Watch All of Star Wars in ASCII!

For those of you who have access to a Unix terminal type this command:

telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl

and enjoy the entire original Star Wars in ascii!  From what I understand this was all for May 4 which date carries with it the saying: "May the fourth be with you".  Anyways, I'm not the biggest Star Wars buff in the world but I must say I am impressed *anyone* could port the entire film to ascii.  What a project!

A Good Argument Against Getting an Education

Les Miles (right) is the head football coach at Louisiana State University and the highest paid state employee in the state.  He makes approximately $3,751,000 a year.  He actually said the following at a press conference following his team's win again the University of West Virginia:

There would be a real want, that is, a competing that would happen, which it would, without the need to be compliant or reluctant to not give up that which is the ball, or the things like it, such as the field goals, or even the punt return and defense thereof, and that's keeping the game short and helping the general construction of success as it relates to our football team.

 If there ever was a good argument against education - specifically grammar and basic communication skills - Les Miles is it.

How do I Love Summer? Let Me Count the Ways....

How do I love summer? Let me count the ways.
I love summer to the depth and breadth and height
My uninterrupted time can reach, when feeling out of sight of undergrads
For the ends of Research and ideal Parking.
I love summer to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and Colorado thunderstorm.
I love summer freely, as grad students travel to Conferences;
I love summer purely, as grad students strive for Publications.
I love summer with a passion put to use
In my old coursework, and with my passing of Comps.
I love summer with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost Time, --- I love summer with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my hopes for graduation! --- and, if God choose,
I shall but love summer better after my PhD.
-Elizabeth Browning (with some minor modifications)

Here's to summers in grad school - when we actually make progress towards our degrees!

Selling the Foul In Sports.

Chris Bosh was only 1 for 18 shooting in Miami's loss to Chicago last night, but perhaps he is preparing to get an academy award?

It is almost as bad as watching the soccer players in the world cup!

How Scientists See The World.

My family, including much of my extended family, enjoys going to national parks such as Yellowstone. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they wish I would spend a little less time explaining the science behind what we are seeing because frankly... I think it ruins it for some of them.

The comic, from Abstruse Goose, below helps me better understand why.

(However, I am also reposting Feynman's video on the same subject above in my defense as he shares the same sentiment about the issue I do.)

Enjoy!

Physics Quote Of The Day. (Popper and Over-Simplification in Science.)

From Karl Popper

Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification.

What?  What's wrong, for example, with spherical cows? :)

I almost deleted this email, but...

So today I got a random email from someone named Igor Pavlov and it said:

     Dear [redacted],

     I sent you this message about two years ago. 

Please be kind to review the updated description of my theory 

and let me know what you think of it. 

     Max Planck said: "Truth never prevails, but her 

adversaries always perish in the end." That's sad. 

   

     www.gravityspheres.com 

   

     Thank you. Happy New Year!

     Igor Pavlov

I have no record of receiving an email from him before, though someone here at UNC showed me his web site about two years ago, so I think he is just spamming grad students at UNC with this every once in a while. I spent about 5 minutes on his site before his Crackpot index number (how's 'CIN' for short) passed 100 and was still going when I decided that it wasn't worth it.

I have been trying to figure out who he is, but other than his website and his email address I can't find anything on him. When I google his name it turns out that the guy who programmed 7-zip has the same name, but there was nothing to indicate that he was the same guy. Though interestingly enough there is also very little information on the internet about the Igor Pavlov who programmed 7-zip. So it is impossible to tell if they are the same person, though the fact that there is a suspicious lack of information on both of them (and they are both computer programmers) might mean something.

So I really don't want to feed the troll, but I am kind of interested to find out if they are the same person, and then I would know what those faceless computer programmers do in their spare time. I may have to email him back and see who he is, though if he is a computer programmer then I may just be emailing a program and not him. So I guess I will have to see if his response passes the Turing test.

String Theory and Russell's Teapot

I don't want to be too hard on string theory because in reality I like the theory and hope it is correct.  That said, this cartoon by XKCD reminds me of the parallels between string theory and Russell's Teapot:

"The extra dimensions are really there we promise, they are just too small to observe...", "The supersymmetric partners that should exist for every particle are really there we promise, they are just at a high enough energy that they are out of our reach... ", "The 10^500 vacuum states leading to a multiverse...." etc...

I guess what I am worried about is that if string theory is not falsifiable in any practical way then you could never know if it is false or not.  Like Russell's Teapot.

Now, in defense of string theory, in principle these things may be able to be observed once we have built good enough detectors.  Therefore maybe it could somehow be falsified.

I guess another big difference is string theory employes hundreds if not thousands of physicists and the detection of Russell's Teapot doesn't. :)

If Kepler Were A Janitor.

How To Tell If You Are A Crackpot. (The Crackpot Index.)

Ever wanted to know if you, or someone you loved, is a crackpot?  Then this surprisingly helpful list, called the crackpot index, is for you.  What's so funny about the crackpot index, written by physicist John Baez, is it is all too true!

How does it work?  First you start of with -5 points and if your score goes positive, then on some level... you are a crackpot.  Think you can avoid a positive score?  Well let's look at a few entries on the list. (See the above link for the complete list.)

First, some common mistakes:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Second, a telltale sign someone is a crackpot is that they advocate established science is fundamentally flawed:

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

Next, what's so funny about these next few is I know from experience they actually happen fairly often in some form or another.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 

And last of all, the ultimate test (If you want to be a legitimate scientist.) :

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Okay, so: if you were making such a list what items would you add? (Remember, go read the full list!)   Given this is weighted toward physics, what issues do you see pop up in your fields?

Statistics with No Error Bars or Systematics.

I had someone try to convince me something recently using several statistics with no error bars attached or discussion of how they were obtained, any known systematics and how they were addressed, etc...   This seems to be a common practice among most people (my claim with no firm statistic cited :) )  and reminds me of this:



I'd be interested, for example, if the world would be any different if advertising campaigns were forced to attach error bars and descriptions of their systematics when quoting statistics.

(Although, admittedly, life and especially casual conversations, wouldn't be as fun if they had to be rigorous all the time.)

Thoughts?

Funny XKCD On Labeling Axes!

I know a lot of scientists will love this.  My experience is, even if I think my plot is crystal clear given the context and title, if the axes aren't labeled someone is gong to complain! :)

Oh The Things We Can Do With Computers!

Iran has an embarrassing problem which illustrates what we can do with computers today.  If you were to ask, even a few years ago, what we had to do to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities, you would probabley be told what Senator McCain suggested: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

However, it appears no bombing may be necessary.  It turns out Iran's computers at their nuclear sites have been strategically infected with a computer worm they can't figure out how to remove.  Of course, just a couple weeks ago President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured the word they quickly discovered the worm and took care of it.  However, the above article suggests this is not the case.

This has caused me to marvel what we can accomplish with computers these days.   We appear to live in a world where you can take out your enemy from the comfort of your own home. :)

Some choice quotes from the article:

1.  A little about the worm itself.

The Stuxnet worm... is the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever created... It was a cybermissile designed to penetrate advanced security systems. It was equipped with a warhead that targeted and took over the controls of the centrifuge systems at Iran’s uranium processing center... and it had a second warhead that targeted the massive turbine at the nuclear reactor in Bashehr.

2.  My favorite quote of all:

“The Iranians don’t have the depth of knowledge to handle the worm or understand its complexity,” ... raising the possibility that they may never succeed in eliminating it.

3.  And finally, what may be Iran's best case scenario?:

They are completely dependent on outside companies for the construction and maintenance of their nuclear facilities. They should throw out their computers as well. But they can’t...

“With the best of expertise and equipment it would take another year for the plants to function normally again

Well, good luck Iran.  But the good news for you is if this is successful enough you may avoid McCain's plan B.  :)

Not exacly rocket science...

The problem with trying to put yourself at the top of the pecking order is that someone will always top you.

Or as Brian Regan put it:

And just remember, what may be impressive for one person may be insulting to another (sorry I can't embed the video, just click here).

Webpage To Reassure You The LHC Hasn't Destroyed The World.

If many of you are like me you sometimes need some re-assurance that the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland has not destroyed the world, especially after watching this video below that gives the LHC a clear 50-50 chance it may destroy the world.  (The video can be semi-crude in parts so sorry about that)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Large Hadron Collider
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

However, for people like me they've created a website called hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com.  It gives you up-to-date analysis of whether the world has been destroyed by the LHC or not using a user friendly info-graphic:

The comment section of the site's html source code offers this disclameir:

If the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund.

Thanks to bijanweb for this tip.

Do People Want Rational Arguements?

It's election season in the US and perhaps nowhere in the country is an election nastier and fueled by more money than the Colorado Senate race between incumbent Democrat Michael Bennett and challenger Ken Buck from the "Republican/Tea Party" ranks.  The polls show that the race is a toss-up - Rassumsen has it split 47% for Buck and 45% for Bennett - and money has been pouring into the state from the national parties at a ridiculous pace.  Last Tuesday, for example, over $3.6 million was spent in a single day according to a Politico.com report.  The TV and radio here in Colorado have been spitting out attack ads against both sides full of half-truths and out-of-context quotes almost non-stop.

Switching gears, the climate science community has been rocked recently by Dr. Judith Curry, head of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech and a respected researcher into things like Arctic ice and hurricanes, who has the audacity to engage so-called "climate skeptics" on their own turf - blogs like Climate Audit and Open Air - which some claim legitimizes them.  She has also publicly criticized the IPCC as suffering from groupthink and called for a reform in the way they present and analyze risk.  She sees herself as reaching out to climate skeptics for a more civil discourse, while some accuse her of propping up bad science.

I'm really not interested in discussing the politics of Colorado's Senate race or climate science here - that's not really our thing. What I would like to explore is the question of whether most people even want a rational argument. It often seems like most of the time it is more effective to call names or break off dialog rather than have a measured rational discussion.

I suppose the real question here is how do people react to things that are supported by reason or evidence that contradict what they think should be true?  Maybe it's really a contest between truth and truthiness.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Truthiness
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

So what do you think?  Is there any rational discourse to be had or are we all thinking with our guts only?

Sometimes Academics Lose Sight Of What People Want/Need.

For some people, once they grab hold of some sector of academia they want to study it to death and know the ins and outs to the n^th order.  Often, these are they who become the professors.

However, sometimes we forget that some just want someone to show them how to use this knowledge to "program video games".

Image from Abstruse Goose.

Motivation To Go To Grad School.

I was not motivated to go to graduate school for the money (despite this earlier post) or because of the state of the job market.  I wanted to go because I love physics and knew that in order to "be a physicist" studying the types of physics I was interested in I would need to get a PhD.

However, this plot made by PhD Comics gathered from from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics suggests that the state of the job market may be a major factor determining whether people decide to enter grad school or not.  As is noted, fluctuations in grad school enrollment in science and engineering and fluctuations in unemployment are strongly correlated.  When unemployment goes up, more people start going to grad school.

Thoughts?

So Exactly Who Is The Smart One Here?

Some days I wonder...

Sad Truth About How Much Our PhDs Will Accomplish.

In the US, by the time most people get PhDs they will have been in some type of formal school for around 22-23 years and will spend many of their later years working way harder than their pay would seem to justify.  (How many people do you know with Bacholors/Masters degrees will spend years working ~50 hours a week and bring home in the ~$15-30,000 range for income?)

And yet this is what we will have to show for it.  From Gizmodo. (The site has more images so you should go check it out.)

1. "Imagine a circle that contains all of human knowledge":

2.  And now consider how much this circle will grow after including all the contributions you will make by the time you are rewarded a PhD:

And the really sad reality is the size of the dimple relative to the circle is probably far too generous. :)