The Missing Past and Short Attention Spans: A Space Odyssey

Stan Lebar worked for Westinghouse in the 1960s. He led the developmental team that produced a state-of-the-art camera for NASA---the camera that was taken to the moon on Apollo 11 and recorded the first moonwalk. Most people have seen those images, many times---grainy, fuzzy black & white pictures of something that looks kind of like an astronaut slowly descending something that kind of looks like a ladder on the side of a large object that we are told is the lander. Whatever. We suffered through these scenes, probably many of us annoyed at the quality, impatient that better pictures weren't available. (Better still pictures became available, shot with specially-made Hasselblads, that remain absolutely stunning in clarity and detail, so made up for the sub par video, at least for some of us.) After all, even Hollywood, using by today's standards primitive technology, could create vastly superior space vistas---compare the images from the 1966 film 2001: A Space Odyssey with the NASA footage from a few years later and you grasp the disappointment. (It has long been my opinion that support for the space program waned because NASA managed to take something as exciting and sexy as space exploration and turn it into the equivalent of a lecture on statistics. The late, great science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein chastised NASA at Congressional hearings for not doing more P.R., better P.R. When he was told that the government didn't do P.R., he had further things to say about campaigns and such like and then pointed out "NASA has a press department, doesn't it? That's the job of the press department." Anyway...) The camera built by Mr. Lebar's team was far superior to the poor images we all saw---and continue to see. The recording medium, however, was incompatible with broadcast television at the time.

Continue ReadingThe Missing Past and Short Attention Spans: A Space Odyssey

Repercussions of Kevin Bacon

I was watching the one hour documentary "How Kevin Bacon Cured Cancer" and thought I'd share a few thoughts. Presumably anyone reading this already knows the principle of "Six Degrees of Separation" and the game involving this actor. My thoughts have nothing to do with the actor, but rather with the field of study that actually emerged from this Urban Myth: Network Theory. One thing that jumped out at me was that network theory appears to neatly show how organization and information growth are necessary results of random connections. In other words, organization Just Happens. This has always been observed. It was historically explained as either the result of very, very sophisticated design, or a "goal" of evolution. But now there is a mathematical model showing that systems become organized because of entropy, not in spite of it. Unfortunately, those who doubt evolution usually never get far enough in math to see this. Another thought I had was in response to the observation that a network becomes efficient given many points (or nodes) with few and local connections, plus a few nodes with many and far-ranging connections. These widely connected nodes are the key to the usual success of the game of six degrees, or the stability of the internet, or the synchrony of crickets, or the efficiency of our nervous system, or any other network. I asked myself, "Given a choice, would I want to be a social node of local, or widespread connections?" I'm not particularly interested in how useful I may be as a connection in a game of Six Degrees, but rather how much fuller is ones life given wider connections. More points of view lead to understanding more ideas. I talk to people in all lines of work, of any political or religious affiliation. I converse to listen. Ideas that conflict with what I "know" are interesting to investigate. (At least until I understand why they conflict, and then they are inflicted repeatedly by those who don't understand the conflict.) Although I am a social stick-in-the-mud, I've met relatives who live on 4 continents, and have visited yet another. I gravitate toward people who also collect people. This blog (for example) has authors from several continents. I have also traveled to a few places, many shown on this "Cities I've Visited" vanity map:

And I am always asking questions, and making connections. I enjoyed the TV series, too.

Continue ReadingRepercussions of Kevin Bacon

Healthcare executive: Michael Moore’s Sicko was accurate

Wendell Potter, a former healthcare executive told Bill Moyers that Michael Moore's "Sicko" was on target. Potter agrees with Moore that there is a significant role for government in healthcare and that government systems such as Canada and Great Britain are successful, contrary to the vicious and dishonest spin by the American healthcare industry. Note: For 20 years, Potter was head of corporate communications for one of the country's largest insurers, CIGNA.

Continue ReadingHealthcare executive: Michael Moore’s Sicko was accurate

What’s in a Type?

One of my peeves against anti-evolutionists is those moderates who fully accept gene drift and mutations for short term changes (breeds, "micro-evolution") but not longer term changes (species, types, "macro-evolution"). Try to pin one of those people down on a definition of species and type, and one can always show them an observed example of something that crossed the line, or else multiple species that are obviously different but on the same side of their line. But this post is broader than that. For example, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew that. Recently it was demoted to dwarf-planet. There are groups still dedicated to its reinstatement as a planet, like the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet. My presumption is, because that's what they were taught in their youth, therefore it's "As God Intended". Nothing changed in the sky, nor in our understanding of how things work. But a category changed and our world shook. Well, at least the world of those of us who noticed. What of moons? An excellent article is here: Meet our Second Moon! We now have two moons? And in my lifetime, the origin of our main moon changed from an unlikely captured or even less likely co-congealed object to a reasonable and most probably ejected one. I remember being disturbed when the moon count around Jupiter went from 12 (the 19th century standard) to 63 (care of Voyager etc). The count varies depending on how you define "moon". One has to be broadly accepting of both size and ballistic classification to accept 3753 Cruithne as a moon of the Earth, but it is there. Speaking of the moon, here is an incredible new way to see our moon up close (with pan and zoom) taken from ground based cameras. Things change. As I have mentioned many times on this blog, most people are hung up on the misconception that words accurately define things. The thinking that, if you have a name for it, then you understand the thing. You get the collector's fallacy: The confusion of the joy of matching names to things with the understanding of the things themselves. Knowing the names of thousands of birds (or bugs or species or stamps or diseases) and accurately matching them to the subjects is useful. But it is not complete in terms of understanding the similarities and differences. That is what is meant by the quote "Biology without evolution is but stamp collecting". One cannot understand things without also understanding the relationship between things (species, astronomical objects, populations, etc) and knowing the latest (most complete, so far) underlying set of theories (scientific definition, not vernacular). Humans are better than most other creatures at recognizing patterns. We regularly see patterns in random observations: Pareidolia. Any set of words will be an incomplete definition of any object. Defining a class of things is even more nebulous. Do species change over time? Certainly, given either enough time or a precise enough definition. How many moons are in the solar system? Good question. Define "moon", and show me the latest ballistic data on the 100,000 largest object so far discovered inside of the Oort Cloud. By the time I have an answer, something will have changed.

Continue ReadingWhat’s in a Type?

Ripped off? Go get an attorney! But wait . . . you won’t find one.

Think of all the times that merchants have ripped people off. Sometimes it’s a line-item that jacked up your bill. You called and complained, but you eventually gave up and ate the $3.50 after making four phone calls without satisfaction. Sometimes, you bought an appliance and after getting home discovered that it wasn’t as it was promised, but the merchant refused to take it back. Or it might be a $1,000 piece of electronics. Only after the warranty expired, it became clear that it didn’t function as promised. Maybe it’s a used car that you bought for $2,500 and right after driving it off the lot you discovered that it literally wouldn’t go, certainly not at highway speeds, and that the dealer knew of the problem but refused to refund your money. Consider the many complicated financial transactions you’ve signed, credit cards, car loans, or payday loans. What do you do if you notice you’ve been ripped off, but the amount of damages you’ve suffered is relatively small, less than $3,000? You go get an attorney, right? Wrong. You won’t find an attorney to handle cases in this range unless an attorney decides to help you as a favor or “pro bono.” Why not? Because it is a time-consuming task to open a case, file it, prepare for trial and represent a consumer in a trial. It can take dozens of hours to get a decision in the trial court, and then the defendant, who is often represented by a high-priced attorney, can appeal the case, delaying the result for another year. The net result is that consumers who have been ripped off for less than $3,000 (and, actually, much greater amounts too) will have only one real option to litigate their claim: at the small claims court where they will represent themselves.

Continue ReadingRipped off? Go get an attorney! But wait . . . you won’t find one.