Sunday, June 29, 2008

Managed Fusion Power

The wild and free Sun, our local deep space campfire, is powered by condensed hydrogen atoms that as they get mashed by gravity, they heat up and merge (or fuse) to form Helium atoms.



This process releases a photon each time.

All that Hydrogen, which was really about all there was before the Universe condensed into stars, galaxies etc., creates a lot of energy and light as it fuses into Helium. The Sun is also, to use a scientific description, frikken huge. Its diameter is 68+ times that of the earth. So the way we get our life sustaining energy is from a big wild roiling explosive ball of nulear fusion.

The Sun is an entirely unmanaged resource. Or it seems about as well managed as an energy source as a BP Texas oil refinery. So much of the energy of the Sun just jets into space in random explosions.

It would be amazing if we could use Hydrogen to make a star that was carefully managed from the start. It could be steadily fueled and waste products somehow safely purged. We could maybe even design a star to live far longer that our Sun.

Our star, SOL, is among the longer lived star types. Some are so massive that they explode and die far sooner compared to other stars. The solar sphere is so vast and yet only a comparatively small bit of that energy strikes the Earth. A carefully designed, planned and managed star could be a stable reliable source of energy for many worlds for billions more years than the 5 billion our star will burn.

The work of replicating the Sun's energy system is in progress in the study of Fusion reactors

We need the supernovas and red giants of the universe to manufacture elements of higher atomic number in their violent death throes.

It just seems to me that if the Sun were an engine, that has a lot of torque but randomly backfires and blows seals, we'd see it as needing design improvements.

Not that I am complaining about my current solar-powered existence.

=sw

Friday, June 20, 2008

Killer Cover

I can trust the Killers with Joy Division covers. That is saying a lot. They made it "poptastic" as Stephen Morris (Joy Division / New Order drummer) would say while keeping the feel of soldiering jangly guitars and the driving bass line. I simply love it.

It even has a nice instrumental that is really New Orderish for a Joy Division cover.



Yewchube rules...though it is in MONO...which is lame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIe3IgmdSlI

=SW

Friday, June 06, 2008

South Carolina's Jesus License Plate Wish

I seem to address a lot of religious topics for a non-believer, but some things just raise my alarms.

Why can South Carolina have Nascar license plates, Or school plates like this:



And foundation plates likes this:



But not a Christianity plate? Surely Jesus is as valid a thing to put on ones plates as a Nascar icon or a school!

I would say "The Problem Is..." but it is not a problem. In the United States of America we have a constitution that is the basis for our laws.

The first amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...


The license plate is a kind of government document and in America, the Constitution specifically says the government should not promote a religion. It doesn't say anything about schools, car racing, fishing...etc...etc...it mentions religion. This was done for a specific reason, because of the special concern surrounding the influence of devotion in society. The framers knew people could not be truly free if the government put its stamp of deadly authority on any religion.

So, you can't have Jesus license plates in this country! Love your country, because the same Constitution prevents someone else from foisting their religion on you.

Get a bumper sticker.

=sw

Monday, May 26, 2008

Aquaman

Since I like Smallville, and I noticed that Millar and Gough also made the Aquaman pilot and I downloaded it from iTunes. I have been putting it off though I finally got around to it.

The pilot is promising. It has the familiar witty banter between a hero and an unaware smart and verbally acute woman. In this case, Eva (Amber McDonald). She reminded me of the Lois Lane character (Erica Durance) in Smallville.

I would have thought, since Will Toale played Aquaman on Smallville that he would have been cast for the series. Instead they cast Justin Hartley, who does a good job, though he also plays Green Arrow on Smallville. That's an unfortunate dramatic problem for talented actors playing 2 roles in the same comic book universe. It's difficult not to look like yourself.

I still wonder what happened with Will Toale?

Adrianne Palicki played a searingly hot "Siren"...The writers introduce her in a way that really gives you the experience of being lured in and convinced by her. Also, the nude underwater swimming scene with Nadia (the Siren) pushes television margins. Since this is from iTunes, it may have slipped by where a broadcast would not, but with a pause button as my witness, I saw everything.

By the way, It is great to see Lou Diamond Phillips on T.V.

I like Aquaman...maybe they will bring it back. What better excuse to show lots of bikinis.

=sw

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Stuck in Belief

Today I had a conversation with some friends of mine. These are people I really like and admire.

We like the same movies and music.

However, I am a skeptical non-believer with an understanding of the perspective of faithful people since I was raised devoutly religious.

I heard someone suggest that one of the presidential candidates fit a rough description of an Anti-Christ. I said...you mean successful lawyer, married, parent, church going, Unites States Senator so and so seems like the epitome of evil in your faith? The evidence given was that this person would be charismatic.

What an out-there election tactic some preachers must be using!

This is a puzzling jamb in my opinion. Faithful, good people are stuck believing something where their own beliefs are used as proof of themselves. They discern truth and falsehood by checking whether something calls Jesus the Christ or not.

So things that agree with and support ones own faith and beliefs are the ultimate evidence of truth..even the exclusive evidence.

I had two insights recently.

One is that religion serves a valuable social purpose. It is a calling card, not a flawless one, for people who share your values. It means you can trust strangers if they profess your faith or one close enough to trust. You don't need to know much else. Also a christian? Here, take the car keys, my daughter and my wallet and go and get dinner and bring it back. Nothing will go wrong, people who profess our faith were taught like us and will act like us and not steal and not lie and not harm us.

It stems from a deep longing for social contact, a desire to be safe and a reliance on the power of social compliance.

There is a benefit to be had, I see that. Though at what cost? Reason? Common sense?

The reality is that many who profess faith are as human, flawed and prone to do evil things as every other person is. Some people who live with rational thinking as their guide can be the most compassionate, thoughtful, trustworthy and honest people. Yet anyone can make a mistake or suffer from a lapse in judgement or health or even low blood sugar.

Sometimes the searingly faithful brainwash themselves into a trance (using droning repetitive and awful religious pop music) where they are so fearful of "outside" influences that they see others in a really unfair way. I think it is sad that many so lock themselves into binding circular pseudo-reasoning that they can hardly learn to accept truth. Especially when truth is revealed by scientific consensus and not sourced from their only allowable trusted sources.

My other insight was almost off topic, though it relates. I realized things aren't always what you think they are the first time around.



That is the flag of Pakistan, which contains a common Islamic symbol of a crescent with a star in front of it.

I know what the symbol means on one level...it is associated with Islam or Muslims. I have puzzled, being a fan of Astronomy, what it symbolizes. It couldn't be the Moon, there are no stars between the Earth and Moon, obviously. So how can a star shine through a planet? Then I thought it could symbolize Jupiter, with one of its sunlit moons transiting in our line of site and reflecting some light back to us, like Venus appears star-like in the morning.

Then I thought it could represent the Fertile Crescent region of the world. The star could roughly approximate Mecca, if the Crescent shape were rotated and positioned so it matched the shape of the Fertile Crescent running from along the Nile Egypt up around Lebanon, Syria, maybe parts of Turkey and along through Northern Iraq and down in following the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys. Maybe there is a Muslim who knows.

=SW

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Intelligent Design

It must be spring time. All the life emerging all around, especially in the very green climate where I live, must bring people to flights of fancy. I hear it from my chiropractor, from co-workers, from my neighbors whenever I talk about the beauty and wonder of spring. There must be an intelligent designer.

Wikipedia has a great entry about the rise and fall of this priest in a lab coat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The argument, from my perspective, isn't about whether there actually is a God. It's about how to know a fact. God must remain a faith based matter for the same reason Intelligent Design is not science. There is just no way to prove it.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.


Whatever they call their now legally defeated movement, they are faith based beliefs...which are fine if people desire to have them...they just aren't a science or even a "theory"...because something must have testable experiments to be a scientific theory.

A theory, in the realm of science, can't just be something that pops into your head like "I think there's a spaceship behind the moon". That is merely "a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation" (National Academy of Sciences quote N.A.S.)

In science, a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. -N.A.S.


The idea that there is a God that designed everything is a fine opinion, it just is not knowledge that should be taught as such in our schools, private or not. It's simply unethical and mentally abusive to teach conjecture to impressionable children as if it were fact.

A creator may well be something we like to hope for, something we believe and preach in spiritual settings. We are free to delight our hearts with whatever we choose in those settings. I don't think science can, at this point, prove or disprove the ultimate existence of a creator or lack thereof. I don't think it's a contradiction to be a faithful person and a scientist, most of the time. Science does allow us to expand our knowledge, filling in those gaps we used to attribute to the "God of the Gaps", as Carl Sagan said.

In teaching science, the conclusions of repeatable and peer reviewed experiments are explained for what they say for themselves. The scientific method is taught so students can understand how the knowledge was discovered in the first place and how they can replicate those experiments to prove their results to themselves.

Forcing one group's hopeful imaginations or beautiful dreams on the education system would be a frightening and tragic dumbing down of critical thinking skills in our nation.

The same faith-based activists would react much like I do to them if, for example, a Muslim group were trying to impose Islamic teachings on their school age children.

Again to paraphrase the brilliant rational thinker and Astro-Physicist Sagan, The mission of the creationists is not to give students the best of our collective knowledge, it is to preserve the emotional attachment they have to the things they believe. Their mission is not truth-seeking at all, it's the preservation of long held dogma.

Here is a passage that sums up how I feel about the issue. It is a quote from the writings C.F. Volney, which I found on Project Gutenberg after reading about it in "Demon Haunted World" (by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan):

...to live in harmony and peace, we must agree never to decide on such subjects, and to attach to them no importance; in a word, we must trace a line of distinction between those that are capable of verification, and those that are not; and separate by an inviolable barrier the world of fantastical beings from the world of realities; that is to say, all civil effect must be taken away from theological and religious opinions.
C.F. Volney (published 1787, original in French)


I guess I have shown by all my quoting that my reaction to the pseudo-science Intelligent Design movement is shared by many great thinkers who expressed my concern and dismay about the movement much better than I could. From Volney over 200 years ago to Sagan only a decade ago and including the very recent statements from the N.A.S.

Many smart grown up Americans walk around repeating Intelligent Design ideas that are so ill-conceived as to be evidence against themselves. They talk of accepting evolution while pretending there is such a thing as a limit on "cross-species" evolution, a fully non-scientific idea, invented to help people rationalize their beliefs and reduce their cognitive dissonance.

I hear proponents of this sham say things like "we don't even know whether butter is good for you or not, we can't trust our science!" .

I'd like to address that one argument. Whether eating butter is good for you is a question with a lot of variables. First, the real issue is probably more one of whether local news programs actually do rigorous research into their sources and subjects on slow news days.

I digress to the idea of many variables. Maybe the question should be one of whether butter is good for you in certain quantities or combined with certain foods or when one has a sedentary lifestyle or an active lifestyle. Clearly there are always new studies, new discoveries and other motives, other than pure knowledge, for promoting one opinion over another.

Maybe sales of butter are slumping one quarter, so a corporate staff member is paid to write an article emphasizing anything at all positive or virtuous about eating butter.

That whole mess is somehow used to reduce the value of scientific knowledge that helps us to understand things like Gravity, Electricity, the Chemistry of Plastic or the properties of Light. The "virtues of butter" is an incomplete set of knowledge just like the "origins of the universe" is also an incomplete set of knowledge.

This incompleteness is exploited in a logically false way to play down the tested hypotheses and valuable results of science for the purpose of muddying people's understanding so they can still accept rationally unsupportable or at best, unprovable, beliefs. It is a totalitarianism of ignorance that is deeply troubling.

I recently saw Eddie Izzard's wonderful "Stripped" tour. In his show he did a bit about the Planet Mercury, and it went something like (and I take vast paraphrasing liberties): "It's a dry, lifeless, waterless world where the temperature ranges from −180 to 430 °C from night to day. What's so intelligent about that design? That's not intelligent design, it's either random and God doesn't exist or he's one sardonic smart ass".

=sw

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Wired! Electrically.



http://www.teslamotors.com/

This is a fully electric vehicle available now, though there is a huge waiting list. It’s also 100K or so.

I think electric vehicles are great...they allow your fuel source to vary and get greener from Coal to Natural Gas to Wind to Solar depending on who supplies your power. You could even opt for all wind on your power bill and have a wind powered car.
Also, if we are going to emit CO2 anyway, the economy of scale of Coal power plants is probably more efficient than burning gasoline and Coal is a domestic source not a foreign one. All electric is all good no matter how you look at it.

=sw

Monday, April 21, 2008

Natalism

I sometimes get accused of taking a "victors perspective" on the Palestinian-Isreali conflict. I am not sure what people mean...are they talking about biblical jews returning from exile in Egypt marching in circles around Jericho or do they just mean...that the British won the war with the Ottoman Empire?

In any case, though I am solidly set on the need for a Jewish homeland in the world, I loathe and regret the suffering of the Palestinians. I think Gaza is such an inhumane place in some ways, run by thugs hell bent on teaching hate to their children to regain homes and lands the cost for which was long ago exceeded by their destructive behaviors and their losses at the hands of the Israeli military who seem to have a planned 10:1 destruction ratio in mind when retaliating against rocket attacks.

In some ways, I am convinced that Palestinians and Jews lived more peacefully and happily together at the time...maybe in the mid 80's...where Palestinians had very free and open commerce with Israel and crossed back and forth across territory borders daily for work. Ok, it wasn't perfect...suicide bombings from the Palestinian side and invasive settlements on the Israeli side led to a divisive zeitgeist along with the recent "intifada".

Now the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, are in a kind of constant desperation. Israel, now it has depopulated its Jewish settlements in Gaza, can manipulate energy and goods flow, guarding both their land border with Gaza and access to the Mediterranean sea. Recently the Palestinians burst through the border Gaza shares with Egypt, though this border is also controlled by Israel...in theory.

I think Palestinians have in mind that they can out-breed the Jews and use Natalism to eventually change the facts on the ground. While practicing this ideal, they grow hungrier, more pressured for resources and have serious health issues like sand-berm sewage storage lakes that burst actually drowning people..with the potential to harm many people. There is also an enormous disease risk in trying to over populate on principal. Eventually this tactic will bring disasters to Palestinians who would do far better to recognize Israel, live in peace even as citizens of the same country. They could hold office, have stability and benefit from the western lifestyle. It could be done, it would just take some common sense, leadership and vision. When there is peace, Palestinian compensation claims could be considered and promoted by the international community...investment could flow into these lands.

This awfully evil policy of keeping Palestinians in ignorant blind hatred of Israel is a great part of the harm done to this people. Stop firing rockets, stop terroist bombings and the future can look different. If not, the Palestinians will fight against a negative public image as terrorist thugs when what they really need is international financial and humanitarian aid on a huge scale.

Maybe I do see a "Victors Perspective" but that also includes concern for my fellow human beings who are taking a path which will lead them into needless pain and suffering. We may never be able to change their hearts about the absolutely immutable need for a Jewish state, but I would love to change their minds about dashing themselves to bits against its walls.

=sw

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Fitna Film

I have been following the news about the planned release of the movie by Geert Wilders called "Fitna".

I always want to seek the most rational point of view I can, though sometimes this is an art.I expect my perspective to be biased by my experience and I try to check for that in my thought patterns.

When I boil this down I see some things on both sides of this issue.

First, having lived in the Flemish speaking Belgium I can attest to some of the attitudes people have toward the rise of population in their countries of those from other countries and cultures. A good friend of mine, we'll call him Thomas, used to tell me about his views on this matter during dinners to which he and his wife and family would regularly invite me.

Thomas would focus on some details of the impact of immigrants, and even their descendants, particularly from countries in the Muslim world. He'd complain about health code violations from animal sacrifice rituals, identity problems with full coverage clothing and generally about the trend toward people creating a multi-cultural situation where many did not need to learn the Dutch or French languages because they had all they needed in their ethnic enclaves.

I was aware of the emotional nature of Thomas' reactions to the changes taking place in his country and society. The ethnic differences and perceived multi-culturalism made him feel like his own society, built up over years of identity forming struggle, survival, compromise and achievement, was under threat. Thomas has a strongly held belief that Islam was spread by the sword and that Mohammed himself beheaded many Jews and many of his rivals among his own people.

I think Europeans have a small part of their identity that is closely associated with holding back what they perceive to be Islamic raids on their lands and way of life. Something similar is held among Islamic peoples of the Middle East and Mediterranean regions where they view Christians as Crusaders whose raids and onslaughts have been held back over the many years. Evidence for both beliefs can be cited.

Europeans feel they have achieved secular, tolerant, free societies governed by law which is sustained by democratically elected representatives. That is a factual, though perhaps a bit idealized description which leaves out a lot of references to corruption, but a fair description none-the-less.

I think most Dutch people are tolerant, accepting and accommodating to foreigners who choose to join their way of life. They expect that new immigrants will obey and be subject to Dutch laws and beyond that, they are welcome to dress, pray, speak and do as they see fit.

To state the point of tension plainly, the Dutch value freedom of speech. To speak ones mind, state ones point of view, whether in word, art, drawing, film or music is a n inalienable right to them. Not everyone will be pleased with what you say, and if you break laws with your work, you can be subject to prosecution. This may be for libel or violating other legally coded limits. Sometimes history plays a role, so there is such a thing as banned literature in The Netherlands. "Mein Kampf" is an understandably banned book. The German World War II invasion of the Netherlands and the Holocaust have left an indelible impression on the social circumstances and laws of the Netherlands.

Protest, I think, is accepted as a valid response to a work of art. Legal action as well is within the realm of what is acceptable in Dutch society. Murder is not an acceptable course of action for making ones displeasure known.

I am referring to the story of Theo Van Gogh who made a film depicting a Muslim woman voicing the possible secret worries of a woman in a strict Muslim home environment. The actress was dressed in what looked like concealing Islamic conservative head and facial covering, while her nearly naked body was visible through a see through part of the long covering. Symbolically I can see the message of the clothing. The piece is very "artsy" but also makes some points about the lack of support a Muslim woman may have, even from her own family, if she is beaten or raped...even by family members.

I know that Theo Van Gogh also said deplorable things about Jews. I can understand someone being angry with Theo Van Gogh for his outrageous statements. As a former Mormon, I understand the anger religious people feel when their symbols are misappropriated to criticize their faith.

I cannot understand or accept Theo Van Gogh's fate. He was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, who left a note with even more deplorable anti-semetic statements as well as other references to a radicalized Egyptian Islamic group.

I can agree with the Dutch sentiment that such a killing is not a justifiable behavior and not compatible with their society. This line of reasoning all too quickly leads to ethnic slurs, an "us vs. them" mentality and talk of a "Final Solution".

It is simply not acceptable for someone to come from another culture, observe the ideas of someone in their host culture and murder that person for those ideas. This just cannot stand. I think reasonable people can accept the mixing of others from other cultures in their streets. I don't think they have to put up with something that looks like an act of war by an invader. Even if that person is a second generation descendant. A man who has such a poor level of respect for the laws, customs and culture of his newly adopted land clearly represents a real and serious problem that needs to be dealt with. It appears that the act of murder was somehow, in the mind of this particular Muslim perpetrator, justified by a belief system or doctrine. What is to be done about this, especially if it is a trend?

"How is it ok for religious zealots with Middle Eastern roots to enter Dutch society and tell them how to live?" That is the rhetorical question asked by many people who feel angered and threatened by Muslims living in the Netherlands.

From watching filmmaker Geert Wilders in interviews, it is clear he is not a cultural relativist. He tends to believe that some traditions are simply good and some are bad. He unabashedly states that some ways of life are better than others. I can understand how easily he could arrive at this notion given some of the outrageously ancient attitudes exhibited in "holy" books. Though, if the Koran is a source of ideas that are incompatible with Dutch society then so is the Bible.

I stare blankly in horror at the news of so called "Honor" killings, which are simply not humane and acceptable behavior. Then again, neither are abortions or death penalties by the same standards.

I think that ultimately every religion has irrationalities in it and the potential for fundamentalists to interpret the sayings and writings of the faith for what are by any definition evil purposes.

When I really think about it, I know there are over a billion Muslims in the world and I certainly do not fear them or think they are all trying to do evil. On the contrary, most of them are people I could get along with. I am aware that my perspective is under a powerful influence of the media, but I have also have personal experience with Muslims. I find them to be reasonable, good, descent, also sometimes imperfect human beings like anyone else. Sometimes I detect the notion that some young Muslim men have not found and defined the limits of the recourse against offenses to their faith. That is a troubling thing to discover. This seems to be the case even in people who are upstanding family men in America who appear to all observation to be moderate and tolerant.

I also see the similarities in what western religions value and what Muslims people value. The similarities are everywhere. Christians, Jews and Muslims share a wealth of religious stories and characters.

Still the question remains. What do you do about it when people murder their fellow citizens for their views? Surely that cannot stand. Geert Wilders is under death threats for creating an opinion piece. Like him and his movie or not, the threat of killing him for having a voice in a free society is a deep and intense undermining influence to freedom. He must not have to die so someone else doesn't feel "offended".

There is a better way to voice opposition to the movie that Muslim people will need to find, perhaps their own voice is what they need to find. Death threats soundly prove all of Meneer Wilder's points. I see Geert as taking a hard line himself and I do not feel comfortable with the way he insults the Koran, even though I am not a Muslim. Though I certainly have never heard him threaten death to anyone. He wants to preserve, and even share, the liberal Dutch society with others. He only voices his thoughts about his culture and what he perceives as threatening it. What less can be expected of a free man, Even if you don't like his attitude or ideas.

=sw

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Scientifically Designed by Idiots

I have recently had the absolutely baffling experience of encountering the "Step One Survey II™". This is a "tool" used by some HR departments to evaluate candidates in a way that is meant to determine their honesty and reduce the chance of hiring someone who might participate in fraudulent behavior, rip the company off, deal drugs at work or hoark things from the suppy cabinet.

The survey asks the same questions over and over in many different ways. What is the idea? Do they think they will trick me into a false memory?

Even after the third time they ask in a slightly altered way, I've still never used or distributed drugs in the workplace!

I have noticed these tests are most often sold to paranoid, perhaps gullible, small town companies probably by filling their decision-maker's imaginations with fearsome visions of the cruel world of the unwashed heathens outside their quaint under-sexed and bored main streets.

The result of my choice to deal in good faith with employers is that I refuse to comply with these ridiculous surveys which were "scientifically" designed by idiots. They weed me out, thanks to my dignity, even though I am not the drug using thief they fear. That person is probably not qualified for that job anyway. Nevermind the possibility they could lie and game the test.

I'd rather pee in a cup.

=sw