You are currently browsing the Detailed Balance weblog archives for September, 2008.
Monday, 29 September 2008 by bbbeard.
… said Elon Musk, deservedly ecstatic over the successful launch of SpaceX Falcon I Flight 4. A previous post here detailed the sorrows of Flights 1-3. Congratulations to the SpaceX team for a great effort!
Posted in Space | Print | 1 Comment »
Thursday, 25 September 2008 by bbbeard.
Enough politics. Some NASA guys have found some peculiar, really large regions in the early universe that appear to be receding. The hook is that whatever is pulling on them appears to be farther away than the edge of the observable universe. Dr. Alexander Kashlinsky has dubbed this phenomenon ‘dark flow’, heedless of political correctness in our current season of electoral insanity.
I may be getting ahead of things, but it seems to me that Alan Guth must find this good news. If confirmed, this discovery is another nail in the coffin of old-Big-Bang (i.e. non-inflationary) cosmology. The only way something beyond the backward light-cone could exist is if the universe had some period of superluminal expansion.
I might as well use this post to address a recent query from CVM regarding the musings of Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT. Dr. Tegmark is a proponent of the idea of parallel universes. I read his article in SciAm back in 2003. I have to say (1) I’m probably not competent to peer-review his technical papers, but (2) I was not impressed by the argument of an infinite universe filled with Hubble volumes, each with the same finite state space. The discovery of dark flow illustrates this problem — our Hubble volume is not closed. In technical terms, this means that there is no infrared limit to the energy a particle can have. It has also never been obvious to me — perhaps I was asleep in 8.321 — that a finite-dimensional state space even necessarily implies a finite number of possible states. Without a finite state count, the parallel universe idea (at least in the simple “Level I” formulation that Tegmark posits) falls apart. These objections are simple enough that it seems that Tegmark would have confronted them.
Tegmark is actually a prolific and accomplished cosmologist. It is an irony of our celebrity culture that his fame is due to musings of only marginal interest to actual scientists. It’s as though Stephen Hawking were known mainly for the wheelchair… oh, wait….
Posted in Science | Print | No Comments »
Wednesday, 24 September 2008 by aurora_guy.
Several years ago I attended a gathering of satellite industry professionals hosted by MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates in Richmond, BC. In his opening remarks, company co-founder Dr. John MacDonald wanted us to understand the ramifications of what he termed the “data-information gap”which be believed limited the commercial viability of satellite remote sensing. He asserted that satellite systems were “technology-pushed” rather than “user-pulled.” He meant that new spaceborne systems had evolved primarily as a result of the interest in technology development rather than any sufficient demand from an end-user market.
Building, launching, and operating spacecraft is extraordinarily expensive. (For example, the new GEOEYE spacecraft reportedly cost over $500 million to get up.) Despite analysts’ long-held predictions of a burgeoning market for space-based imagery and other data sets, at the time of the gathering in Richmond, commercial ventures like Space Imaging had been struggling to make ends meet. The missing end-users, in Dr. MacDonald’s view, were largely decision-makers; i.e., executives and senior authorities, not scientists or GIS specialists. They had the necessary influence to make capital available for commercial space ventures of this sort. Existing satellite systems could produce terabytes of data each day, yet there were few, if any, tools to turn this data into information useful to decision-makers. This was the root of Dr. MacDonald’s data-information gap. Until the gap was narrowed considerably, commercial remote sensing from space would remain economically unviable.
The gap may indeed be narrowing. These are exciting times in the business. Secret government agencies are no longer the sole keepers of the domain. God bless Google Earth. If any one development of late has brought satellite remote sensing to the common person’s desktop, this has. I even know a fur trapper using satellite weather and photos to plan his adventures in the Alaskan bush. News organizations have been using satellite imagery regularly for several years. Humanitarian and emergency management organizations have become much more sophisticated consumers for planning and responses. Firefighters use products from NOAA, NASA, and USGS satellites to coordinate their efforts. Epidemiologists can predict disease outbreaks and spread with satellite-derived products. Community planners and developers frequently support their zoning work and business decisions using photos from space. Satellite remote sensing is even a way for ordinary citizens to keep governments honest. UCLA researchers recently published an interesting analysis using Air Force weather satellite data to conclude the troop surge in Iraq may not have contributed as much to the decrease in violence in Baghdad as ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods had done.
The gap is narrowing, but it’s far from gone. Many advancements are in the pipeline, and the evolution is bound to be quite dramatic. As an analog, consider the Global Positioning System. Not so long ago it was confined to military and government use, and now GPS technology is nearly ubiquitous. Chances are good that you even carry it around every day with a cellular phone in your pocket.
We are all part of the revolution. (Isn’t it cool to be a revolutionary?) I can’t wait to see what tomorrow brings!
Posted in Science | Print | 3 Comments »
Sunday, 21 September 2008 by aurora_guy.
I have no professional background in economics or high finance. I’m a little guy, who felt the crash coming and pulled my money out of investments some time back. I knew a bad deal when I saw it. Now I see another bad deal, a potentially catastrophic deal between Wall Street and Washington, this Corporate New Deal of the 21st Century, and there’s not a thing I can do about it.
The Administration proposes to place the Secretary of the Treasury in an extraordinary and extralegal position of authority without any responsibility whatsoever to Congress, the body constitutionally established to set laws and to authorize funds. Once again, fear and panic are used to rush through under cover of darkness a complete abdication of their responsibilities and eliminating any thread of accountability to the taxpayers. (This is the same body of government that voted several years back to make it virtually impossible for folks like me to seek debt relief by declaring bankruptcy.) We are all once again subjugated and rendered irrelevant except for our pocketbooks.
The latest Wall Street bailout concept proposes to buy up a humongous amount of bad debt using valuation methods yet to be determined and without oversight or review of any kind. Take a look at a couple of sections from the draft text:
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
…
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Concerns like mine are readily dismissed by those who are more “sophisticated” and “knowledgeable” of the universe of capital markets. “It’s too complicated for you to understand. Trust us.” I don’t need to be a PhD economist or a Democrat to grasp the idea that the bound knot of capital flow we have today arose from wild-eyed speculation and creative bookkeeping. This is Enron-nomics on a massive scale.
Treasury’s move is supposed to calm the markets and to restore confidence in the US financial system, yet there isn’t even the most tenuous suggestion of how the government will recoup a reasonable portion of the handout. For that matter, the proposed legislation doesn’t even mandate recovery of any kind.
As an investor and taxpayer, what exactly am I supposed to feel good about?
Recommended reading:
Why Paulson is Wrong
Luigi Zingales
Robert C. Mc Cormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance
University of Chicago - GSB
Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal at nakedcapitalism.com
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 10 Comments »
Wednesday, 17 September 2008 by CVM.
“Buddha noodling” is, as they say about 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, a good start. The esoteric/exoteric distinction is useful, in that this may be a notable difference between Buddhism and Christianity: as far as I can tell (please ask Mrs. Palin to clarify) essentially all Christians subscribe to the exoteric version, believing that there really is a God/Jesus/Holy Spirit-rolled-into-one-incomprehensible being in Heaven whose eye is on the sparrow and to whom one prays and who always answers prayers, though, as those who prayed for rain on Obama’s parade (or anyhow stadium) can attest, the answer is apparently often no. Indeed, the distraction of a hurricane during the Republican convention, by allowing W. to avoid showing up and facilitating McCain’s strategy of running against the Republican party, shows that God does indeed work in mysterious ways. In any case, I’m still hoping for a little clarification: what is the essential content of Buddhism?
There is a tendency, especially with Zen Buddhism, to say, if you have to ask, you just don’t get it. Mmmm, maybe we can do a little better than that. As a non-Buddhist, I would say an (if not the) essential content of Buddhism is that the way to avoid suffering is to detach oneself from desire. BBB, I look forward to your correction, especially as it may impinge on the various denominations of Buddhism.
As a model, I’ll try to indicate what is the essential content of Christianity. But first, a brief digression. Buddha was one of the key figures of the axial age. He was, as far as I can tell, a philosopher in the sense we can also call Socrates and Confucius philosophers. Jesus, on the other hand, was not at all a philosopher in that sense (though apparently W. thinks so, but enough said about that), but much more in the tradition of Old Testament Prophets. So Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius never veered into the “exoteric” tradition of elevation to divinity, whereas Jesus, for fairly obvious reasons, did. So why did Buddha become divine? OK, regarding Christianity, I have been asked to comment on the nirvana aspects thereby. So we have to start with the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament, as most Christians would call it). So there’s this God Dude (as my daughter refers to Him) who apparently created the Universe, though apparently the God Dude was in the beginning with the Word (this of course is a Hellenistic construct – go figure), which I guess is generally interpreted as the Holy Spirit (God and Jesus being, Cher-like, referred to only by one name).
One question, and not particularly the most interesting one, is what distinguishes the various Christian denominations. The short answer is, not much. The key doctrines of Christianity were formulated with some pretty spirited controversy over a period of between around 250 to 325 of the common era (how the specific texts of the Christian Bible were chosen is even more fascinating, but that’s another story). In 325 the council of Nicaea pretty much resolved (using this term loosely) most of the key Christian doctrines, in particular the doctrine of the trinity, in which Jesus (and, as an afterthought, the Holy Spirit) are exactly co-equal with God the Father in divinity. This was a big deal and has given rise to some of the fascinatingly ingenious philosophical argumentation about what exactly this means. However, as nonsensical as the concept of the trinity may be, no Christian has disagreed with it since. Similarly the doctrine of atonement (that humans are universally so evil that they deserve eternal torment as punishment, except that one human, the Man/God Jesus, was so morally perfect that his death by torture redeemed some, though mysteriously not all, bad bad humans who could thereby live lives of eternal felicity) is as far as I can tell universally accepted by all Christians. I welcome any correction to my representation of these key doctrines of Christianity.
So what’s the difference between, say, Catholics and Protestants, or Evangelicals (who comprise the base of the Republican party) vs. non-Evangelicals? As to Catholics vs. Protestants, there is surprisingly little doctrinal difference – the main differences are a matter of administration (the Pope is the Boss of Me, or not). Evangelical vs. non-E is a bigger deal – the Evangelicals believe in the literal truth of the Bible (no matter how incoherent that truth may be, e.g., two conflicting versions of the creation in the first two chapters of the Bible), which is why they are hostile to the theory of evolution (not sure how this gets translated into global warming), whereas as non-Es (including Catholics) are much more open to sensible metaphorical interpretation of Biblical text. As to the differences between the many Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) this seems to be largely a matter of how you were raised. I could tell you some doctrinal differences (there’s something about the importance of baptism early in life vs. after the age of consent, or music in liturgical services, etc.) but really, from any rational perspective these are pretty much small potatoes. Oh, and finally regarding the nirvana thing, the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell are lifted directly from Plato (specifically, the Orpheic myths quoted in the “Last Days of Socrates“) and have no referent either in the Hebrew Bible or indeed in the canonical [synoptic? – ed.] Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke – John is from another planet). It should come as no surprise that the Christian Bible was written in Greek. Interestingly Orthodox Jews and Muslims appear to have derived their view of the afterlife from the Christians, who got it from the Greeks. The key doctrine of all Christians is formulated in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. All Christians buy into this. Is there an equivalent Buddhist passage?
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 7 Comments »
Tuesday, 16 September 2008 by aurora_guy.
The pro- and anti-Palin rallies last week in Alaska were, shall I say, unimpressive; e.g., http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-85837. I admit it. We Alaskans don’t know how to rally effectively. We’re a gun-totin’, fur-topped, Carhartt’s-clad bunch of individualists — yes, even “liberals” are armed here — but by God, we can’t organize ourselves out of a phone booth with a map and an Indian guide. We’re passionate about our beliefs, we embrace our unique position in geography with great vigor, and yet we’re a bunch of bumblers when it comes to expressing ourselves as a unified body. It doesn’t matter what size the group. Our efforts are just lame. Period. So I ask, “Why?”
I think about these things on my drive to and from work. Alaska, after all, is a land of great distances, and when scanning the horizon along the endless miles of willow and birch for a 1500 lb bull moose or invading Russians, one’s mind tends to wander.
(Before going on, I should acknowledge the anti- and pro-Iraq war demonstrators, who made a regular showing for a few years even at subzero temperatures at a key intersection in Fairbanks. Their opposing displays of signage were almost quaint. God bless them, but neither group made an effective pitch to sway passersby, nor did they ever convey any sense that Alaskans were for or against the war.)
I think it’s a compound problem, actually. First of all, we all operate on bush time — not Bush time; bush, lower case. It’s hard to get any group in Alaska to show up on time for any event. Even “fast food” takes on a whole new meaning above latitude 60 degrees north. Second, we all share this reluctance to join any group that would have us as a member. Third, we’re busy. In summer months, we’re fishing to fill the freezer. September brings moose hunting season and wood chopping. In the winter, well, it’s just cold, and we have trouble starting our cars, or we’ve gone on vacation to Hawaii or Las Vegas with our Permanent Fund Dividend checks.
I would suggest to those seeking insight into Ms. Palin’s general acceptability to the Alaskan populace to avoid any inference from public demonstrations. We’re a hard-to-pin-down sort of folk, in large part because of the demands of where we live and the peculiar nature of our lifestyles and specific motivations. We are not like you Outsiders.
Besides, we only have three Electoral College votes, so what difference does it make? Make up your own minds!
Please stop calling. We’re busy getting ready for winter.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 4 Comments »
Wednesday, 10 September 2008 by bbbeard.
Okay, I formally surrender to the tide of bad news stories about too-clever-by-half Sarah Palin. As it happens, I have not one, but two, semi-close friends who live in Fairbanks, which, as we all know, is but a stone’s throw from Wasilla, at least in Google Maps terms, where it is possible to zoom out so that all of Alaska can be covered with my thumb. And after close consultation, I have decided to ignore both of them, because obviously the Palinites have gotten to them.
So, I decided to start my own list of Sarah Palin rumors.
Well, that should be enough to get Andrew Sullivan started, anyway.
UPDATE: Apparently there are members of the “intelligentsia” (irony quotes intentional) who are unable to discern satire from reality. Ace of Spades calls Matt Damon on spreading not merely false rumors but clearly labeled satire about Palin and the derangees she has spawned. Matt Damon is clearly through the looking glass and has become a part of a “really bad Disney movie” — except that he’s playing the role of the stupid, uninformed, pompous, malicious Hollywood star who tries to slander the heroine. And for those of you who think Matt Damon is actually intelligent, I gently remind you: Good Will Hunting was a work of fiction — “wicked sma’t” he ain’t.
So, for the record, this post is satire. Please include this disclaimer if you intend to copy and email these false rumors to your friends.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 6 Comments »