Friday, December 31, 2010

Cool Moon shots

Including one with the International Space Station passing in front of it!


Link

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Ingrid Michaelson reblog

If there was ever any doubt as to who my celebrity crush of the year is: Ingrid Michaelson - TwitterSong!

Placebos Work -- Even Without Deception

Article here

A Harvard team shows that a placebo group fared better than controls, even when they were explicitly told that the pills were useless! Even more remarkable is that the sugar pills treated irritable bowel syndrome - a painfully physiological condition.

A Jewish rabbi's take on the Afterlife



This is brilliant - just watch the first 11 minutes for a crash course in Jewish philosophy.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The god-shaped hole

Article

This is an interesting article comparing geekly reverence for Star Wars, Star Trek, and other sci-fi mythologies with religious belief systems. Both, claims the article, tap into the same human instincts. The interesting idea is that when reason replaces dogma, we are left with a god-shaped hole in our psyches, one that we fill with heroes, villains, and supernatural cosmologies.

I wonder if there's any cog/neuro evidence to back this up? I'll let you know if I come across any.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Freedom of Choice stretched to the limit

Article

I consider myself pretty staunchly in the pro-choice camp, but this one gave me pause. The issue is selective abortion - reducing a pregnancy from twins to a singleton. It's not much of a debate in higher order pregnancies, where having triplets, for example, could pose a health threat to the mother and diminish the chances of any of the fetuses coming to term. The ethics get fuzzier when it's a matter not of health, but of convenience, and when the parents have already decided to have a child (just not two of them).

As in the general abortion debate, it's important to distinguish between two important yet fundamentally separate questions:

  • Should it be legal?
  • Would you personally be able to do it?
Tough one

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Condoleeza vs. Katie Couric on Gulf War II

In this December 3rd interview, Condi calls out Katie on her "question" regarding the motivations for the second Gulf War. The question was leading to the point of absurdity, and Condi goes to town on a premise that, if not faulty, was at least based on some contentious assumptions.

Anyway, I'm not usually one to align with the Right, but I think Condi is correct.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Link Dump I

http://www.thisblogrules.com/2009/11/ant-works-spectacular-nasa-experiment.html?utm_source=wahoha.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wahoha

http://funzu.com/index.php/crazy-pics/35-mind-blowing-watercolor-paintings-by-steve-hanks-02082010.html

Monday, November 29, 2010

credit card nostalgia

looking through a credit card statement enables an odd brand of reminiscence... trains, airplanes, bars, restaurants, and soda jerks. too bad i paid the tattoo artist in cash, that memory is literally gone forever

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Religious fanaticism in the US Congress

Here's the article

If you don't believe it, watch this

For more fun and games, watch this

I'd like to stress that this man would like to be the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Saturday, October 30, 2010

BF Skinner had HUGE BALLS

BF Skinner, in 1990, seven months before his death:
"Cognitive psychology was left as the scientific companion of a profession and as the scientific underpinning of educational, clinical, developmental, social, and many other fields of psychology. The help it has given them has not been conspicuous."

For those of you who don't know, Skinner was the guy who would put pigeons in a box and train them to spin around in circles. He advanced the notion that reinforcement and punishment were sufficient to explain all behavior, human or otherwise. He treated the mind as a "black box" - it does what it does, but its contents warrant no scrutiny. Skinner, along with the behaviorist tradition he represents, has been a favorite straw man of cognitive psychologists for half a century. And here he is, thumbing his nose at the zeitgeist, issuing in no uncertain terms a comprehensive "fuck off" to the institution that disdains him, yet still admires him enough to call him an idiot half a century after his heyday.

RESPECT

Friday, October 22, 2010

Somebody wants this guy alive

http://www.maniacworld.com/stunt-plane-loses-its-wing.html

Chrysalis of indolence

I'm completely stressed out, but I'm still engaged in a regimen of 90% fucking-around and 10% actual work. Which means I'm developing a Pavlovian association between procrastination and wanting to auto-defenestrate. Conditioned response: I'm going to emerge as the most productive person on the planet!

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Help me coin a new word

I want to make up a word, for that moment when the time SINCE the end of some era equals the time DURING. Like when you're 4 years out of college, or when you're twice as old as your younger sibling, or when it's been 18 years (or 16 or 30 as the case may be) since you first had sex. Or how I started playing the guitar 12 years ago, when I was 12. You get the idea. What should we call it? Once we come up with the perfect word we're going viral with this thing, and it's going to be the first UNIVERSAL COGNATE, part of every lexicon in every language in the world.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Journal of Null Results

Scientists often jokingly tout the need for a "journal of null results", a way for researchers to find out about all the projects that didn't yield sexy results (all right, turns out jellyfish DON'T fluoresce purple when exposed to Jimi Hendrix). Notwithstanding the fact that no one would ever, ever read this journal (like an early version of The Mighty Ducks, in which case our avian protagonists place fifth in the tournament), they're right. By limiting our ken to "successful"studies, we are committing an egregious sampling error. It's an amateur mistake, but we do it all the time! Give me funding for a hundred experiments with similar parameters, and I will prove to p <.05 that Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer. I'll prove it five times, and I'll publish. WATCH ME.

My point is that we need more transparency in science:

  1. ALL data should be readily available, at least within the academic community.
  2. Research should be judged based on the quality of the work, not on the direction of the results. Sometimes well-designed experiments fail to reject the null hypothesis. That's why do science.
It's doable! Here's why:
  1. Data storage is cheap. My entire Master's takes up about $20 worth of hard drive space, including 20 subjects' worth of whole-brain fMRI data.
  2. We have the Internet, via which information can be easily and cheaply shared
  3. There are far more researchers than funding sources. For example, agencies like the NIH fund an enormous fraction of biomedical research in the U.S. (28% from the NIH as of 2003). Creating a centralized community of data-sharing should be easy when the money is all coming from the same place.
Done ranting; time to go back to determining the locus of the soul. Wish me luck.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Israel - The Fundamental Premise

It seems that many of the individual debates regarding Israeli policy - the West Bank wall, the flotilla, the Gaza operation, the Lebanon operation, settlement expansion in the West Bank, etc - can be reduced to a single question. If this basic question can be satisfactorily answered, the rest will follow; the implications will percolate back upward until these peripheral controversies seem far more tractable. The problem is that this fundamental premise is worse than contested - contradictory views are taken as self-evident by different camps. The question is this: Does a Jewish homeland have a right to exist in the Middle East?
In any discussion regarding the above-mentioned issues, most pro-Israel American Jews depend heavily on an affirmative answer to this question. In fact, when you get down to it, it's the fundamental premise of their arguments.
At the other end of the spectrum, it is clear that the Arab nations in the area, including the Palestinian Authority, disagree on a fundamental level. It is the PA's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist - and note that this is a symbolic concession, not a practical one - that is currently stalling the peace process.
So what is the answer? Is the fundamental premise sound?
On the one hand, our American sensibilities would incline us to say no, the existence of a Jewish nation is inherently discriminatory. What about the 20% non-Jewish minority in Israel? What are their rights?
On the other hand, why single out Israel? There are plenty of unequivocally religious governments in the world, most of them Muslim, and all of them more theocratic than Israel. According to one former presidential candidate, the United States itself should be listed among their ranks.
I'm writing this post in the hope that YOU have something to say about it. From an emotional perspective, I think most of you know where my loyalties lie, but my mind is open - I want your opinions.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Earth-like planet found 20 light-years away

Article here

For the first time, astronomers have located a planet that could be hospitable to life. It's a rocky planet about three times the size of Earth. The planet 's orbit is smaller than Mercury's, but its sun is a comparatively cooler red dwarf, meaning temperatures are likely reasonable.

Blah blah blah, the point is that a spaceship originating from this planet recently crash-landed in Iowa, and it looks like there's a baby inside. A baby with superpowers.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Benyamin Netanyahu's speech to the UN

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the UN last Thursday. The entire transcript can be read here

Here are some highlights:

"The greatest threat facing the world
today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of
mass destruction"

"For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one."

"there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being
fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis
rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the
allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of
casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy
committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding
behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against
the rocket launchers.


That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel , by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.


We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.


Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel . A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.


By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals."

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The best engineer is selection pressure

In 100 years, computers will look like human brains, and airplanes will look like birds. Take a gander (ha ha ha):

DARPA builds an ornithopter - a device that flies like a hummingbird. The technology will allow small craft to fly using far less energy than tiny helicopters and the like:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/darpa-tests-first-robotic-ornithopters

An engineering student at the University of Toronto builds and flies a Boeing-sized ornithopter by FLAPPING HIS FREAKING ARMS:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-09/video-canadian-student-flies-bird-first-time-using-record-setting-ornithopter

Finally, and this is the coolest video, look how awesome it is to be a peregrine falcon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_RHRAzUHM

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Listen Up, Atlanta!

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/63481/title/To_tame_traffic%2C_go_with_the_flow

By tracking input and output flows at individual traffic lights, scientists in Germany found a way to modulate traffic flow from the bottom up. The numbers are staggering - public transit vehicles' time spent stuck in traffic was cut by MORE THAN HALF.

Listen up Atlanta - it's time to be smart about traffic. We don't actually have that many people. In fact, the population density of Atlanta is only about 4,000 people per square mile; we're not even in the top hundred (#125 on the list has us beat by two-and-a-half times). Again, the problem isn't congestion - it's idiotic city planning. Here's hoping somebody with some clout reads this article.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Game Theory

http://coolvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rain.jpg

Chaos in the Brain by Lewis Dartnell

Read the article here

Lewis Dartnell, a grad student at UCL, gives an easy to read and fascinating explanation of how the brain and other neural systems flirt with chaos to extract order and, ultimately, promote survival.

If you're like me, and A) think the brain's functions can only be understood once we've understood its rhythms and B) care, this is a must read.

The closest to an acid trip you'll get without shaving off all your dendrites

http://wonderfl.net/c/qDpw/fullscreen

Click the link, and then watch closely. Don't multitask, it only takes 10 seconds or so.

This exploded my brain and then put it carefully back together.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

DARPA developing mind control

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/darpa-seeks-out-remote-controls-for-soldiers-minds/

This is absolutely terrifyingly awesome. Given our admittedly fuzzy and macroscopic understanding of brain function (the amygdala does fear? or anger? or something like that), the possibilities are limited. For the moment. I don't know much about the spatial resolution of ultrasound brainzapper waves, but I do know a fair bit about brain function, and how gol-dang fast we're figuring it out.
I'm not saying we need to take to the streets. I'm not even saying this is a bad thing, although at first glance it gave me the willies. In fact, I'm not even saying part of me isn't itching to be a part of this. What I am saying is that it's important to be aware. So, here you go.

Monday, September 13, 2010

How to strut yo stuff

This article will tell you all you need to know about attracting a mate. Congratulations. Also, the videos are beyond hilarious.

Freelance Whales - Hannah

Chill indie-pop. Really witty lyrics, pretty vocal harmonies, nice integration of basic rock instruments with electronic elements.

Freelance Whales - Hannah video

I hope you like it, this guy certainly does: CRAYOLAHIPSTER

The Age of Rockets - Elephant & Castle

Very pretty, mellow ambient electronica with some real strings and Postal Service type beats. The vocal harmonies are incredibly rich and textured.

The Age of Rockets (semantically ambiguous... get it?) is a solo project by Andrew Futral of New York City, who went to the Purchase College Conservatory and won the John Lennon Songwriting Contest in 2004.

The Age of Rockets - Elephant & Castle

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Ask, tell, get over it

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/09/us/AP-US-Gays-in-Military.html?_r=1&emc=na

Does anybody still think this is a good idea? I can't think of a single argument in favor.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Fatwah Against Terrorism

The outcry we've been waiting for. Very cool:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478

Thursday, August 5, 2010

The latest on Prop 8

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Federal Judge Vaughn ruled on Wednesday that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, saying in his decision that "tradition alone... cannot form the rational basis for a law". The decision, which Walker immediately stayed pending appeals, represents a much-needed volley in what is sure to be for politics what Isner v. Mahut was for tennis. Except that people will care who wins, as same-sex marriage is a cornerstone of the fight for civil rights for non-heterosexuals.

I'm going to post more on the broader subject of civil rights soon, but this ruling in particular is interesting because it serves as a reminder that the United States is not a democracy: it is a republic. In a true democracy, the referendum in which the California electorate voted Prop 8 into law would have been the last word (at least in California). In real life, the will of 30 million people has just been superseded by a single elected official with an opinion, if not an agenda.

The long, arduous, and complicated story of civil rights for gays in California (it really is long, arduous, and complicated. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Legislation) will likely end with a ruling by the Supreme Court of California, a body of seven individuals. These seven individuals not only comprise a tiny fraction of the population they represent, but they can barely even be said to have been elected. California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, who in turn is elected by popular vote.

Clearly, "true democracy" is tantamount to "tyranny of the majority". We need the checks and balances afforded by, for example, a judicial branch that is empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws. But one of the great selling points of our form of government is that individuals have voices, as in theory, one vote could determine the presidency. Where is the comfortable balance?

The Oliver Stone Controversy

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cooper-stone-20100730,0,4387598.story

The article is well-written, but it seems to contain a serious flaw in its argument: what if the Stone documentary ends up being a factual, balanced account? No one is denying that the political dealings of these men were fraught with pure evil: the death tolls and ruined lives speak for themselves. However, I'm not sure what Stone is planning to tell us, but I'll suspend my disbelief and allow for the possibility that Joe McCarthy was a good father, or that Mao had a soft spot for orphaned puppies. What's the danger in showing that side?

According to Cooper, the danger is that it undermines what, by his own description, is a benevolent propaganda machine. Cooper is basically saying that people are too stupid to be granted a balanced and complete account of anything, and must be spoon-fed the correct opinions.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Seriously Mark?


Thank you, Facebook, for institutionalizing everything I love

Monday, July 26, 2010

The evolutionary disadvantages of face-planting

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61385/title/Frogs_leapt__before_they_landed

Too good. Apparently frogs evolved the ability to JUMP before they evolved the ability to LAND.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

French public ban on full-face veils is disturbing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10611398.stm

One house of French Parliament (the lower National Assembly), with the support of President Nicolas Sarkozy, approved a bill 335 to 1 prohibiting women from wearing full-face veils in public. If the bill becomes law - it has yet to pass the Senate - it will have daily consequences for the 2,000 Muslim women currently estimated to wear the veils in France.

Some hail the measure as a victory for womens-rights activists, who see the custom as a means of marginalizing and repressing women in the Muslim community. They view the veil as a symbol of misogyny in an historically patriarchical religious culture.

On the other hand, and the BBC article does little to describe the contralateral view, a measure such as this, obviously targeting a specific demographic, is an outgrowth of unsubstantiated fear of a demonized minority.

Fair enough, but nowhere does the article decry the egregious invasion of privacy such a law would constitute. What right does any government have to determine the legitimacy of cultural practices? Well, some - there are atrocities committed daily in the name of religion (google Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani if for some reason you don't believe me). But governmental regulation of religious practices should go as far as any other measure designed to protect human rights, and no further. The question, then, is whether the French bill would specifically target human rights abuses, or whether it casts a net that is too wide with respect to practice, and too narrow with respect to demographic.

I'm not comfortable with the tradition. It is lopsided with respect to gender, promotes secrecy, encourages shame, and facilitates subjugation. But it is a choice - a choice that women have the right to make. Of course, when the veil is forced on women (as I understand it is in some countries. Though my knowledge on the subject consists of 5% watching the news and 95% Kite Runner), it is no longer a choice. It is the policy though, not the tradition, that is culpable.

How to dress, and how to express one's beliefs, is a matter of personal choice. I knew a girl in college who made such a choice. She came from a non-Muslim family but converted in high school to Islam. She chose to cover her hair as a sign of modesty (as do many Jews and probably practitioners of other faiths as well). I find such restrictive practices unsettling, but in the case of my classmate, it is hard to put her decision in the "marginalization of women" category. Her expression of faith was unpopular with her family, and seen as unusual by her peers, but she was undaunted - if anything, this was a display of courage and individuality.

So we need to be careful not to overgeneralize. The practice may very well stem from pathological views on gender. It may at times be forced on women who fear physical harm or social stigmatization. That doesn't mean it should be universally condemned, especially at the expense of basic freedoms.


I'm done - I'm starting this blog not as a soapbox for myself, but as a way for us to share opinions with one another. So: what do you think?