Trutane Blog

I managed to put together a Pinax-based social networking website for my TeamHuman.org project. Click on the visit link at the bottom of the page. It's still in the early stages and things will change, particularly as Pinax evolves (and as I learn how to write some Django apps). But it seems stable enough to use now, even though it is based on a pre-beta version of the 0.7 Pinax codebase.

My main motivation for getting this site going was, as described in more detail on the site, that my Team LaLanne project needed a place for folks to register their interest in and to organize local group "feat of strength" activities to celebrate Jack LaLanne's 95th birthday on 26 September 2009. So check it out and register if you dig Jack's pioneering efforts to help create today's fitness industry and get us all off our duffs.

And feel free to spread the word about it. This blog post is really my first major announcement about it. My twitter posts to my 9 followers doesn't really count (though I do value you all ;-).

And Happy Earth Day!

A few months ago (April 2008) I completed my first significant Wikipedia contribution, a page about the wing walker Lillian Boyer.

I've been meaning to let you, my faithful blog readers, know about this (all three of you) since it represents an interesting slice of U.S. history and the life of a woman who was regularly performing amazing feats way back, when the grandmothers of the extreme sports enthusiasts of today were still in diapers.

What really compelled Lillian Boyer to start hanging off of airplane wings, I can't really say, but I imagine this was her way of expressing herself in an early era of woman's liberation akin to what the flappers were doing, with her own take on the unconventional.

Here's a short history of how her Wikipedia page came to be, in case you're interested:

As I was glancing randomly through a library book brought home by my son Russell when he was in Kindergarten (2006-2007), I happened across a page with an old photograph showing a woman hanging off an airplane wing (can't remember the title of the book, but I think the photo was this one).

It was very useful that Lillian arranged to have her full name plastered in a large, readable font across the body of her stunt plan, since the descriptive text in the book didn't mention her by name at all. It was only by reading her name on the airplane in the photograph that I was able to research her.

I eventually discovered photos of her at The Henry Ford's Heroes of the Sky online exhibit. Googling around the web for "Lillian Boyer" didn't reveal much, and I felt her spirit deserved better recognition. So I created Lillian's initial Wikipedia page (early Jan 2008) with just a little text and some pointers to The Henry Ford site. The article was quickly flagged by Wikipedia as not being sufficiently notable and in danger of getting axed.

So I decided to see if I could get the photos from The Henry Ford into Wikipedia directly. The Henry Ford graciously donated the seven images I requested, and after lots of further research into how exactly to submit them into Wikipedia, the images are now in place and the notability notice on Lillian's page has been removed.

It was quite a learning experience about all the various licenses that can cover different kinds of media in Wikipedia. Initially, I began submitting the photos as public domain by adding them to Wikimedia Commons, since they were taken before 1923. However, since there is some uncertainty in the date of the photos and since The Henry Ford still claims to control copyright on them, I removed them from Wikimedia Commons and submitted to Wikipedia directly under a more appropriate Non-Free/Fair Use license.

The Wikipedia page is quite sparse on her biographical information (compared to another early woman aviator Bessie Coleman, whose life is very well documented). If anyone has more biographical information about the (late?) great Ms. Boyer, please either contribute to her Wikipedia page directly, or let me know and I'll do it.

Labels: wikipedia

That's when physicists will perform the first high-energy particle collisions with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Actually, the chances of anything untoward happening is extremely unlikely. This is according to physics types, who were correct in predicting that the detonation of an atomic bomb would not in fact set fire to the Earth's atmosphere, as some had theorized at the time.

The threat of a planetary-scale disaster has certainly added to the air of excitement concerning the LHC. Sure, charting new territory into our understanding of matter and the Universe is exciting in a general, abstract sort of way. But the modicum of doubt about whether or not we could really obliterate the Earth in a single experiment injects a degree of tangibility that anyone can grasp, and has a way of inspiring awe in our technological prowess, notwithstanding the unlikeliness of such an outcome.

But just how unlikely is it? I'm not a physicist, but after browsing the web a bit, I wouldn't recommend cashing in your retirement account just yet. Here's my understanding of the situation: The micro black holes that might be created by high-energy collisions in the collider would be very, very tiny. They're so tiny, they would make a proton look ginormous. If there was a black hole the size of a proton, it would weigh 2 billion metric tons, or about 10^12 kg, but the micro black holes would weigh on the order of 10^-24 kg, so the micro black holes are around 36 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. These micro black holes are expected to be ephemeral and dissipate almost as soon as they are created by something called Hawking radiation, though there's some speculation about whether Hawking radiation actually occurs.

Even if the micro black holes hung around for some time, they would consume matter at an exceedingly slow rate: about 1 iron atom every 3 hours. At this rate, it would take about 10^46 years to consume the Earth. So these quantum-scale black holes are really not much of a threat, and could teach us something.

The only risk is if billions of the micro black holes could persist long enough to coalesce into a larger black hole, which requires some other conditions being just right (the accretion occurring exactly at the center of mass of the collision; short-range gravitational forces being stronger than expected; not getting zapped by Hawking radiation; etc.). If all these things fall into place, the accreted man-made black hole would get pulled toward the Earth's core, sucking in matter along the way and rapidly growing ever denser until all matter on Earth gets compressed into a nugget about the size of a chunk of kitty litter.

Another danger unrelated to micro black holes that has been raised concerning the LHC is the potential generation of strangelets. But this threat seems even more remote than that from micro black holes (which is pretty darn remote). Still, if things start getting "strange" in May, well, it's been good to know you!

Regardless of what happens after the LHC goes into business (new discoveries about fundamental physics or world annihilation), my only regret is that it's not happening in the U.S.

Here are some additional links about the LHC buzz:

• Scientists Discover Teeny Tiny Black Hole, (Slashdot, 2008-04-02)
  
• Particle Accelerator Shield, (Lifeboat Foundation, ca. 2006)
  
• Artificial Black Holes, again..., (Physics Forums discussion thread, 2006-06-05)
  
• Good news! Black hole won't destroy Earth, (Newscloud, 2006-09-20)
  

Labels: science physics news

There was an interesting convergence of unrelated AP news stories and Slashdot posts at ~4:20pm PST on 3/18/08, which made for this serendipitous yet seemingly insightful juxtaposition within my Yahoo main page.

I take it as a sign of political commentary by the collective intelligence of the Internet.

Here are links to the stories:

• "Bush says Iraq war was worth it"
  
• "The Reality Distortion Field Is Real" (which addresses a marketing phenomenon, not politics)
  

Gene Sperling's 24 July 2007 article in the Washington Post, "How to Get Fewer Scientists", painted a dire picture for NIH-funded research given a dwindling NIH budget. I generally agree this is a cause for concern, but it made me think, "How many more scientists do we need? How will we know when we have enough?". It also stirred up thoughts about "the big picture" of how and why we should fund science.

As a scientist by training and by nature, I'm all for more scientists. But the ultimate goal isn't necessarily to get more research-oriented, principle investigator (PI) scientists, which the NIH budget primarily feeds, but to improve the scientific health of the country, ensuring a continuous stream of new knowledge and innovations to foster national competitiveness and generally improve the human condition. PI-driven R&D is but one component of a larger scientific landscape that drives these goals, and I feel we would benefit from a resource allocation strategy that takes this whole landscape into account.

I think there are two main paths to improved national scientific health:
    1) diversification of scientific career path options,
       and
    2) greater public appreciation of and accessibility to the scientific process.

Goal 1: Diversification of scientific career paths

Even in the most pro-science society, there will be a limit to governmental funding levels for basic R&D. So as we (hopefully) inspire ever increasing ranks of young folks eager to do science, we must also give them an awareness of the diversity of scientific career options available to them, and help foster new scientific niches as new knowledge unfolds. Whether we need more diversification or simply need to be better at communicating the existing diversity is open to debate.

Our scientific health would benefit if we could promote a range of viable and rewarding career paths to budding scientists, rather than cultivating a monoculture of Ph.D.s intent on the academic, R&D-oriented, federally funded career path. Increased awareness of scientific career options would also help attract folks interested in transitioning to science from other fields.

Increased diversification of the scientific work force would preserve the investment made in publicly funded scientific education, since it would diffuse the competition for jobs over a wider range of occupation types, making it less likely for trained scientists to opt out of the system due to difficulty finding employment for a limited number of tenure track positions. A greater diversity of scientific professions would also promote a positive scientific perspective throughout society, putting science on a more sustainable footing for future growth and furthering the cause of goal #2.

Goal 2: Greater public appreciation of and accessibility to the scientific process

Ultimately, I think we will see better governmental support for science when the general public is more scientifically appreciative. By this I don't necessarily mean more knowledgable, but rather interested in the scientific underpinnings of things, motivated to know how things work, and how they go awry. We need to do a better job at keeping alive our natural curiosity about how we know what we know, presenting the methods and discoveries of science as tools for addressing the problems of humanity, and encouraging a willingness to face both the benefits and risks of new innovations within a broader societal context. Discussing these things with kids and providing pointers to age-appropriate resources would be a good start.

This does two things. First, it will make the voting public more appreciative of important issues that require science funding, leading to funding levels that are commensurate with their true value to society. Second, it encourages more people to follow a scientific career path, spreading appreciation for the scientific understanding across a wider swath of society and enlisting more brain power to help solve complex problems ammenable to the scientific method.

As for how to best achieve the goals outlined above, science education and journalism play a big role. Stay tuned to the comments on this post for more ideas here.

Causes of Concern, Signs of hope.

One might even ask whether it makes sense to devote more funds toward R&D spending in the biosciences at a time when around half of the US public rejects evolution. Clearly, we need to do a better job getting more people on board and better educated about fundamental aspects of the life sciences. With that in place, I'd expect funding prospects to be a whole lot rosier.

I've seen some signs of improvement in science journalism in the mass media. The science section of the New York Times often has very compelling science stories and extended online-content. The health and technology sections of the Wall Street Journal often has very well-written stories as well, though their content is not open to non-subscribers. Wired does a decent job at hyping science to the techies, a key population segment. A Wired article on microRNA from 2005 turned up at the top of their most popular list on 8/11/07, and a 2003 article on RNAi appeared as #5 on the most popular list on 1 Oct 2007. Beating out other hot topics as Web 2.0 and pornography is quite an achievement, even if transient.

Labels: science

I just posted to a slashdot discussion about how neuroscience appears to be eroding the notion of free will. Some really interesting philosophical threads there that touch on tangents in physics, biology, and religion.

The genetic angle on this topic comes up in the field of sociobiology, which ties into what I mentioned at the end of my slashdot post. Genes create predispositions for certain behaviors, many of which impart a selective advantage. So many of our behaviors, at a coarse level, are in place since they helped our ancestors survive. At a fine level, evolution doesn't shape our specific, day-to-day behaviors, but it certainly channels us into certain predictable directions.

The physical structure of our brains is necessary by not sufficient for all the specific behaviors we have or are capable of having. Borrowing a concept from genetics, one could say that significant alterations in brain physiology by things like tumors, are likely to have pleiotropic effects on many things that depend on brain function, such as all of our characteristically human behaviors.

So given this, we should not be so surprised when a tumor is proven to have been at the root of someone's decision making process. I guess it shakes our world view regarding what it means to be human.

In a word: I suck. In more words, read on.

Guys at work often have Halo 2 Xbox video gaming sessions, and I often intend to show up, and have played a few times, yet typically I bail. On the surface, my excuse is that I opt to spend time with family. Yet the games often go on long after everyone at home is off to bed, so I think there is a deeper reason why I tend to no-show.

I play the game so rarely that I usually need to relearn the complex joystick device (which is much more than a "stick") and have no finesse whatsoever. After an hour or two, I'm starting to get the hang of it again, but still feel woefully outclassed by everyone else, who race around me like 8 year olds at a toddler park. "No Steve, don't eat the sand!" Usually, other players leave me alone, since there's not much sport in offing someone who's barely able to avoid smacking into walls and what not. But this only leads to feelings of isolation.

I'm not usually one to whine or turn down a challenge, but there's only so much demoralization and frustration one can tolerate. It starts to feel like "Getting Hit on the Head Lessons" (No, not "owww!", but "waaah!". "Waaah!". "Good!"). So I usually only show up when in an exceptionally resilient emotional state that can take any amount of abuse and inferiority trip.

One of these days when my boys are older, mind, I'll have one of these devices at home and will be able to spend hours at a time on it, without getting interrupted to change a diaper. It's really quite an impressive immersive experience. In no time, my reflexes will be optimized for these joysticks on steroids, I'll have hardware accelerated my gray matter to dominate virtual worlds of mass destruction. Co-workers beware! Or maybe I'll take up Tai Chi instead. Could go either way.