A reader enjoins me to "write something funny", and comments on my light blogging of late. Sorry all, I've been busy at work this week (Santa is a facist and we of the Elves Union have been contemplating a strike, along with the Brotherhood of Flying Raindeer and the Light and Tinslers Union Local 24. Lots of voting, alcohol and declaritive statements since Sunday).
Also, I must admit, loggin has been light because, in part, I'm having a lot of trouble typing. Don't know why, probably becuase I have put in a number of late nights and early mornings.
I'll try to write something amusing tomorrow.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Coveted Victim Status
or (CVS). Usually something I associate with majorities who use CVS to advocate for more benefits to cement their majority (e.g. Catholics, Republicans, Creationists, the Mentally Retarted). However, it seems folks don't much like athesits.
50% of Americans have an unfavorable view of people whose great sin, as best I can tell, is that they refuse to take on faith what others are willing to take on faith. I'm pleased that hostility to Jews and Catholics seems to be much less than what it used to be in the past. I hope the same will soon happen as to Muslim Americans and Evangelical Christians; that one may disagree with some Evangelical Christians' political agenda, for instance, is surely no reason to view them unfavorably as people (just as one's disagreement with most American Jews' liberalism is no reason for viewing them unfavorably). Yet the high level of disapproval of atheists should make us worry about American religious harmony and tolerance more broadly.
This does not surprise me in the least. No one likes a smart ass, especially ones who quietly believe your belief in the invisible is some kind of mental disorder. Even if it's not said, that's what most people think atheists think about them. And they resent it.
Yet, fundamentally, there is no way around the problem. Except for this blog, I am generally not evangelical about my unchurchedness (and the exception is here because no one is forcing you read this stuff. You can tune in for just the funny bits). Atheists are almost always perceived by believers as being judgmental about their choices. The irony in this is extraordinary and inconsistent, but it's definitely true.
Hence, the one group who least values CVS, has a better claim than most MSRs.
50% of Americans have an unfavorable view of people whose great sin, as best I can tell, is that they refuse to take on faith what others are willing to take on faith. I'm pleased that hostility to Jews and Catholics seems to be much less than what it used to be in the past. I hope the same will soon happen as to Muslim Americans and Evangelical Christians; that one may disagree with some Evangelical Christians' political agenda, for instance, is surely no reason to view them unfavorably as people (just as one's disagreement with most American Jews' liberalism is no reason for viewing them unfavorably). Yet the high level of disapproval of atheists should make us worry about American religious harmony and tolerance more broadly.
This does not surprise me in the least. No one likes a smart ass, especially ones who quietly believe your belief in the invisible is some kind of mental disorder. Even if it's not said, that's what most people think atheists think about them. And they resent it.
Yet, fundamentally, there is no way around the problem. Except for this blog, I am generally not evangelical about my unchurchedness (and the exception is here because no one is forcing you read this stuff. You can tune in for just the funny bits). Atheists are almost always perceived by believers as being judgmental about their choices. The irony in this is extraordinary and inconsistent, but it's definitely true.
Hence, the one group who least values CVS, has a better claim than most MSRs.
KABURA
The new RX-7 replacement from Mazda??
I know now what I'll be squandering the boy's tuition on instead of Drexel next year...
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Bing
This is a description of Stephen Bing, first in the LA Times and now (allegedly) in an RNC memo on MoveOn.org:
Bing, Who Enjoys Strip Clubs And Las Vegas Casinos, Lives In Two-Bedroom Bel-Air Home But Bought Seven Adjoining Houses With Plan Of Demolishing Them To Create “Palatial Grounds.†“A determined bachelor, he lives in a small two-bedroom home in Bel-Air but has bought the seven adjoining houses with the intention of knocking them down and creating palatial grounds. He’s a fan of strip clubs, has been a high roller in Las Vegas for years, and yet he can discuss the dense Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson.â
OMG! He can discuss a book!
An actual book!
The horror!
NOW I want to meet this guy.
Bing, Who Enjoys Strip Clubs And Las Vegas Casinos, Lives In Two-Bedroom Bel-Air Home But Bought Seven Adjoining Houses With Plan Of Demolishing Them To Create “Palatial Grounds.†“A determined bachelor, he lives in a small two-bedroom home in Bel-Air but has bought the seven adjoining houses with the intention of knocking them down and creating palatial grounds. He’s a fan of strip clubs, has been a high roller in Las Vegas for years, and yet he can discuss the dense Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson.â
OMG! He can discuss a book!
An actual book!
The horror!
NOW I want to meet this guy.
Gold
An interesting short essay on why the price of gold is currently through the roof.
Alan Greenspan knows all this. Before he became an integral part of the nanny state's machine, he wrote the following in a 1966 essay titled "Gold and Economic Freedom":
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
Essentially, Greenspan's point is that gold enforces consequences. That's why Nixon officially decoupled the dollar from gold in the early 1970's; as the U.S. printed excess money to pay the debts from the Vietnam War, it sought to disguise the consequences. Greenspan refers above to the government making the holding of gold illegal. In 1933, Roosevelt outlawed the ownership of gold by U.S. citizens as the government tried to remove any constraint on its ability to reflate during the Great Depression (history buffs can view a copy of FDR's executive order here).
The essay also contains a truism I've heard from a number of traders:
"All of economic history is one lie and deceit after another. Your job as a speculator is to get on when the lie is being propagated and then get off before it is discovered."
Alan Greenspan knows all this. Before he became an integral part of the nanny state's machine, he wrote the following in a 1966 essay titled "Gold and Economic Freedom":
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
Essentially, Greenspan's point is that gold enforces consequences. That's why Nixon officially decoupled the dollar from gold in the early 1970's; as the U.S. printed excess money to pay the debts from the Vietnam War, it sought to disguise the consequences. Greenspan refers above to the government making the holding of gold illegal. In 1933, Roosevelt outlawed the ownership of gold by U.S. citizens as the government tried to remove any constraint on its ability to reflate during the Great Depression (history buffs can view a copy of FDR's executive order here).
The essay also contains a truism I've heard from a number of traders:
"All of economic history is one lie and deceit after another. Your job as a speculator is to get on when the lie is being propagated and then get off before it is discovered."
Monday, December 12, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Not Quite Responsible Disclosure
Microsoft puts a lot of effort into advocating and rewarding the process of Responsible Disclosure. RD allows folks who discover software vulnerabilities to share the information with the manufacturer and others in a way which maximizes the appropriate countermeasures are available before an exploit and minimizes risks to the community at large. When done correctly, the process allows everyone to benefit by coordinating the availability of a patch, fix or workaround, with the disclosure of the vulnerability. The discoverer is always fully credited with the effort, which is almost always the goal for security researchers.
One way not to do RD is to email, post or blog the details of the vulnerability before a fix has been established, as it puts everyone at risk.
Another way not to do it is to post the vulnerability on eBay.
Sigh.
One way not to do RD is to email, post or blog the details of the vulnerability before a fix has been established, as it puts everyone at risk.
Another way not to do it is to post the vulnerability on eBay.
Sigh.
Incompetent Design
Frankly, I've been wondering about why no one has said this for so long, I've thought about writing it myself.
Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design."
Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence. Seed asked him to chat about his theory, reactions he's received to it, and the anthem he penned to rally people to his cause.
The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us. All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20? Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!
Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design."
Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence. Seed asked him to chat about his theory, reactions he's received to it, and the anthem he penned to rally people to his cause.
The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us. All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20? Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the
time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He
also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet,
he suffered from bad breath. This made him .(Oh, man, this is so bad,
it's good).... A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Okay, frist of all, this was sent TO me, I did not make it up.
Second, well, ummm.. well... pound for pound puns are your best entertainment value.
time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He
also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet,
he suffered from bad breath. This made him .(Oh, man, this is so bad,
it's good).... A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Okay, frist of all, this was sent TO me, I did not make it up.
Second, well, ummm.. well... pound for pound puns are your best entertainment value.
The Problem with Science
Nicholas Kristof has an excellent column today on the NYT page about the culture of humanities and problem that most people aren't familiar enough with science to understand what it's doing in and to the world.
But put aside the evolution debate for a moment. It's only a symptom of something much deeper and more serious: a profound illiteracy about science and math as a whole.
One-fifth of Americans still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, instead of the other way around. And only about half know that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
The problem isn't just inadequate science (and math) teaching in the schools, however. A larger problem is the arrogance of the liberal arts, the cultural snootiness of, of ... well, of people like me - and probably you.
What do I mean by that? In the U.S. and most of the Western world, it's considered barbaric in educated circles to be unfamiliar with Plato or Monet or Dickens, but quite natural to be oblivious of quarks and chi-squares. A century ago, Einstein published his first paper on relativity - making 1905 as important a milestone for world history as 1066 or 1789 - but relativity has yet to filter into the consciousness of otherwise educated people.
"The great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the Western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had," C. P. Snow wrote in his classic essay, "The Two Cultures."
The counterargument is that we can always hire technicians in Bangalore, while it's Shakespeare and Goethe who teach us the values we need to harness science for humanity. There's something to that. If President Bush were about to attack Iraq all over again, he would be better off reading Sophocles - to appreciate the dangers of hubris - than studying the science of explosives.
But put aside the evolution debate for a moment. It's only a symptom of something much deeper and more serious: a profound illiteracy about science and math as a whole.
One-fifth of Americans still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, instead of the other way around. And only about half know that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
The problem isn't just inadequate science (and math) teaching in the schools, however. A larger problem is the arrogance of the liberal arts, the cultural snootiness of, of ... well, of people like me - and probably you.
What do I mean by that? In the U.S. and most of the Western world, it's considered barbaric in educated circles to be unfamiliar with Plato or Monet or Dickens, but quite natural to be oblivious of quarks and chi-squares. A century ago, Einstein published his first paper on relativity - making 1905 as important a milestone for world history as 1066 or 1789 - but relativity has yet to filter into the consciousness of otherwise educated people.
"The great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the Western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had," C. P. Snow wrote in his classic essay, "The Two Cultures."
The counterargument is that we can always hire technicians in Bangalore, while it's Shakespeare and Goethe who teach us the values we need to harness science for humanity. There's something to that. If President Bush were about to attack Iraq all over again, he would be better off reading Sophocles - to appreciate the dangers of hubris - than studying the science of explosives.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Swap Your Bible For ... (wait for it) ...
Porn!
I love the Wonkette, I really do.
An atheist student group in Texas has set up shop on their campus offering to exchange porn for Bibles. A religious type was predictably offended: "In my opinion, there are no atheists. There are fools."And you shall know them by hair on their palms. Except the real fools are folks not LINING UP for this great offer. So far, they've only given away five skin mags. We think the reaction would be different in D.C. Though, it's true, Clarence Thomas would argue that shouldn't have to choose.
Porno for Bibles [Atheist Agenda via Boing Boing]Group Collects Bibles, Passes Out Porn [WOAI]
I love the Wonkette, I really do.
An atheist student group in Texas has set up shop on their campus offering to exchange porn for Bibles. A religious type was predictably offended: "In my opinion, there are no atheists. There are fools."And you shall know them by hair on their palms. Except the real fools are folks not LINING UP for this great offer. So far, they've only given away five skin mags. We think the reaction would be different in D.C. Though, it's true, Clarence Thomas would argue that shouldn't have to choose.
Porno for Bibles [Atheist Agenda via Boing Boing]Group Collects Bibles, Passes Out Porn [WOAI]
Friday, December 02, 2005
A Decent Comment About Economics
I was reading about a particularly egregious abuse of statistics and followed a thread to here, which had an interesting comment:
I know a guy in my dorm, a pro-PATRIOT Act "classical liberal" who used to want to be an economics major. He was turned off by the fact that it involved a bunch of min/maxing, rather than waxing on eloquently about the perfection and beauty of the free market. And really, who doesn't get sick, on occasion, of undergrad econ courses with their endless Lagrangian multipliers and simple partial derivatives? I think what angered him more, though, was that it treats economics as an empirically falsifiable science (Not well, some might claim (is John Emerson around?), with perhaps excessively high standards for falsification of favored models, but at least in theory). This guy didn't want there to be any chinks in the armor of the free market. To him, this isn't an empirical issue at all: it's a moral one. I respect that, actually, but the problem is when these people demand that economics the empirical social science meet free market libertarianism the moral position. When the two clash, the strategy is to take "the free market is perfect" as a null hypothesis, and then set a standard for falsification above whatever evidence supports an alternative hypothesis.
Two comments:
1) I've had this particular conversation.
2) Lagrangian multipliers huh? I may have underestimated parts of modern economics.
I know a guy in my dorm, a pro-PATRIOT Act "classical liberal" who used to want to be an economics major. He was turned off by the fact that it involved a bunch of min/maxing, rather than waxing on eloquently about the perfection and beauty of the free market. And really, who doesn't get sick, on occasion, of undergrad econ courses with their endless Lagrangian multipliers and simple partial derivatives? I think what angered him more, though, was that it treats economics as an empirically falsifiable science (Not well, some might claim (is John Emerson around?), with perhaps excessively high standards for falsification of favored models, but at least in theory). This guy didn't want there to be any chinks in the armor of the free market. To him, this isn't an empirical issue at all: it's a moral one. I respect that, actually, but the problem is when these people demand that economics the empirical social science meet free market libertarianism the moral position. When the two clash, the strategy is to take "the free market is perfect" as a null hypothesis, and then set a standard for falsification above whatever evidence supports an alternative hypothesis.
Two comments:
1) I've had this particular conversation.
2) Lagrangian multipliers huh? I may have underestimated parts of modern economics.
Dr. Doctor
I'm being sent to a neurologist at the University of Washington who is also "the best diagnositican in the state", Phil Swanson, M.D., Ph.D.
Hopefully I will be "boring".
Hopefully I will be "boring".
Thursday, December 01, 2005
What's the Difference Between an Astronomer and an Astrophysicst?
Given the below rant, I know someone is going to ask because I tend to use the terms interchangeably.
Technically there isn't much of a real difference, it just tends to be how you self-identify. Is it Radio Astronomy, Radio Astrophysics or Gas-Phase Quantum Chemistry? It depends on how you went through your career. A loose rule of thumb tends to be, if you're looking at it, it's astronomy, if it involves a lot of math and not many observations, it's astrophysics. However, I can't think of an example where this comes down one way more than the other. This may be my lack of imagination.
Here's a better way of demonstrating the difference:
If you walk into a bar and you feel cranky and want to be left alone while someone is trying to chat you up, tell them you are an "astrophysicist". The conversation sill stop, you will get a look like you just might be an escaped mental patient (maybe a violent one) and you will be left alone. If you do it right, you may not even be served any more.
However, if you are in a cheerful mood and feeling gregarious, tell people you are an "astronomer". People will ask you all sorts of questions, talk to you, buy you drinks and occasionally, beautiful members of the opposite sex will come up and start kissing you at random (this has happened twice to me, and yes there are witnesses).
That's the difference.
Technically there isn't much of a real difference, it just tends to be how you self-identify. Is it Radio Astronomy, Radio Astrophysics or Gas-Phase Quantum Chemistry? It depends on how you went through your career. A loose rule of thumb tends to be, if you're looking at it, it's astronomy, if it involves a lot of math and not many observations, it's astrophysics. However, I can't think of an example where this comes down one way more than the other. This may be my lack of imagination.
Here's a better way of demonstrating the difference:
If you walk into a bar and you feel cranky and want to be left alone while someone is trying to chat you up, tell them you are an "astrophysicist". The conversation sill stop, you will get a look like you just might be an escaped mental patient (maybe a violent one) and you will be left alone. If you do it right, you may not even be served any more.
However, if you are in a cheerful mood and feeling gregarious, tell people you are an "astronomer". People will ask you all sorts of questions, talk to you, buy you drinks and occasionally, beautiful members of the opposite sex will come up and start kissing you at random (this has happened twice to me, and yes there are witnesses).
That's the difference.
How to Be An Astronomer
I was asked the following question this afternoon by a reader (edited):
My niece is a junior in high school. She gets all A's, is an athlete, member of NHS, has a job, great citizen, etc. She wants to study astrophysics and work for NASA and thinks that going into the Air Force is a great way to get into NASA. Would you lend her some insight about avenues to NASA, whether it is the best place to be, the best schools to shoot for, etc.?
Truthfully? Going into the Air Force will all but exclude her from a career in astrophysics, especially if she goes in now. While she’s in the AF not learning to fly jets (almost no one gets to fly jets, but everyone wants to), others are in college getting a science education and getting ready for grad school. While it's true that a lot astronauts are from the military right now, they are generally on the pilot side or are "mission specialists" who started their careers as astronomers and later joined the military. All other considerations aside (and I have become relatively neutral on the question of joining the military since Geoff is so insistent on it), that really isn't a good way to become an astrophysicist. Even with service delayed until after college, there are too many competing pressures and, physics is hard. Very hard. Lots of Sci-Fi lovers think they know some physics. Very very few of them make it to the level of astrophysicist. You're going to need all your concentration even if you are exceptionally gifted. Stargate SG-1 aside, focus on the science. The Air Force doesn't really have a program directed toward cranking out astronomers. Heck, most universities don't have astronomy programs, and it's a tough slog.
How to become an astrophysicist:
1) Go to a university and take every math and physics course that comes your way. Take astronomy if they offer it, but if they don’t, then don’t worry too much. They are going to judge you on your physics abilities. You'll need all of them. Astronomers are science generalists, especially in the beginning. The good news, you don’t have to get *all* As. It helps, but basically you want to get good grades and do some undergrad research with a professor your junior and senior years. The prof is the one who is going to write your letters of recommendation for grad school, and the whole point is to go to grad school.
At the end of university you need:
A GPA >= pi
2 or more letters of recommendation from professors
If possible an undergrad thesis
A Physics GRE >= 50%
If nothing else, if you go to a hippie school and make MDMA for 4 years and have no grades, you must slam the GRE. Your Physics GRE score is approximately equal to your % chance of being accepted for grad school at a decent place. The University of Toledo is not a decent place (although they accepted me *over the phone* when they got my GRE score). The letters from the profs and the GPA are your backups in case you pull a 40%. If you get in the 20s… well.. chances are you won’t *want* grad school.
2) Pick your grad school with care. Use the Guide to Physics and Astronomy Graduate Schools to pick yours. By the end of my senior year I had mine memorized. You need to pick a school that has a specialty you are interested in. High Energy Astrophysics? Penn State. Radio Astronomy? UMass, Uof Arizona. GR and gravity? John Hopkins or USC or CalTech. Picking the wrong grad school will mean a high likelihood of washing out second year. The drop rate of 2nd years is 50%
3) Pass your PhD quals and pick a thesis. The washout rate for this step if 50% of those that survived step 2
4) Write your thesis, defend it, get it published. The washout rate from here is also 50% of the remainder.
5) Pay your graduation fees or people will get cranky with you. :)
6) Pick a postdoctoral job. You will have a specialty now and are ready to work. It’s hard to get a postdoc but somehow there always seems to be exactly 1 for each new graduate. It’s a little weird but it works.
7) If you have made it this far, you are in a rare strata of life. There is exactly one astronomer for every 1,000,000 people on the planet. Congrats. By this point you know the other 5,999 astronomers and they know you. Too much about you!
8) Shut up Spitzak
Now you are ready to join the Air Force. You’ve got something to really contribute and, if you’re in good shape, you have a decent shot a shuttle mission if you want one. By decent shot I mean 1:950 or so. Given that you are already 1:1,000,000 that should be a walk in the park. J You are ready to be a mission specialist.
Don’t want a shuttle mission? At this point NASA is calling *you*. More or less. It depends a little on what you did in step 3) but even the Galactic Photometrists get funding from NASA or NSF, so you’re in a good spot. Don’t want to work for NASA? Well, you can teach, go into research, sell out and work in financial services. Pretty much anything you want. You’ve mastered some of the hardest knowledge mankind has (unless you picked Galactic Photometry back in step 3. Maybe it’s best you don’t pick that.) Want you own satellite? It’s likely at this point that’s what you are doing. In my graduate class of 6 people, 2 have their own satellites. (2 of us work in non-astronomy and 2 are in research).
I’m not down on the Air Force, BTW. It’s possible I will get some blog comments here from astronomers who came up through the AF and I invite their stories. I don’t know any of you and I’ve never heard of anyone doing that successfully, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It just hasn’t been my experience. I think there are a lot of great careers to be had coming in through the AF, I just haven't heard of anyone becoming an astronomer that way.
My niece is a junior in high school. She gets all A's, is an athlete, member of NHS, has a job, great citizen, etc. She wants to study astrophysics and work for NASA and thinks that going into the Air Force is a great way to get into NASA. Would you lend her some insight about avenues to NASA, whether it is the best place to be, the best schools to shoot for, etc.?
Truthfully? Going into the Air Force will all but exclude her from a career in astrophysics, especially if she goes in now. While she’s in the AF not learning to fly jets (almost no one gets to fly jets, but everyone wants to), others are in college getting a science education and getting ready for grad school. While it's true that a lot astronauts are from the military right now, they are generally on the pilot side or are "mission specialists" who started their careers as astronomers and later joined the military. All other considerations aside (and I have become relatively neutral on the question of joining the military since Geoff is so insistent on it), that really isn't a good way to become an astrophysicist. Even with service delayed until after college, there are too many competing pressures and, physics is hard. Very hard. Lots of Sci-Fi lovers think they know some physics. Very very few of them make it to the level of astrophysicist. You're going to need all your concentration even if you are exceptionally gifted. Stargate SG-1 aside, focus on the science. The Air Force doesn't really have a program directed toward cranking out astronomers. Heck, most universities don't have astronomy programs, and it's a tough slog.
How to become an astrophysicist:
1) Go to a university and take every math and physics course that comes your way. Take astronomy if they offer it, but if they don’t, then don’t worry too much. They are going to judge you on your physics abilities. You'll need all of them. Astronomers are science generalists, especially in the beginning. The good news, you don’t have to get *all* As. It helps, but basically you want to get good grades and do some undergrad research with a professor your junior and senior years. The prof is the one who is going to write your letters of recommendation for grad school, and the whole point is to go to grad school.
At the end of university you need:
A GPA >= pi
2 or more letters of recommendation from professors
If possible an undergrad thesis
A Physics GRE >= 50%
If nothing else, if you go to a hippie school and make MDMA for 4 years and have no grades, you must slam the GRE. Your Physics GRE score is approximately equal to your % chance of being accepted for grad school at a decent place. The University of Toledo is not a decent place (although they accepted me *over the phone* when they got my GRE score). The letters from the profs and the GPA are your backups in case you pull a 40%. If you get in the 20s… well.. chances are you won’t *want* grad school.
2) Pick your grad school with care. Use the Guide to Physics and Astronomy Graduate Schools to pick yours. By the end of my senior year I had mine memorized. You need to pick a school that has a specialty you are interested in. High Energy Astrophysics? Penn State. Radio Astronomy? UMass, Uof Arizona. GR and gravity? John Hopkins or USC or CalTech. Picking the wrong grad school will mean a high likelihood of washing out second year. The drop rate of 2nd years is 50%
3) Pass your PhD quals and pick a thesis. The washout rate for this step if 50% of those that survived step 2
4) Write your thesis, defend it, get it published. The washout rate from here is also 50% of the remainder.
5) Pay your graduation fees or people will get cranky with you. :)
6) Pick a postdoctoral job. You will have a specialty now and are ready to work. It’s hard to get a postdoc but somehow there always seems to be exactly 1 for each new graduate. It’s a little weird but it works.
7) If you have made it this far, you are in a rare strata of life. There is exactly one astronomer for every 1,000,000 people on the planet. Congrats. By this point you know the other 5,999 astronomers and they know you. Too much about you!
8) Shut up Spitzak
Now you are ready to join the Air Force. You’ve got something to really contribute and, if you’re in good shape, you have a decent shot a shuttle mission if you want one. By decent shot I mean 1:950 or so. Given that you are already 1:1,000,000 that should be a walk in the park. J You are ready to be a mission specialist.
Don’t want a shuttle mission? At this point NASA is calling *you*. More or less. It depends a little on what you did in step 3) but even the Galactic Photometrists get funding from NASA or NSF, so you’re in a good spot. Don’t want to work for NASA? Well, you can teach, go into research, sell out and work in financial services. Pretty much anything you want. You’ve mastered some of the hardest knowledge mankind has (unless you picked Galactic Photometry back in step 3. Maybe it’s best you don’t pick that.) Want you own satellite? It’s likely at this point that’s what you are doing. In my graduate class of 6 people, 2 have their own satellites. (2 of us work in non-astronomy and 2 are in research).
I’m not down on the Air Force, BTW. It’s possible I will get some blog comments here from astronomers who came up through the AF and I invite their stories. I don’t know any of you and I’ve never heard of anyone doing that successfully, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It just hasn’t been my experience. I think there are a lot of great careers to be had coming in through the AF, I just haven't heard of anyone becoming an astronomer that way.
Toy Presidents
Verbatum:
Geoff:
Some of the faces made me laugh rather loudly at work. And by some I mean
Clinton: He looks emaciated (2nd ed) and muppet-ish (1st ed)
HW Bush: He looks kind of like Dole...
Eisenhower: I had to click on it to make sure he wasnt wearing a robe over his suit. He wasnt, but the idea is still funny.
FDR: Looks more like the guy who played the President in Clear and Present Danger
Wilson: Need I say more
Hillary Clinton, more like Hilarity Clinton
The head of that Pope John Paul II will haunt my dreams and nightmares for eternity
Dad:
I think they did a good job of hiding Nixon's horns.
Although you can still see the 666 birthmark on his left ear.
http://www.toypresident.com/collection.asp
Geoff:
Some of the faces made me laugh rather loudly at work. And by some I mean
Clinton: He looks emaciated (2nd ed) and muppet-ish (1st ed)
HW Bush: He looks kind of like Dole...
Eisenhower: I had to click on it to make sure he wasnt wearing a robe over his suit. He wasnt, but the idea is still funny.
FDR: Looks more like the guy who played the President in Clear and Present Danger
Wilson: Need I say more
Hillary Clinton, more like Hilarity Clinton
The head of that Pope John Paul II will haunt my dreams and nightmares for eternity
Dad:
I think they did a good job of hiding Nixon's horns.
Although you can still see the 666 birthmark on his left ear.
http://www.toypresident.com/collection.asp
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Fractal Self-Parody
I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. So many choices. Nothing I can say will add to the obvious. Even the study group is hilarious:
Nettle and his colleague Helen Clegg questioned 425 British men and women, including professional artists, poets and schizophrenic patients, about their creative activity, sexual encounters and mental health characteristics.
Creativity Linked to Sexual Promiscuity
Nettle and his colleague Helen Clegg questioned 425 British men and women, including professional artists, poets and schizophrenic patients, about their creative activity, sexual encounters and mental health characteristics.
Creativity Linked to Sexual Promiscuity
Something Geoff Said
Sometime back, in a discussion about military service, Geoff pointed out that he and I have different ideas about what a soldiers primary duty is supposed to be:
Mark: to obey
Geoff: to help
Since then, I've liked his idea better (although I still think I am, unfortunately, correct). Andrew Sullivan and others reported this exchange, which to me neatly illustrated the two points of view and highlights the moral superiority of Geofferey's position.
Q: And General Pace, what guidance do you have for your military commanders over there as to what to do if -- like when General Horst found this Interior Ministry jail [where evidenceof toeture was widespread]?
GEN. PACE: It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it. As an example of how to do it if you don't see it happening but you're told about it is exactly what happened a couple weeks ago. There's a report from an Iraqi to a U.S. commander that there was possibility of inhumane treatment in a particular facility. That U.S. commander got together with his Iraqi counterparts. They went together to the facility, found what they found, reported it to the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government has taken ownership of that problem and is investigating it. So they did exactly what they should have done.
SEC. RUMSFELD: But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.
GEN. PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.
"reporting it" without an obligation to stop it is a) just ass-covering, b) tacit approval and c) wrong.
At least in my godless moral framework.
Mark: to obey
Geoff: to help
Since then, I've liked his idea better (although I still think I am, unfortunately, correct). Andrew Sullivan and others reported this exchange, which to me neatly illustrated the two points of view and highlights the moral superiority of Geofferey's position.
Q: And General Pace, what guidance do you have for your military commanders over there as to what to do if -- like when General Horst found this Interior Ministry jail [where evidenceof toeture was widespread]?
GEN. PACE: It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it. As an example of how to do it if you don't see it happening but you're told about it is exactly what happened a couple weeks ago. There's a report from an Iraqi to a U.S. commander that there was possibility of inhumane treatment in a particular facility. That U.S. commander got together with his Iraqi counterparts. They went together to the facility, found what they found, reported it to the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government has taken ownership of that problem and is investigating it. So they did exactly what they should have done.
SEC. RUMSFELD: But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.
GEN. PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.
"reporting it" without an obligation to stop it is a) just ass-covering, b) tacit approval and c) wrong.
At least in my godless moral framework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)