Where is "science" leading?

Recently a researcher at Michigan State published a paper in which he shows E. coli bacteria "evolved" the capability to survive on citrate, something the bug can't do, normally. I only place the word "evolved" in quotes to highlight where the controversy seems to be centering. (Read the comments to get a sense of what I'm talking about.) Others have also commented on this research, as well.

I also read an unrelated post by Mark Chu-Carroll wherein he points out that some fundamentalists seem to ascribe rather limited capabilities to their omni-everything deity. Curious.

I readily admit I don't know how the universe began. Sure, scientists have evidence of the Big Bang, but what about before that? How was it all created? I don't know the answer. I suspect we will never know with certainty.

And that's fine. Knowing everything about everything, all things considered, is pretty boring, unless you're the deity, or something. Don't we want there always to be something left to learn? (I do!) Wouldn't we want our creator to set the universe up this way for our benefit?

I don't care whether your views are pro or con for a creator--a deity. If you feel better thinking this whole thing was created, then that's fine. Science will never prove your idea wrong, because no amount of investigation into something unseen and undetected will reveal it. That's what faith is all about, dude. On the other hand, if you want to believe everything is accidental, one-in-a-trillion, no one is going to stop you from believing that way. Either one of you may be right; there's just no way to tell prove which one.

My personal suspicion is that the fundies are worried science will eventually disprove the creator, or something. And they'd really like to stop them from doing that. Fundies, you shouldn't worry about it.

Evolution is not evidence or proof of anything (either pro or con) having to do with the creator. I believe a qualified creator could have quite easily set up a system that would be self-monitoring and self-managing. It could all be "invented," for all that it matters. That it actually works should be wonder enough. I know scientists feel this way.

And so do I.

Programmer humor

diskseekd

And you all thought programmers had no sense of humor. This article is quite funny, and on more than one level. I can haz meta-humor?

Programmers have tremendous senses of humor. We have to, to keep from freakin' killin' the idiot project manager in the next cube. But you did not hear me say that out loud.

Seconded by the gentleman from Ohio

I know I'm shackled with golden handcuffs, but I'm getting close to the point where it may be time to stand up for a change. (Of course, I can hear you say: "Riiiight. Call me when you actually do stand up.")

But don't think I don't understand what's important. Let's start by voting for change, and keep voting for change until change actually occurs. Impeach the bastards. Throw out all those laws passed since 9/11 that cut into our rights as Americans. What did our fathers (and grandfathers and their fathers and grandfathers) die for, if not to make America's future better. We can only be the best that we can be when we have the freedom to choose. Freedom is freakin' expensive, and we've paid a lot for it. I don't want to see it end. Because freedom is important.

It's American.

And I'll bet some of you won't recognize these words. But you should. It is Time.

Lies We Tell Kids

This essay is very thought-provoking, though for some it could be very controversial. It depends on the lies we've been told that we still believe, I suppose.

I am trying to recall outright lies I was told. I can't think of very many. On many things my parents edited or simply omitted the truth, but as to saying things they knew were contrary to reality ... not so much.

When we were kids my aunt and her kids came to live with us. I didn't know why and quite frankly, at the time I didn't care why. Now I know, but I am well past childhood. I also found out a few years ago that this same aunt put a child up for adoption. Of course I never knew about this, and I would venture neither did her kids (though how that could be kept from them I cannot possibly say). There are probably other things my mother knows and has not said.

This spurs a thought: Is knowing "everything" valuable? Is it necessary? Even as a post-fifty adult, do I benefit from knowing how messy things might have been within my family?

These are just my own wonderments. Your mileage may vary.

A few years ago (well, it was ten years ago) I was dating a woman who was an acknowledged alcoholic. I have had my own experiences with drugs (marijuana, specifically) and we had some discussions about what we would tell kids about drugs and alcohol. First of all, I wouldn't just say "drugs are bad, okay?" because that's trite and does nothing to get at the reasons why. I had a substantial dilemma whether I would even say "don't do drugs" specifically because I know how little chance that instruction has of being followed. What I would say is that if you try drugs and alcohol, here are some of the things that could happen to you. (Of course, we are talking about high school age kids, here.) Drugs are very powerful, and you will discover a desire to do them and do more of them, because they are pleasurable. Not too dissimilar to sex in this regard. Fun, but if you're not careful, possibly very dangerous. (Too bad about sex being dangerous, BTW.)

To some my attitude is naive because I am not a parent. I haven't been indoctrinated into the parents' club. But I know all too well how futile it would be to tell a teenager they shouldn't smoke dope. It's bad, sure, but within certain narrow limits it can be a lot of fun, too. Would I want a child to become a doper and harm his life (perhaps irreparably)? No, but damned if I can think of a way to ward them off without also telling them the truth. I've got plenty of personal experience to relate, but then they would look at me and think "well, he still seems pretty much okay."

I wouldn't lie. Ever. I would try to tell the truth to the extent it would be understood. But of course, exactly how much truth is necessary or desired ... that's a judgment call. We all do our best, I think. It's just some of us are better at it than others.

Myers-Briggs strikes again!

This is mildly interesting, so take a look. BTW, I am an INTJ, and would be good working as a computer programmer. Gee, good thing I already did that.

I have become much less introverted as I have gotten older, though I do prefer solitary activities over group things.

I very much rely on my intuition about things. Not even sure what the "opposite" rating is about. Maybe it has to do with the fact I'm a very conceptual thinker.

My thinking vs feeling scores are fairly balanced, with thinking winning out slightly.

I tend to be quite judgmental, though it says I am fairly well balanced with perceiving.

Strange belief in the fantastic

PZ Myers blogged about this item, then it was picked up by Orac. Many others have wondered aloud--myself included--what is this fascination with the fantastic? (Sorry for the pun.)

I have blogged about the existence of "space aliens" having visited this planet, and about crop circles ("real" and otherwise), and so have others. My 76 year old mother told me a couple years ago that she believed aliens have visited earth, and while I am willing to concede their existence from the probability alone, I really don't think they're here.

Unless they just flew in with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Why I am not worried about my mother is that she's getting old, and since she has "come out" and said she has become a non-believer (that is, she doesn't believe in god), I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I rather expected her to become more religious with age, not less. That she is willing to believe in aliens but not a god is telling. I think.

I watch Ghost Hunters, Medium, and that other show, Ghost Whisperer, from time to time. All of them are nothing but (nearly) mindless entertainment, and two of the shows have female leads who are fairly easy to look at. Nuff said. What I find most interesting about Jason and Grant (the Ghost Hunters guys) is that fully half the time they don't find anything. Though honestly it should be more than half "no shows," I'm willing to admit that the show's title is "Ghost Hunters," which probably suggests they should find ghosts at least part of the time.

Though these guys have a bunch of technology and such, their approach is terribly unscientific. (If it were, they'd never find anything.) Who says EMF "fields" say that there are ghosts around? Who thinks ghosts would show up on FLIR? Why do they have to do these tests only at night and only with the lights out? Do ghosts care about these things? Why do we think they do?

All the other so-called paranormal investigation shows are so much worse. They cram 15 minutes of content into an hour. True, Ghost Hunters has a lot of interpersonal drama that could seem ... irrelevant. But who's to say what's relevant or irrelevant when all you've really got to sell is entertainment?

OK, I may be over-justifying some of my mindless TV watching habits. But I watch movies about Santa Claus and about tornadoes transporting teenage girls to fantastic places, too. There's a big difference between judging entertainment at face value, and believing all this entertainment is really real.

The question I have to ask is: How can anyone possibly believe any of this stuff is real? If this stuff was real, then there would be scientific studies showing how and why. We'd have documentaries (with clear photos) showing alien ships complete with aliens. There'd be an alien ambassador to the UN, or something.

And lastly, why does anyone think that not seeing ghosts, gods, aliens, and a true Grand Design mean this universe isn't pretty damned fantastic, anyway? I subscribe to the idea that 1) within any sufficiently complex system there will be truths unprovable within the system, and 2) this universe is much more weird and complex than we know. Or will ever know.

A Far Sun: changes

Cross-posted to my LiveJournal writing blog.

Let's see if I can summarize what's going on:

• I've been figuring out who the Librarians were/are (as a group). Determining the history of the place, the people who were there originally, and the subsequent 'history' of what happened after. The Librarians call the disease 'the Pathogen.' How nice.
• The pseudo-scientist in me ran into problems with the 300+ year time line. You had to know this was going to happen sooner or later. Even if I could delude myself into believing the Librarians could survive that very long time (317 years), many wouldn't buy my cheesy explanations.
• So I cut 200 years out. It's now 117+ years instead of 317. This actually improved my 'moon phase' problem because I had fewer days to adjust, but it does mean it will most likely be fairly cool when my heroes first show up. Not a major problem, just a reflection of my own lack of planning. Oh, well.
• I kinda like the notion that one of the following would be true: 1) either the sun-skins would want to start the planting at (or after) the first spring full moon, or 2) they would want to have their spring celebration at the (same) full moon. As it stands, the moon is almost new when they have the celebration.
• If I move everything to make the full moon line up with planting and spring festival/ celebration, then my heroes get there when it's still pretty cold. If I wait a month (well, move everything about 2 weeks forward), they won't get to the Library until summer is almost over. Perhaps that's a good thing ...

I have noticed a distinct lack of proper planning prior to writing the bulk of the story. I sorta went for it without having figured out what was going to happen and how long/when, and now much later desiring to line everything up all nice and neat. Honestly, the time line isn't all that critical except for certain events that need to line up with moon phases, like the planting/ celebration and the 'midnight battle' which logically shouldn't occur when the moon is new (or just a sliver).

I am OK with the idea that I don't do enough planning before writing. Writing is a creative right-brain endeavor that is only balanced out by left-brain rigor and structure. I did pretty good with my impulsive right brain; now it's time to place some structure and logic to the story flow. I really think by spacing out some things more it actually makes more sense. It wouldn't just be a few days here, a few days there. I think we get a much better idea of the pace and flow of sun-skin life if we really just take our time and let things meander forward. So ... maybe the full moon in May (though they don't know it as May) is when the spring celebration happens. And if we have Adam and Jane leaving the village at the full moon in July or August (instead of the full moon in June) ...

Ah, so there's another problem. They need to plan to get back to the village before winter. This means leaving the village sooner instead of later is important (now I remember why I 'rushed' this in the story!).

Argh! Pushing the story too early in the spring means cold weather and possibly snow; pushing things later mean there wouldn't be time (necessarily) to make the trip before it gets cold again. My left brain is about to asplode, now. My right brain is saying everything is OK the way it is.

Stay tuned. I'm still working this out.

Yeah, the rule of law and following our constitution are such big pains

I am almost speechless after reading this article. McCain is pandering, pure and simple.

A Far Sun: update

Word count: ~113,400
Pages: ~448

I'm three scenes into act III. I've introduced the Head Librarian, but not named him. My heroes have just crested the hill and like Dorothy looking through her open doorway, they suddenly see the Library before them. And the contrast is just about as obvious, too. In a destroyed and decaying world, the Library is an outpost of activity and order--a relative civilization.

But of course there's something wrong in paradise.

My progress is slower than I'd initially hoped. I understand it now, because I'm having to make sure everything I've said up to this point (everything that's happened and everything my characters have said) is consistent with what's now unfolding. I had to change three small scenes and identified some other changes I'd like to make, but can wait.

In case anyone wonders, this is why I like to write my stories serially--in the order things happen. Even though I know what's going to happen at the macro level, there are a million details (some quite significant) I cannot know until I've written them. Sure, I could write scenes in any order because arguably the rewriting I do (to scenes that happened earlier) isn't less than the rewriting I'd have to do (to later scenes, previously written) if I wrote things out of order, I just prefer to work this way. But now I'm to the good part, and things are gonna pick up speed. The first bunch of pages in act III are expositional (because of introducing a bunch of new characters and in some ways--a whole new world), but pretty soon things are going to get interesting.

Last night I worked through a bunch of stuff in talking with my wife during (and after) dinner. It's that left-brain--right-brain thing. I have a couple important details about the Head Librarian I need to work out, and one or two about another key character, but all in all the story is coming together nicely.

I suffer some anxiety because my "action-adventure" story has a lot of "character stuff" in it. For me the most interesting part of the writing is the characters and their relationships to (and with) each other. So I'm writing what I want, and my story is about what I want it to be about. There may be some larger things going on, but I'm telling this story from ground-level--from the human level. I am aware not everyone will want to read it, but it's still very interesting to me, so I forge ahead.

Apropos of nothing: NiN--Hurt

Listen to the song here.

"If I could start again,
A million miles away,
I would keep myself,
I would find a way,"

This is one of the saddest songs ever written. Yeah, I guess it speaks to me.

U.S. constitution is not (yet) dead

Huh. The headline of this news article could have been better selected. When you state "Supreme Court ruling cripples Guantanamo trials" it somewhat sounds like a bad thing. Turns out, it's not. Turns out even accused terrorists have rights the same as the rest of us.

Here's a quote from the article:

The Supreme Court's liberal justices were in the majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy pivotal. Writing for the court, he said: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Of course he's not the first person to say something like this. I remember I blogged some time ago about the need to keep our constitution intact especially in uncertain times. Freedom is not easy, and our freedoms are not just for the "good times" or the "easy times." They are perhaps the most critical when things are dicey.

Admittedly the 1943 Supreme Court opinion concerned compulsory recitation of the pledge of allegiance, but it touched upon the value of constitutional protections, even for unpopular ideas or unpopular people.

Whether you believe these are tough times, or not, I cannot imagine suspending any of our basic protections under law for any reason. And I still say let's try these accused terrorists as criminals, and if convicted I have no compunction about extending all due punishments to them. In the meantime, we have to treat them the same as we would treat any serial killer.

Sad thing is that the Court's liberal contingent sided together on this decision, thus giving the neocon wingnuts ammunition to bleat yet again that "liberals are killing this country," when it appears exactly the opposite is happening.

If believing in my constitutional rights makes me a liberal, then so be it.

A Far Sun update: story moving again

Cross-posted to my LiveJournal writing blog.

It's been a while since I blogged progress on my story, "A Far Sun." But now I'm moving again on the story, and I'm about 20-25 pages into act III. It's hard to estimate exactly, because I have a bunch of pages already written that aren't yet woven into the greater story, yet.

I had a lot to think about, and in the meantime I decided to invent the sun-skin language (which I have done, essentially). My heroes are fairly well beat up at the end of act II. In good story structure, they're supposed to be in big trouble, and of course they are. Act II is supposed to end at the lowest point for the heroes. Tied up as prisoners and injured is about as bad as it can get, for them. I just needed to figure out what they were going to do and how they were going to do it. And I have.

Of course they're going to continue on with where they're going. This is an action-adventure, and these are heroes. Only death can stop them (and maybe not even then). But I still wanted to have a good reason for them to be so determined. Well, that reason is pretty simple (but no spoilers at this time, however).

I have many good plot points to explore in act III. A big surprise, some smaller surprises, and a finale worthy of all the effort I've put into this story.

Global Warming: This is the basis for my position

This post puts the whole "argument" into a good, clear light. It's a problem in logic.

Whether you believe "global warming" exists, or not, the outcomes if we do nothing are arguably worse than if we begin a concerted effort to change the way we do things. Actually, if global warming exists and we do nothing, the outcome is very likely to be disastrous. If it does not exist and we implement "carbon reduction" actions, fuels replacement, etc., then we do get benefits but at the perceived loss of tax money. And this is the crux of the anti-global warming position.

They think we'll waste our precious tax dollars if we fight a problem they are sure does not exist. And not to resort to a logical fallacy myself, of course we've never done this kind of thing before, have we? (Here is where I would improperly argue that wasting tax dollars on an unnecessary war is somewhat like wasting tax dollars to "fight" a non-existent warming trend.) But in fighting global warming there would be benefits from better energy independence, though perhaps not completely offsetting the cost.

I want to propose that a fight against global warming is like buying insurance. Insurance covers you (at a fraction of the total potential cost) against losses that you simply could not afford to pay on your own. Chances are you won't ever have a catastrophe (hurricane, etc.), but if you ever do ... you'll be glad you made the investment.

And that's my point. Insurance is not a bad bet, all things considered. Think of efforts to combat global warming as insurance. Even if we're not on the brink of catastrophic climate change, if we buy our insurance, then we're covered. Oh, and don't forget that alternate energy sources might turn out to be really good things for the long run, as well, so our "insurance" pays us a dividend.

Like the space program. There's no way to say exactly how the things we do will pay off down the line. Except that in all cases, if we do nothing then there's no chance for a long-term payoff.

Let's treat global warming as if it's real (and I do believe it's very real), and let's start doing something positive

The cost of gasoline

Europeans pay much more for auto fuel than we do. About $8.70 per gallon versus the $4.00 we're paying. Actually, I saw my local fuel stop with $3.85.9 posted just this AM. On Monday when I filled my tank it was $3.99.9 per gallon.

Most of the cost of a gallon (and I do know they sell it by the liter) in Europe is taxes. And taxes is something I've thought could help us. Let's tax the hell out of gasoline (a strict consumption tax) and cut income taxes for individuals, particularly at the lower end. We can fund infrastructure (can anyone say train/subway systems?) and also fund research into fuel alternatives. Other things, too many to mention.

Would such a plan be more complex to administer? Possibly. Would it help the working poor get to and from work? No. If you make too little you pay no income taxes, yet you still have to drive. And with a huge fuel tax you simply won't be able to afford it. That's the difficult thing and the reason we don't do as our friends with the funny accents do.

Why can Europe do this? Well, for one thing they've done a much better job of providing public transportation over time, while we've built up our good-old American road system. We opted to give everyone a car (so to speak) while in Paris, for example, everyone takes the Metro. Besides, only the relatively wealthy Europeans had cars in the beginning (that is, when cars were "new"), and for the most part it's stayed that way. Except that the European middle class has come along and adopted more American methods and standards.

I still think we need to tax gasoline more heavily. We absolutely must do something to create the incentive to change, which, sad to say, is still lacking even in our present situation. I saw an article recently that said consumption is only down 0.6% between gas costing $3.00 and the present $4.00 level. So people aren't using less fuel, even with the price increase. So, I conclude it's not high enough. Let's see where it really starts to change behavior, because until it gets to that point (and do you really want the big oil companies and the sheiks to get all that money?) we won't see real change.

And of course, real change is what we need.

Cool Cassini pictures of Saturn and her moons

Check out these pictures! What can I say except: "desktop background".

Ironical photo of the day

Mr. Orwell would be proud. (Look closely at the picture.)


Or something like that.

Coolest astronomical picture you'll see today

Today's (June 4, 2008) NASA Picture of the Day:


The two tracks are the ISS (International Space Station) and the Space Shuttle Discovery.

Pretty cool, if you ask me.

The Vaccine Controversy

I ran across this post that quotes a very lengthy anti-vaccine email. The argument is that too many vaccines are given and that they are harming our children.

Let's review. Remember polio? Tuberculosis? Smallpox? Today, do we even know anyone who has had these diseases? Here are some links to articles discussing these public health issues. The last article mentions that smallpox has been totally wiped out--except of course for the really nasty strains being kept in various military arsenals for just the right moment ... but I digress.

I have a smallpox vaccine. I was vaccinated for tuberculosis when I was in high school. I remember getting a polio vaccine (Salk or Sabine--I don't remember) when I was a small child. I remember hundreds of people lining up to drink a little paper cup of water with some polio "bugs" in it.

Polio in particular was really serious prior to commercially viable vaccines being made available. The public health cost was enormous. Tuberculosis, too. There used to be huge sanitariums where the infected went to die. The cost in lives and lost productivity was monstrous.

What's my point? A few people contracted polio after being given the vaccine. Same for TB. I can't say that for smallpox, but it's possible. But it's a question of the cost (yes, the cost in lives and productivity) of giving the vaccine versus letting the diseases run their course in the population. Who would ever argue that getting a disease was preferable to preventing it? Especially since we are very well aware of what these things cost us.

Yes, there is a small risk that some children might get sick. Personally, I'd hate to think a child in my family (like my one-year-old grandson) would get a nasty disease from one of his vaccinations. But do I think vaccines should be stopped? Why would I want him exposed to the risks of any of these dangerous diseases when they can be prevented, and when the risks of him actually getting sick from the vaccines is so small?

Let's keep our eyes on the bigger picture here, folks. It sucks to have a sick child, and if your child got sick because of the 0.1% chance (or whatever it is) as a result of a vaccination, know that I am sympathetic to your pain. But better that one child than the 1,000 other children (and perhaps yours, as well!) that would have contracted the disease "in the wild."

Aliens in Colorado?

Hooboy! This is something more than a little interesting. Interesting? Why? Well ... it's something that seems to be really bringing out the loonies and the crunchy ones. But first, a disclaimer:

I do not know if intelligent alien life exists. I suspect that if it does, then "they" (the aliens) almost certainly have not visited the earth, mainly because of the truly unfathomable distances present in our galaxy. Of course, I've been told that distance means nothing, so I could be wrong ...

I have to invoke my standard argument when people start making statements along the line of "it's too complex (or whatever) to have been made by man". This statement is quite commonly made about the so-called "real" crop circles. See, because there are lots of examples of "fake" ones being made by bored engineering (or computer science, or just about any other) students just to get mentioned in the local newspaper. Quite complex (and convincing) crop circles, too.

Others have blogged about this "genuine" alien video, much more thoroughly than I am about to do. What really blows my mind is that some clever folk actually made a hoax video (and are claiming it a hoax, as well) that's better than the original. Go figure. And some nutjobs are touting the hoax as genuine. Yep. Them's painted-on zebra stripes, they is. But they shore do look real!

Orac at ScienceBlogs really deconstructs the alien video, wondering aloud why in this age of 10 megapixel, digitial, image-stabilized, high-speed, etc., etc., camera and video equipment we can't seem to get a single good freakin' clear alien picture? Indeed. I wonder this very thing nearly every day. And I ain't got no good answers, either.

Except, of course, that there are some women you might take home after a night of drinking who in the morning will have you amazed at the efficacy of your beer goggles. What's my point? That there are some things you really don't want to see too damned clearly. Especially if you really, really want to believe.

The truth is out there. And it's a whole lot stranger than what you think it is.