real problem is that there simply is no accountability in government for cost.

No responsibility what-so-ever for financial accountability.

Unlike business.

I've often heard that in government if you made individuals personally responsible for what they did then no one would want a job in the government.

What a surprise!

Take a job making $60,000 USD a year at company A) where you can get fired for making bad decisions or company B) where making a bad decision isn't an issue for you pesonally.

This is such a systemic problem that its unlikely the US as a country, at least the way we know it today, will survive.

The USPS is just the canary in the coal mine as far as the US budget is concerned.

I think we had all better wake up, and soon...

Drug Mules or Drug Decoys?

So the other day I was watching one of these "drug" programs.

This particular one was about JFK US Customs folks who handle drug mules that come off of international flights.

The MO is pretty simple:  Stand around looking for nervous people.  When you find one start questioning them until their story becomes the slightest bit inconsistent.  When it does, search heavily until you find drugs spending a lot of time trying to get the mule not to "lie."  Finally they get shipped off to jail (because each mule usually carries enough illegal drugs to warrant a serious offense).

All this is pretty unremarkable.

That is, until you think about the larger picture.

For each mule there are several folks that "work" on them.  A "boss," various underlings, good cop, bad cop, somebody to check the passports and paper work, computers to check finger prints, walking them from room to room, calling on the phone to verify information, and on and on.

So one "mule" takes up an hour or two of the time of, say, four people, in searching, interviewing, processing, etc.

About 23 million people go through JFK each year according to Wikipedia - that's 65,000 a day so figure about 22,000 are inbound.  JFK is largely an international airport so a significant percentage of these in-bound passengers would be from foreign countries.

What's interesting is the amount of man power and resources spent on the "mules."

None are sent back home to where they came from - virtually all become part of the US on arrival, albeit in jail, but part of the US non-the-less.

All the drugs collected are collected for evidence.

If you collect the person for jail you need evidence to convict them.

Interestingly, in the process of questioning these "mules" phone calls are made to local US folks to ask questions: "is so-and-so your brother-in-law?"  "did you know so-and-so was returning to the US today."  And so on...

What is striking is how inefficient this all is - and no doubt expensive.

Obviously on the inbound side these mules have little trouble getting onto the planes.

Wouldn't it be far simpler to simply confiscate the drugs and put them back onto a plane for where ever they came from?

Instead we let them "touch down" on US soil so all the rules fall into their favor.

Most seem pretty dumb.  They provide completely nonsensical stories about visiting random relatives for silly reasons.  Most use false id's so no one really knows who they are.

It almost seems like a completely well thought out system.

Push X number of dumb mules through each day - the dumb ones will get weeded out and put into US jails - burdening an already overworked US customs system.

The dumb ones seem also to serve as a distraction.  If it takes five customs guys to deal with one dumb one then maybe other, smarter ones, are simply passing on through unnoticed.

Maybe we should be rethinking the big picture on all this...

New World Free Fall Record

Felix Baumgartner fell 24.2 miles before landing safely on earth (NY Times story here).

Video link below:


Used to be people in the US did this sort of thing - now they just come here (Felix is from Austria) to do it...

How sad.

The previous record holder Joe Kittinger, a USAF Captain, had held the record since 1960.

The Sum of the Parts = Zero

A little over a year ago the Wolf household acquired a new refrigerator.  It was a fairly large and fancy one from the local Sears store.

It replaced one which was failing.  The previous one was purchased from a chain store that had subsequently went out of business.

At the time of purchase we received the usual pitch about the extended warranty.

Now normally I am not a fan of these for several reasons:

1) They are expensive.

2) Why doesn't the company stand behind its product?

3) They are often a hassle to utilize.

However, this was an expensive purchase and so I thought - why not - something always breaks after the one year warranty expires.

I signed on for several years.

Sure enough almost to the day one year after the manufacturer's one warranty expired the icemaker stopped making ice.

We awoke to a small pool of water on the floor an no ice.

So we contacted the Sears repair service and scheduled a call.

Sadly this took about ten days of lead time - it would have been a serious problem had we had some sort of catastrophic failure of the freezer.

In the mean time an unordered UPS package arrived addressed to me.  I hadn't ordered anything so I opened up the box.

Inside was an I suppose brand new icemaker.

Hmmm....

Finally the day of the repair arrived and the serviceman showed up.

After thrashing around for some time he decried that the "board" had gone bad and that there was a "slow fan" inside the device.

He quickly disassembled the freezer portion and swapped in the fan which he apparently had on his truck.

He then scheduled a second call in about ten more days to have the board swapped because it was not something he had on his truck.

He closed up the fridge and as he was about to leave I asked "do you want to take the icemaker with you?"

"No," he replied.

"I don't want it and I don't want to have to send it back," I said.

"Oh, don't worry about, we don't need it, maybe you'll need it later."

And he left me standing there with the now unneeded brand new icemaker.

Over the course of the next ten days two more boxes show up.

A "board"

and some sort of panel for holding fans.

The next guy shows up, asks for the board, pulls out the fridge, swaps in the new board and declares the fridge fixed - all in about five minutes.

"What about the old board and this other stuff?" I ask.

"Oh, we don't want it..." he replies.

And leaves us with all this "stuff."

Hmmm...

This stuff can't be worth the cost of driving it back to the repair depot - perhaps a few dollars.

Yet the icemaker and board are significant critical parts of the fridge.  The only other major element (besides the fans) being the compressor.

So what does this say about the actual cost of the fridge.

Its probably very, very low - I'd say sevearl hundred dollars based on the "throw away" value of these items.

My guess is that when they built the fridge they also built a fixed amount of "replacement" devices like the icemaker and board.

Early in the life of these devices they just swap them willy-nilly as needed because they are freely available.  The "bad" parts are actually flawed and can never be fixed (or would be too expensive to fix) so they don't want them back.

As the device ages the good replacement parts pool will become more shrink and once they run out you'll have to buy a new fridge rather than get it fixed cause it won't be possible to swap parts until it works.

This also says the cost of labor, shipping, and the items (boards, etc.) are far outweighed by the device itself.

The repairman is merely a part swapper who substitutes one valueless part for another.

My guess is the real business model is this:

Build a product - if its faulty you don't worry so long as the average burn in time to first failure is a few days more than a year.

You then build devices.  As you discover additional design flaws you build up a supply of better spare parts.

You sell the devices to unwitting consumers.  If they buy warranties they get the better parts under warranty and their device works longer.

The poor shlubs without warranties (or only the "factory" warranty) get crappy "first run" parts and are burned.

The parts in the device are basically worth nothing - so what's the device worth if its component parts are worthless?

Nothing.

Now I will end up storing these things should the need to use them arise again.  So that will cost me time and money.

So actually the parts are worth less than nothing - they have negative value.

USPS: Live Strong = Live Wrong

"I never failed a drug test" - chant this to keep Tink alive!

I am saddened to see the continuing aftermath of the USPS Cycling Team lead by Lance Armstrong.

The USADA reports in detail how not only did riders use banded substances and practices but also coordinated their use at the team and cross-team level.  (The report, affidavits, and complete details are available at the USADA site.)

At first I am sure many believed Armstrong was merely a "target" because of his success.  I was never a fan but I believe that he should not be treated unfairly.

As this unwinds however, with some dozen statements by various witnesses it would seem that there is little doubt Armstrong at absolute best knew what was wrong and did nothing.

What's interesting is that Armstrong's statements to the effect of "never having failed a drug test" remain true.

Unfortunately it would appear that he ran an organization which in many cases conducted active efforts to ensure that this was always the case, e.g., being injected with saline solutions 20 minutes prior to a test to dilute banned substances sufficiently so the test would be successful.

There's a long and sorry trail of money, affidavits, soigneurs (team assistants), payments, texts, Italian doctors, and so forth that corroborate this state of affairs in excruciating detail.

What sort of message does all this send?

I guess it says, hey win winning means everything we'll cheat right along with everyone else.

Success is no longer built on character and Lance Armstrong and the USPS team are no exception.

In the 1970's, as I have written before, the "GDR" (East German) women's swimming team did the same thing - doped.  The US women could not beat them and, instead of doping as well (as far as I know) rode things out until the dopers were removed from the sport.

But things are much, much different today.

There are no longer "amateurs" in sports - only "soon-to-be professionals" who will stop at no cost to win.

"For evil to triumph its only necessary for good men to do nothing."

This quote pretty much covers it for this topic.

Its sad that our world has come to this and no doubt the cost of funding the USADA comes ultimately from honest tax payers pockets.

I suppose that Lance Armstrong and the USPS team are now just a small footnote in the giant US Treasury debt.

Lance Armstrong himself must still believe in Tinkerbell (to keep things going you just keep chanting "I never failed a drug test...").

This is another example where morality would keep things on the right track.

Its simply immoral to win by cheating - regardless of whether or not you get caught.

And while its human nature to be lured into situations such as the one described in the affidavits where the USPS cyclists are repeatedly beaten by other doping teams its what you choose to do about it that matter.

Entropic Cheese: Space Suits and Software Upgade Hell

(This post is REQUIRED reading for software and graphic professionals.)

Like any software professional I am sure that I spend too much time making things "work" as far as "upgrades" are concerned.

iOS and Mac OS X in particular have problems with critical software, e.g., XCode, Adobe products, and so on that are required for day-to-day making a living that conflict with "the latest OS."

The short movie below (note: lots of foul British language) is on person's answer to the misery of upgrading Apple's Final Cut software.

"Kernel Panic" is about what happens when you take the joy of automatic software upgrades, required "feature" upgrades, hardware and software compatibility, and so into the future.

Now this video is set in a time when space travel is common - but really - you have to ask yourself how different this all is from, say a laptop, car, or home entertainment system?

And what about a medical system?

Imagine this same scenario in, say, an emergency room or surgery...

Like everything else humanity is ceding is control in the realm of technology over to various vendors whose only job is to retain you as a customer.

Apple and Final Cut Pro, a professional movie platform, is what this scenario was based on.

As a Apple Logic user I am sure I face the same perils.

You make an investment in time and money over multiple years in a particular software platform only to have it yanked out from under you by the latest OS upgrade.

Its not hard to imagine a day in the not-to-distant future when your Tesla or other hybrid vehicle refuses to start or leave the house without the same level of nonsense as described in this video.  Or perhaps the new fridge or washing machine will simply decide its working conditions no longer warrant its operation without an upgrade.

This is not the first time a video has addressed the notion of humans fighting with technology.

Here's another clip from the 1974 movie called "Dark Star:"

The "bomb" which is about to detonate and destroy the humans in the "Dark Star" spaceship is talked through a philosophical argument by a crew member.  Basically the crew member convinces the bomb that its "sensory input" (the bomb is an intelligent device) may be flawed and there the "detonation order" it received could be false.

Again, even in 1974, it was clear that at least some could see where technology is taking us.

Fortunately or unfortunately for the "Dark Star" the "bomb" at least did not require a "paid upgrade" to reach the point of giving the situation "further thought."

Free software is little better.

Personally I have found that free software is never really free except perhaps when its very old and basically no longer interesting.

When its new its constantly under "change" by the "contributors" who seem to care little about what it does save for their own interests - which is just fine.

After all, they wrote it and they use it.  If I happen to use it as well I should expect nothing less.

Something like FireFox or Apache, though, over time morph into "standards" where the entrenched user base becomes so large it begins to slow and ultimately stalls the development.  Basically users see no need for further changes and so change becomes limited.  Sometimes products stall and sometimes they are simply "branched" into a new and different version.

The bottom line is that eventually the inertia of "new releases" is going to slow down Apple, for example.

Incremental improvement (as well as the business of charging for it) works only so long before people realize that upgrades are being released merely for upgrade's sake.

Lion to me is really the first sign of this failure as I have mentioned before.  Mountain Lion is more of a bad thing.  Both forced me to upgrade a number of software components needlessly.  (And while I understand the need for a company to charge for something like a CS upgrade to match this simply compounds the problem).

From a graphic arts perspective these new upgrades off me very little of value.  I don't need the incremental features they offer and even finding about about them and using them is a pain.

So from what I can see we are reaching the inertia point on Apple OS X.

I don't see iOS as too far behind: Now the changes are to make the devices more acceptable to different user demographics - bigger or smaller screens for example.

Take the demise of the 17" MacBook Pro as a good example.  The more skilled you become the more you can do and the less like everyone else you are.  I can do wonders with multitasking and 17" of display - but I am no longer the norm.

(Think of it this way: I need the highest bandwidth between the device and my brain to be my best.  The new, smaller "retina" displays attempt to do this - but the pixels are smaller than the 17" so while the letter "s" might be sharper this does nothing to improve the bandwidth between the display and my brain.  My eyes (old as they are) and brain can distinguish the letters of the English alphabet just fine.   I need to be able to see literally the "bigger picture" to layout my work.)

The norm today is some youngster watching videos in the coffee shop when he should be working - a smaller, lighter device makes this sort of loafing convenient and free from the physical activity of carrying things about.

We'll see where the inertia of Apple, for example, takes us.

How for is the next Apple or FireFox upgrade from "Entropic Cheese?"

Contrast this with the HAL 9000 of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame.   He kills because conflicts in his design fail to resolve his need to have his mission succeed versus the need for humans to be kept alive.

We should be so lucky.

I expect a "Kernel Panic" soon.

Really "Looking" at Statistics

I have written here about many things related to the countries finances.  Its important for people to be able to visualize these things.

Often there is no means to visualize complex things.  Or, if there, is, we have to know if its an accurate visualization.

I cannot speak to the accuracy of the links below but I can to the nature of how they convey the data the purport to represent.

To start, take a look at this (use the link at the left, not the image).

I provides a visualization of how healthcare has been paid for for the last fifty years.

Here (link left, not image below) is an example of men vs. women in terms of color preferences and names.

I find it interesting that males seem to prefer simple colors and color names, e.g., red and blue, versus the choices of women, e.g., "dusky rose."

In December of 2009 NPR's "All Things Considered" did a segment on why music sounds "worse" today.  One reason is that its mixed to be "louder."  Below is a visualization of this:

Then there is the history of man on earth (from www.flowingdata.com):

What's interesting to me is how little physical data we have (in terms of fossils, etc.) related to our past.  The vast majority of the earth's history is truly unknown to us yet we infer a tremendous amount from very, very little data relative to the whole.

And finally - here's a guy name Noah whose taken a photo of himself every day for 12 1/2 years.  He's turned it into a video:

Like the "earth clock" above the video we can tell a lot about Noah from the 1-2 seconds he takes each day to snap a picture of himself.

But what can we really know and what does the video really tell us about his life?

You an see various things at different points in the video but what do they mean?

Like science studying the history of the earth we can study the history of Noah - in snapshots of a second or so per day.

I wonder how accurate our inferences would be relative to what actually was happening in his life?

The image Blogger shows me of the video (when stopped) is Noah wearing what looks like a heavy coat?

Can I infer its cold when this picture is taken?

And so on...