Excellent visual graphic for the US budget, 2007.
Awesome, except that it's real money.
Friday, February 02, 2007
An Ad from the '80s
What's going on in this picture? Cyndi Lauper video? Bangels re-union? Soft-core episode of Family Ties?
...
Yes, I'm using wawa-wa-windows ... 386!
It's long, and normal until about 7:10. Then crack addicited monkeys take the directors chair and it goes right through the window. The attractive young man from accounting gets more than the Lotus 1-2-3 he was expecting.
amazing!
And what's up with the freakin' space shuttle???
Cat on Fire
From Slate:
Hon. Loretta Sanchez has quit the House Hispanic Caucus, claiming its chairman called her a "whore." A shocking affront to Congressional dignity! ... Wait. ... Loretta Sanchez ... Loretta Sanchez ... wasn't she the distinguished lawmaker who sent out a Christmas card showing her ... er, cat on fire? I think she was! ... P.S.: Wonkette is on the case, sort of. But instead of the scandalous flaming "cat" card they chose one with a modest surfing theme!
lolerskates!
Also above that is a gem of bad "if you can't prove it isn't false, it must be true " logic.
Hon. Loretta Sanchez has quit the House Hispanic Caucus, claiming its chairman called her a "whore." A shocking affront to Congressional dignity! ... Wait. ... Loretta Sanchez ... Loretta Sanchez ... wasn't she the distinguished lawmaker who sent out a Christmas card showing her ... er, cat on fire? I think she was! ... P.S.: Wonkette is on the case, sort of. But instead of the scandalous flaming "cat" card they chose one with a modest surfing theme!
lolerskates!
Also above that is a gem of bad "if you can't prove it isn't false, it must be true " logic.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Baby Chloroform
Julie Aigner-Clark responds to Timothy Noah's piece which basically points out that Baby Einstien is a bunch of crap and, well.. opens herself to even more of a trouncing.
She got to spend time on the stage with the president, being hailed as "hero" in the same class as a marine or a guy who threw himself under a subway train to save someone. If I were her, I'd have quit while I was ahead.
She got to spend time on the stage with the president, being hailed as "hero" in the same class as a marine or a guy who threw himself under a subway train to save someone. If I were her, I'd have quit while I was ahead.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Does Math actually Exist?
This is kind of an interesting question, especially when you think the answer might be "no".
Let me be more specific about the question I am asking since, obviously, a lot of folks fail math and if you can fail at it, it must exist. What I mean is, does mathematics have an existence independent of the existence of humans or is it like the economy and merely a construct of the human mind for dealing with something else we cannot currently comprehend? Or is it like music? Music doesn't exist outside of humans, yet there is a lot of sound in nature.
Another way to think about is, “Is mathematics invented or discovered?”
If cats became sentient, tool using, technology using creatures, would they have the same mathematics as humans, or some completely different metaphor for dealing with that aspect of nature? (likely it would involving burying things).
Mathematics is certainly descriptive of nature, but is it actually part of it?
An interesting view here on the “no” possibility. Also, this is interesting.
"The only mathematics that we know is the mathematics that our brain allows us to know," Dr. Lakoff said in San Francisco last month at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Consequently, he says, any question of math's being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is. "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell," Dr. Lakoff claims. Math succeeds in science, Drs. Lakoff and Nunez argue in their book, only because scientists force it to. "All the 'fitting' between mathematics and the regularities of the physical world is done within the minds of physicists who comprehend both," they write. "The mathematics is in the mind of the mathematically trained observer, not in the regularities of the physical universe."
Let me be more specific about the question I am asking since, obviously, a lot of folks fail math and if you can fail at it, it must exist. What I mean is, does mathematics have an existence independent of the existence of humans or is it like the economy and merely a construct of the human mind for dealing with something else we cannot currently comprehend? Or is it like music? Music doesn't exist outside of humans, yet there is a lot of sound in nature.
Another way to think about is, “Is mathematics invented or discovered?”
If cats became sentient, tool using, technology using creatures, would they have the same mathematics as humans, or some completely different metaphor for dealing with that aspect of nature? (likely it would involving burying things).
Mathematics is certainly descriptive of nature, but is it actually part of it?
An interesting view here on the “no” possibility. Also, this is interesting.
"The only mathematics that we know is the mathematics that our brain allows us to know," Dr. Lakoff said in San Francisco last month at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Consequently, he says, any question of math's being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is. "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell," Dr. Lakoff claims. Math succeeds in science, Drs. Lakoff and Nunez argue in their book, only because scientists force it to. "All the 'fitting' between mathematics and the regularities of the physical world is done within the minds of physicists who comprehend both," they write. "The mathematics is in the mind of the mathematically trained observer, not in the regularities of the physical universe."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Conservative Principles
I have wondered in recent times what the term "conservative principles" means. I hear it used by politicians all the time, but the ones who use it are also the ones expanding the government, engaging in nation building and rolling back civil liberties. Not thing which are encompassed by my understanding the tern conservative. I've been having a Montoya Moment where someone says to me, "I dont think that word means what you think it means".
Glenn Greenwald though, in his usual way, defines it for me in a way I now understand when I hear it:
One of the principal flaws of Sullivan's book is that it speaks of "political conservatism" in a way that exists only in the abstract but never in reality. The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which Sullivan hails -- like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism -- exists, for better or worse, only in myth.While it is true that Bush has presided over extraordinary growth in federal spending, so did Reagan. Though Bush's deficit spending exceeds that of Reagan's, it does so only by degree, not level. The pornography-obsessed Ed Meese and the utter lawlessness of the Iran-contra scandal were merely the Reagan precursors to the Bush excesses which Sullivan finds so "anti-conservative." The Bush presidency is an extension, an outgrowth, of the roots of political conservatism in this country, not a betrayal of them.All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
Well done.
We now return you to our usual, amusing program.
Glenn Greenwald though, in his usual way, defines it for me in a way I now understand when I hear it:
One of the principal flaws of Sullivan's book is that it speaks of "political conservatism" in a way that exists only in the abstract but never in reality. The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which Sullivan hails -- like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism -- exists, for better or worse, only in myth.While it is true that Bush has presided over extraordinary growth in federal spending, so did Reagan. Though Bush's deficit spending exceeds that of Reagan's, it does so only by degree, not level. The pornography-obsessed Ed Meese and the utter lawlessness of the Iran-contra scandal were merely the Reagan precursors to the Bush excesses which Sullivan finds so "anti-conservative." The Bush presidency is an extension, an outgrowth, of the roots of political conservatism in this country, not a betrayal of them.All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
Well done.
We now return you to our usual, amusing program.
We Used to Call it Republican Government
Remember the War on Drugs where the government could sell your house for being accused of dealing narcotics? Or Rudy Gulliani's unconstitutional seizure of cares in NYC?
Well,according to these guys, they were just getting warmed up for the real hiest!
Well,according to these guys, they were just getting warmed up for the real hiest!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Betrayed by the Brain
As I have mentioned before, the human brain is an engine for believing things. All human brains, even the most rational sketpic.
Psychologists and anthropologists have typically turned to faith healers, tribal cultures or New Age spiritualists to study the underpinnings of belief in superstition or magical powers. Yet they could just as well have examined their own neighbors, lab assistants or even some fellow scientists. New research demonstrates that habits of so-called magical thinking — the belief, for instance, that wishing harm on a loathed colleague or relative might make him sick — are far more common than people acknowledge.
These habits have little to do with religious faith, which is much more complex because it involves large questions of morality, community and history. But magical thinking underlies a vast, often unseen universe of small rituals that accompany people through every waking hour of a day.
The appetite for such beliefs appears to be rooted in the circuitry of the brain, and for good reason. The sense of having special powers buoys people in threatening situations, and helps soothe everyday fears and ward off mental distress. In excess, it can lead to compulsive or delusional behavior. This emerging portrait of magical thinking helps explain why people who fashion themselves skeptics cling to odd rituals that seem to make no sense, and how apparently harmless superstition may become disabling.
In my humble opinion, this makes the technical and scientific achievements of the past 10,000 years all the more remarkable. Rationality despite the fact that the human brain is fundementally irrational.
Psychologists and anthropologists have typically turned to faith healers, tribal cultures or New Age spiritualists to study the underpinnings of belief in superstition or magical powers. Yet they could just as well have examined their own neighbors, lab assistants or even some fellow scientists. New research demonstrates that habits of so-called magical thinking — the belief, for instance, that wishing harm on a loathed colleague or relative might make him sick — are far more common than people acknowledge.
These habits have little to do with religious faith, which is much more complex because it involves large questions of morality, community and history. But magical thinking underlies a vast, often unseen universe of small rituals that accompany people through every waking hour of a day.
The appetite for such beliefs appears to be rooted in the circuitry of the brain, and for good reason. The sense of having special powers buoys people in threatening situations, and helps soothe everyday fears and ward off mental distress. In excess, it can lead to compulsive or delusional behavior. This emerging portrait of magical thinking helps explain why people who fashion themselves skeptics cling to odd rituals that seem to make no sense, and how apparently harmless superstition may become disabling.
In my humble opinion, this makes the technical and scientific achievements of the past 10,000 years all the more remarkable. Rationality despite the fact that the human brain is fundementally irrational.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Sam Harris Responds
I think Andrew Sullivan is in over his head with Sam Harris. He demolishes 2 big pro-religion/pro-god arguments fairly quickly. The first is one of the oldest: if science can't tell me what happens after death, it must be god.
Contrary to your assertion, I have not made any claims about there being a "nothingness at the end of our mortal lives." The truth is, I don't know what happens after death. Is it dogmatic for me to doubt that you and the pope do? What reason have you given me to believe that you know that "something" happens after death, or that your something is more probable than the Muslim something, the Hindu something, or the Buddhist something? The question of what happens after death (if anything) is a question about the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. It is true that many atheists are convinced that we know what this relationship is, and that it is one of absolute dependence of the one upon the other. Those who have read the last chapters of The End of Faith know that I am not convinced of this. While I spend a fair amount of time thinking about the brain (as I am finishing my doctorate in neuroscience), I do not think that the utter reducibility of consciousness to matter has been established. It may be that the very concepts of mind and matter are fundamentally misleading us. But this doesn't entitle religious people to imagine that all their crazy ideas about miraculous books, virgin births, and saviors ushering in the end of the world are remotely plausible.
The second is the one I didn't want to make with Nick, in part because it's kind of mean and once made , the other side usually goes for shouts of bigotry rather than answer it. The idea is, basically, any logical argument you make for god can also be made for the devil. It's impossible to construct a reasonable argument for one which precludes the other. You can then extend that to polytheism, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Arguments for their existance are essentially the same as the argument for god. In fact the Catholic church has made exactly this extention to extend divinity to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary and a bunch of other gods and demi-gods they call saints. It's a surprisingly polytheistic religion, all ased on the extention that if one god exists and you can prove he doesn't, other could exist too.
Needless to say, your attempt to pull theism up by its bootstraps ("since God is definitionally the Creator of such a universe; and the meaning of the universe cannot be in conflict with its Creator") could be used to justify almost any metaphysical assertion. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe" is also "definitionally" the Creator of the universe; this doesn't mean that he exists, or that the universe had a Creator at all. Many other chains of pious reasoning could be cashed-out in the same way: "Satan is the Tempter; I find that I am tempted on a hourly basis to eat ice cream and have sex with my neighbor's wife; ergo, Satan exists." Or what if I suggested that what we know about the brain renders the idea of a human soul rather implausible, and one your brethren countered: "The immortal soul governs all the activity in a person's brain; I have no fear about what neuroscience will tell me about the brain, because the soul is definitionally the brain's operator." Would this strike you as an argument for the existence of souls? Granted, there are still many gaps in neuroscience into which a soul might still be inserted, just as there are gaps in our understanding of the cosmos into which the faithful eagerly insert God, but such maneuvers are utterly without intellectual merit. You can insert almost anything "definitionally" into those gaps. The Muslims have inserted Allah, and the Qur'an is His perfect word. The Hindus have inserted Gods of every color and flavor. Why don't these efforts persuade you?
All in all, Sam's doing well and, I think, Andrew's rather weak argument boils down to, "The truth will prove me right, you'll see. Besides people like religion so it must be true." I may be being unfair to AS though, so we'll see how he responds.
EDIT: Andrew responds here
An interesting approach, pointing out that there are kinds of truth beyond the emperical. That is certainly correct, for example, one cannot prove emperically that something is beautiful. However, in this context, what he's done is change the underlying framework of the argument, i.e. does god exist. If gods exist, they must exist within the physical confines of the universe, and hence, should be detectable. AS has changed the debate to to say god exists as a subjective reality rather than an objective one, and hence may not be subjected to the standards of emperical evidence. This is a sly bit of rhetorical slight-of-hand which pretty much ends the debate. From this point, you can claim almost anything since you've put it beyond the test of objective reality. We'll see how Sam responds, but I think Andrew has basically conceeded that god cant be objectively proven to exist and is attempting to bridge to a different set of criteria.
Contrary to your assertion, I have not made any claims about there being a "nothingness at the end of our mortal lives." The truth is, I don't know what happens after death. Is it dogmatic for me to doubt that you and the pope do? What reason have you given me to believe that you know that "something" happens after death, or that your something is more probable than the Muslim something, the Hindu something, or the Buddhist something? The question of what happens after death (if anything) is a question about the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. It is true that many atheists are convinced that we know what this relationship is, and that it is one of absolute dependence of the one upon the other. Those who have read the last chapters of The End of Faith know that I am not convinced of this. While I spend a fair amount of time thinking about the brain (as I am finishing my doctorate in neuroscience), I do not think that the utter reducibility of consciousness to matter has been established. It may be that the very concepts of mind and matter are fundamentally misleading us. But this doesn't entitle religious people to imagine that all their crazy ideas about miraculous books, virgin births, and saviors ushering in the end of the world are remotely plausible.
The second is the one I didn't want to make with Nick, in part because it's kind of mean and once made , the other side usually goes for shouts of bigotry rather than answer it. The idea is, basically, any logical argument you make for god can also be made for the devil. It's impossible to construct a reasonable argument for one which precludes the other. You can then extend that to polytheism, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Arguments for their existance are essentially the same as the argument for god. In fact the Catholic church has made exactly this extention to extend divinity to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary and a bunch of other gods and demi-gods they call saints. It's a surprisingly polytheistic religion, all ased on the extention that if one god exists and you can prove he doesn't, other could exist too.
Needless to say, your attempt to pull theism up by its bootstraps ("since God is definitionally the Creator of such a universe; and the meaning of the universe cannot be in conflict with its Creator") could be used to justify almost any metaphysical assertion. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe" is also "definitionally" the Creator of the universe; this doesn't mean that he exists, or that the universe had a Creator at all. Many other chains of pious reasoning could be cashed-out in the same way: "Satan is the Tempter; I find that I am tempted on a hourly basis to eat ice cream and have sex with my neighbor's wife; ergo, Satan exists." Or what if I suggested that what we know about the brain renders the idea of a human soul rather implausible, and one your brethren countered: "The immortal soul governs all the activity in a person's brain; I have no fear about what neuroscience will tell me about the brain, because the soul is definitionally the brain's operator." Would this strike you as an argument for the existence of souls? Granted, there are still many gaps in neuroscience into which a soul might still be inserted, just as there are gaps in our understanding of the cosmos into which the faithful eagerly insert God, but such maneuvers are utterly without intellectual merit. You can insert almost anything "definitionally" into those gaps. The Muslims have inserted Allah, and the Qur'an is His perfect word. The Hindus have inserted Gods of every color and flavor. Why don't these efforts persuade you?
All in all, Sam's doing well and, I think, Andrew's rather weak argument boils down to, "The truth will prove me right, you'll see. Besides people like religion so it must be true." I may be being unfair to AS though, so we'll see how he responds.
EDIT: Andrew responds here
An interesting approach, pointing out that there are kinds of truth beyond the emperical. That is certainly correct, for example, one cannot prove emperically that something is beautiful. However, in this context, what he's done is change the underlying framework of the argument, i.e. does god exist. If gods exist, they must exist within the physical confines of the universe, and hence, should be detectable. AS has changed the debate to to say god exists as a subjective reality rather than an objective one, and hence may not be subjected to the standards of emperical evidence. This is a sly bit of rhetorical slight-of-hand which pretty much ends the debate. From this point, you can claim almost anything since you've put it beyond the test of objective reality. We'll see how Sam responds, but I think Andrew has basically conceeded that god cant be objectively proven to exist and is attempting to bridge to a different set of criteria.
Cut to the Quick
Colbert gets it right:
Stephen Colbert: What made [Tuesday's State of the Union speech] so groundbreaking, I think, was all the new stuff we've never heard from the president before...like a domestic agenda. Take his proposal to fix the whole health care mess with the only proven cure-all: tax breaks...
Bush clip: And for the millions of Americans with no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within reach.
Colbert: It's so simple. Most people who couldn’t afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.
Stephen Colbert: What made [Tuesday's State of the Union speech] so groundbreaking, I think, was all the new stuff we've never heard from the president before...like a domestic agenda. Take his proposal to fix the whole health care mess with the only proven cure-all: tax breaks...
Bush clip: And for the millions of Americans with no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within reach.
Colbert: It's so simple. Most people who couldn’t afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
It might be true...
It might work, a friend of mine and I once snuck his underage girlfriend into a casino using this same trick.
> Garda - a classic
>
> From the State where drink driving is considered a sport, comes a
> true story from Carrick-on-Suir Ireland.
>
>
> Recently a routine Gardai patrol parked outside a local neighbourhood
> tavern. Late in the evening the Garda noticed a man leaving the bar
> so intoxicated that he could barely walk.
>
>
> The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the
> Garda quietly observing.
>
>
> After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles,
> the man managed to find his car which he fell into. He was there
> for a few
> minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
>
>
> Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on
> and off (it was a fine dry night), flicked the indicators on, then
> off,
> tooted the horn and then switched on the lights.
>
>
> He moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then
> remained stationary for a few more minutes as some more vehicles left.
>
>
> At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly
> down the road.
>
>
> The Garda, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the
> patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man
> over and
> carried out a Breathalyzer test.
>
>
> To his amazement the Breathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man
> having consumed alcohol at all!
>
>
> Dumbfounded, the Garda said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to
> the Police station this Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."
>
>
> "I doubt it," said the man, "tonight I'm the designated decoy".
>
>
> Garda - a classic
>
> From the State where drink driving is considered a sport, comes a
> true story from Carrick-on-Suir Ireland.
>
>
> Recently a routine Gardai patrol parked outside a local neighbourhood
> tavern. Late in the evening the Garda noticed a man leaving the bar
> so intoxicated that he could barely walk.
>
>
> The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the
> Garda quietly observing.
>
>
> After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles,
> the man managed to find his car which he fell into. He was there
> for a few
> minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
>
>
> Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on
> and off (it was a fine dry night), flicked the indicators on, then
> off,
> tooted the horn and then switched on the lights.
>
>
> He moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then
> remained stationary for a few more minutes as some more vehicles left.
>
>
> At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly
> down the road.
>
>
> The Garda, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the
> patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man
> over and
> carried out a Breathalyzer test.
>
>
> To his amazement the Breathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man
> having consumed alcohol at all!
>
>
> Dumbfounded, the Garda said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to
> the Police station this Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."
>
>
> "I doubt it," said the man, "tonight I'm the designated decoy".
>
>
Monday, January 22, 2007
What I Do At Work
part of a series. A note sent out today to the worldwide financial services crew on how I spent my weekend:
FYI: Continuous Query, the Next Big Thing in Streaming Data
In doing some research for solutions around real-time streaming data engines (e.g. Thompson, Reuters), it’s becoming clear that the next generation of quote engines is going to look quite different from the current one. Today a lot of streaming data technology is based on proprietary versions of the client/server model that we are all familiar with. Often the client side is a smart client, the server side is a highly tuned database and the transiting protocol is a web service (or it’s nearest moral variant). However, a lot of research is currently being done on Continuous Query Engines, which are vastly more efficient for processing multiple end nodes than current designs.
The basic idea behind a CQE is to identify which nodes are asking the same types of query , then group them for more efficient service, sending only deltas of information to the waiting nodes rather than long bursts of data. Clients are able to keep track of the deltas and cut down on complex query processing server side.
Below are a couple of papers I found in my research that I thought were interesting and did a good job of getting the concept across, along with at least one implementation.
I pass this along for informational purposes although, for the capital markets folks, this is something we need to really start thinking about. Many thanks to Ed Muth for suggesting this line of inquiry.
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/sigmod02-cacq.pdf
and
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1170000/1164132/p31-agarwal.pdf?key1=1164132&key2=9067059611&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
an interesting implementation
http://java.sys-con.com/read/260054.htm
FYI: Continuous Query, the Next Big Thing in Streaming Data
In doing some research for solutions around real-time streaming data engines (e.g. Thompson, Reuters), it’s becoming clear that the next generation of quote engines is going to look quite different from the current one. Today a lot of streaming data technology is based on proprietary versions of the client/server model that we are all familiar with. Often the client side is a smart client, the server side is a highly tuned database and the transiting protocol is a web service (or it’s nearest moral variant). However, a lot of research is currently being done on Continuous Query Engines, which are vastly more efficient for processing multiple end nodes than current designs.
The basic idea behind a CQE is to identify which nodes are asking the same types of query , then group them for more efficient service, sending only deltas of information to the waiting nodes rather than long bursts of data. Clients are able to keep track of the deltas and cut down on complex query processing server side.
Below are a couple of papers I found in my research that I thought were interesting and did a good job of getting the concept across, along with at least one implementation.
I pass this along for informational purposes although, for the capital markets folks, this is something we need to really start thinking about. Many thanks to Ed Muth for suggesting this line of inquiry.
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/sigmod02-cacq.pdf
and
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1170000/1164132/p31-agarwal.pdf?key1=1164132&key2=9067059611&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
an interesting implementation
http://java.sys-con.com/read/260054.htm
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Best First Prize Ever!
For the Vanishing Point Contest
A trip to orbit:
The Rocketplane® XP Vehicle is a four-seat fighter-sized vehicle fitted with a delta wing and a V-tail which provide good flight characteristics both subsonically and supersonically. The vehicle is powered by both turbojet engines and a rocket engine, enabling it to accelerate to speeds just over 3,500 feet per second (2,386 miles per hour) and reach altitudes in excess of 330,000 feet (100 kilometers) providing the sensation of weightlessness for three to four minutes!
too bad I am disqualified :(
A trip to orbit:
The Rocketplane® XP Vehicle is a four-seat fighter-sized vehicle fitted with a delta wing and a V-tail which provide good flight characteristics both subsonically and supersonically. The vehicle is powered by both turbojet engines and a rocket engine, enabling it to accelerate to speeds just over 3,500 feet per second (2,386 miles per hour) and reach altitudes in excess of 330,000 feet (100 kilometers) providing the sensation of weightlessness for three to four minutes!
too bad I am disqualified :(
Can Tylenol Make You Stoned?
Probably not, but it's interesting that it's mode of action is based on activating cannabinoid receptors. I wonder if the Ant-Drug lobby will try to get rid of tylenol. Or at least confiscate it at airports.
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most popular and widely used drugs for the treatment of pain and fever. It occupies a unique position among analgesic drugs. Unlike NSAIDs it is almost unanimously considered to have no antiinflammatory activity and does not produce gastrointestinal damage or untoward cardiorenal effects. Unlike opiates it is almost ineffective in intense pain and has no depressant effect on respiration. Although paracetamol has been used clinically for more than a century, its mode of action has been a mystery until about one year ago, when two independent groups (Zygmunt and colleagues and Bertolini and colleagues) produced experimental data unequivocally demonstrating that the analgesic effect of paracetamol is due to the indirect activation of cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. In brain and spinal cord, paracetamol, following deacetylation to its primary amine (p-aminophenol), is conjugated with arachidonic acid to form N-arachidonoylphenolamine, a compound already known (AM404) as an endogenous cannabinoid. The involved enzyme is fatty acid amide hydrolase. N-arachidonoylphenolamine is an agonist at TRPV1 receptors and an inhibitor of cellular anandamide uptake, which leads to increased levels of endogenous cannabinoids; moreover, it inhibits cyclooxygenases in the brain, albeit at concentrations that are probably not attainable with analgesic doses of paracetamol. CB(1) receptor antagonist, at a dose level that completely prevents the analgesic activity of a selective CB(1) receptor agonist, completely prevents the analgesic activity of paracetamol. Thus, paracetamol acts as a pro-drug, the active one being a cannabinoid. These findings finally explain the mechanism of action of paracetamol and the peculiarity of its effects, including the behavioral ones. Curiously, just when the first CB(1) agonists are being introduced for pain treatment, it comes out that an indirect cannabino-mimetic had been extensively used (and sometimes overused) for more than a century.
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most popular and widely used drugs for the treatment of pain and fever. It occupies a unique position among analgesic drugs. Unlike NSAIDs it is almost unanimously considered to have no antiinflammatory activity and does not produce gastrointestinal damage or untoward cardiorenal effects. Unlike opiates it is almost ineffective in intense pain and has no depressant effect on respiration. Although paracetamol has been used clinically for more than a century, its mode of action has been a mystery until about one year ago, when two independent groups (Zygmunt and colleagues and Bertolini and colleagues) produced experimental data unequivocally demonstrating that the analgesic effect of paracetamol is due to the indirect activation of cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. In brain and spinal cord, paracetamol, following deacetylation to its primary amine (p-aminophenol), is conjugated with arachidonic acid to form N-arachidonoylphenolamine, a compound already known (AM404) as an endogenous cannabinoid. The involved enzyme is fatty acid amide hydrolase. N-arachidonoylphenolamine is an agonist at TRPV1 receptors and an inhibitor of cellular anandamide uptake, which leads to increased levels of endogenous cannabinoids; moreover, it inhibits cyclooxygenases in the brain, albeit at concentrations that are probably not attainable with analgesic doses of paracetamol. CB(1) receptor antagonist, at a dose level that completely prevents the analgesic activity of a selective CB(1) receptor agonist, completely prevents the analgesic activity of paracetamol. Thus, paracetamol acts as a pro-drug, the active one being a cannabinoid. These findings finally explain the mechanism of action of paracetamol and the peculiarity of its effects, including the behavioral ones. Curiously, just when the first CB(1) agonists are being introduced for pain treatment, it comes out that an indirect cannabino-mimetic had been extensively used (and sometimes overused) for more than a century.
What Did I Get My Niece for XMas?
Fizz Wizard Reaction Kit
Space Sand
Safety Goggles
Periodic Table of Elements Poster with Bios
Cool Blue Light Experiment Kit
Glowing Gel Experiment Kit
Rubber Flubber Experiment Kit
Chemistry Wiz – Solids, Liquids and Gases
My First Chemistry Kit
Amethyst Crystal Kit
Rose Quartz Crystal Kit
Our Solar System iCD
Keychain Laser Pointer
there is a theme here....
Space Sand
Safety Goggles
Periodic Table of Elements Poster with Bios
Cool Blue Light Experiment Kit
Glowing Gel Experiment Kit
Rubber Flubber Experiment Kit
Chemistry Wiz – Solids, Liquids and Gases
My First Chemistry Kit
Amethyst Crystal Kit
Rose Quartz Crystal Kit
Our Solar System iCD
Keychain Laser Pointer
there is a theme here....
Why Am I Excited About This?
Gears of War:
Despite the mantra of many gamers, graphics do matter. (As Bleszinski told GameSpy last year, "[U]ntil recently you couldn't express a nuanced brow raise or a wry grin which can say a thousand things to the user. Instead we'd just go, 'That's hard, let's give her some huge boobs and call it a day.' ")
I don't play this genre much, so why do I care? Because Microsoft is doing the next version of City of Heroes, Marvel Universe, and this is what I am looking forward to :)
Despite the mantra of many gamers, graphics do matter. (As Bleszinski told GameSpy last year, "[U]ntil recently you couldn't express a nuanced brow raise or a wry grin which can say a thousand things to the user. Instead we'd just go, 'That's hard, let's give her some huge boobs and call it a day.' ")
I don't play this genre much, so why do I care? Because Microsoft is doing the next version of City of Heroes, Marvel Universe, and this is what I am looking forward to :)
Codependant Enabler
There is a very interesting debate going on over at AS on the top of the religious and the atheists. Interesting because Sullivan's logic is clearly wrong, i.e. he's trying to have it both ways, believing that reason leads to faith. His opponent, Sam Harris, keeps calling him on this and pointing out that reason leads to less faith, not more.
Personally, I think faith is a fine thing, if you have it, good for you. Where I step off is when you try to hedge your faith (believing something without evidence) and say it's based on reason (i.e. evidence). Nick and I did a quiet round or two last week, but frankly I dont have the energy or inclination to do a proper job. Nick's basic premise was "assume there is a god. based on that assumption, faith is logical", mine was "why would you assume there is a god? There is no evidence", it very quickly degenerates into which is the more reasonable set of assumptions. Personally, I've also thought the assumption of god without evidence is specious logic. I could use the same one to assume the existence of the Devil, or of just about any other mythological figure and would be unable to prove they dont exist (the debate usually ends when one shows that one is unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Ends in a huff with a sentence along the lines of "you're not taking this seriously"). Just because you cant prove something doesn’t exist, doesn’t justify the assumption that it must.
In this dispatch Sam makes the argument that religious moderates are the codependant enablers of religious extremists, i.e. if you pick and chose which parts of religion to believe, choosing some and ignoring others, you enable extremists to do the same and have access to the same arguments, just with a different spin. If you're a moderate, it's difficult to say exactly what you have faith in, and back it up with any kind of coherent religious argument. Sam says, basically, if you throw out parts of your religion, why not toss out the whole thing as a bad investment, shudder the doors to the churches and spend the resources on more useful capitalist endeavors?
I eagerly await Sully's reply. He may come up with an argument I haven't seen before.
Edit: Having read Sam's note twice now, I think Sully has to change the subject in his reply. Sam is just too spot on.
BTW, in case you were wondering, I don't think we will ever live in a world free of religion. The human brain is just built too well as a belief engine. There will always be mystics, faith and foolishness in human history. I have not dispared though that religion will take on a less violent and noxious form in the future.
Personally, I think faith is a fine thing, if you have it, good for you. Where I step off is when you try to hedge your faith (believing something without evidence) and say it's based on reason (i.e. evidence). Nick and I did a quiet round or two last week, but frankly I dont have the energy or inclination to do a proper job. Nick's basic premise was "assume there is a god. based on that assumption, faith is logical", mine was "why would you assume there is a god? There is no evidence", it very quickly degenerates into which is the more reasonable set of assumptions. Personally, I've also thought the assumption of god without evidence is specious logic. I could use the same one to assume the existence of the Devil, or of just about any other mythological figure and would be unable to prove they dont exist (the debate usually ends when one shows that one is unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Ends in a huff with a sentence along the lines of "you're not taking this seriously"). Just because you cant prove something doesn’t exist, doesn’t justify the assumption that it must.
In this dispatch Sam makes the argument that religious moderates are the codependant enablers of religious extremists, i.e. if you pick and chose which parts of religion to believe, choosing some and ignoring others, you enable extremists to do the same and have access to the same arguments, just with a different spin. If you're a moderate, it's difficult to say exactly what you have faith in, and back it up with any kind of coherent religious argument. Sam says, basically, if you throw out parts of your religion, why not toss out the whole thing as a bad investment, shudder the doors to the churches and spend the resources on more useful capitalist endeavors?
I eagerly await Sully's reply. He may come up with an argument I haven't seen before.
Edit: Having read Sam's note twice now, I think Sully has to change the subject in his reply. Sam is just too spot on.
BTW, in case you were wondering, I don't think we will ever live in a world free of religion. The human brain is just built too well as a belief engine. There will always be mystics, faith and foolishness in human history. I have not dispared though that religion will take on a less violent and noxious form in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)