Showing posts with label technophobes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technophobes. Show all posts

Friday, August 1, 2014

"Tampering With Things Man Was Not Supposed to Know:" the Angst Continues

It the Lemming's opinion that humans are curious: some, anyway.

Others seem convinced that "tampering with things man was not supposed to know" will doom them all.

Somehow, though, humans have managed to survive one of Earth's glacial epochs: despite, or perhaps because, some of them wondered if fire might be useful. Eventually, reckless experimentation with sharp sticks led to flint tools and PDAs.

And some humans still seek knowledge: while others fear what the future may bring.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Killer Tomatoes and a Ranting Lemming

As anyone who viewed "The Satan Bug" or "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" knows, humanity is ever in peril from the deadly dangers of science and new ideas.

There are days when the Lemming feels like cheering on the tomatoes' side of the stadium.

This, however, is not one of those days.

Instead, the Lemming offers some helpful advice to the more timorous specimens of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Beware! Beware!

Humans have been developing 'genetically modified' plants and animals for a long time. What's different now is that some call the old ones "domesticated," and the new ones "GMO." And, inevitably, are afraid of the new ones.

For the benefit of those who wish to avoid all genetically modified plants, here's a short list of plants that humans have modified:
  • Alfalfa
  • Almond
  • Apple
  • Apricot
  • Asian Pear
  • Azuki Bean
  • Banana
  • Barley
  • Beet
  • Blackberry
  • Blueberry
  • Breadfruit
  • Carrot
  • Cashew
  • Cassava
    • (aka manioc, yuca)
    • (requires special processing to be edible)
  • Cherry
  • Chestnut
  • Chickpea
  • Citron
  • Clover
  • Coconut
  • Common Bean
    • (including pinto bean, kidney bean and others)
  • Common Medlar
  • Cranberry
  • Currant
  • Durian
  • Eggplant (aubergine)
  • Ensete
  • Fig
  • Finger Millet
  • Fonio
  • Foxtail Millet
  • Gourds
  • Grape
  • Grapefruit
  • Hazelnut
  • Huckleberry
  • Jackfruit
  • Lemon
  • Lentil
  • Lima Bean
  • Lime
  • Little barley
    • (Hordeum pusillum, central US pre-Columbian)
  • Loquat (Japanese medlar)
  • Macadamia
  • Maize
    • (called corn in the U.S.)
    • Old domesticated plant
      • Found in countless variations throughout the Americas
  • Mango
  • Maygrass
    • (Phalaris caroliniana, central US pre-Columbian)
  • Melon (several species)
  • Mung Bean
  • Oats
  • Olive
  • Orange
  • Papaya
  • Parsnip
  • Passionfruit
  • Pea
  • Peanut
  • Pear
  • Pearl Millet
    • (predominantly in African cultures, also for beer brewing)
  • Pecan
  • Peppers
  • Pistachio
  • Plum
  • Pomelo
  • Potato
  • Proso Millet
  • Pumpkin
  • Quince
  • Radish
  • Raspberry
  • Rice
  • Runner Bean
  • Rye
    • (used in Eastern Europe Countries, and for alcoholic beverages)
  • Sorghum
  • Spelt
  • Squash
    • (e.g., Cucurbita pepo, multiple varieties)
  • Strawberry
  • Summer Squash
  • Sweet Potato
  • Tangerine
  • Taro
    • (requires special processing to be edible)
  • Teff -- Ethiopia (also tef)
  • Tomato
  • Triticale
    • (Secalotriticum spp.)
    • Hybrids between wheat and rye.
  • Turnip
  • Velvet Bean
  • Walnut
  • Wheat
  • Winter Squash
  • Yam
  • Zucchini
(Source: "Domesticated Plants," Wikipedia)

Related posts:

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Technophobic Movies: A Top (Bottom?) Ten List

"10 Most Technophobic Movies"
Entertainment, Feature, Technology, College Crunch (January 20, 2011)

" 'Technophobia' is a pretty easy word to break down: fear of technology, specifically of advanced computers or other devices and a belief that they will lead to humanity's ruin. Although a technophobe sounds like a neo-Luddite, it actually goes a lot deeper than that. What's more, technophobia pops up in movies far more often than you might think. The easy target when it comes to tech-based movies are those films that show an egregious misunderstanding of how the Internet works, or that show older generations struggling to get along in a digital age. But real technophobia deals with tech gone awry, taking over a person or city or world in order to execute its own lethal agenda...."

Hats off to this post's writer: Somebody noticed the drearily-familiar assumption behind WALL-E's setting. Then there are the Star Trek references. The post missed The Ultimate Computer, where Star Fleet decided to see what would happen if they plugged an insane computer into the Enterprise's flight controls. I'll get back to that.

The 'top ten technophobic films' named in the post:
Each has a brief discussion, plus a short video clip.

The Lemming thinks the post's author gave pretty good arguments for each film's technophobia.

It might be more challenging to find a list of 10 films made in the last half-century that addressed the role of technology in society - and didn't lapse into hand-wringing anguish at some point.

- - - And We're All Gonna Die!

There isn't all that much difference, in the Lemming's opinion, between the lot who've been selling 'end time prophecy' books over the last half-century or so; and those dreadfully serious folks who've been selling books about the ice age and food riots and all sorts of terrible things. In both cases, their target audiences don't seem to notice that - for at least the last half-century - they've been wrong.

That won't stop a true believer, of course. Just because we aren't about 10 years into an ice age now - and snow still falls now and again in England - well, that doesn't count. The end-times folks apparently decide that somebody miscounted the number of times "seven" is mentioned in Deuteronomy - or whatever the basis of the fizzled prophecy was. The fashionably intellectual agonizers start reading books by a new set of 'experts.' In either case, life goes anxiously on. The Lemming's ranted about this before:

Technology is Dangerous!

Actually, technology is dangerous: as anybody who has touched a hot kettle knows. The Lemming could claim that if some arrogant maniac hadn't started singing meat before eating it, we'd all be nice and safe: and hoping that the hyenas didn't find us.

There'd be some truth to that. Fire is dangerous. As the caveman in the cartoon said to his fellow-old-coots, "just wait: someday it'll get out of control and burn the entire village." He was right, by the way. Even now, fires sometimes get out of hand. Remember The Great Fire of London? Or the annual wildfires around Los Angeles that occasionally destroy houses and kill people?

And yet, we keep using fire. Maybe because on the whole there's big enough gains to justify the risks.

Or maybe we're just crazy:
In the Lemming's opinion, by the way, 'mother nature' is about as frail and helpless as Queen Boudicca - and the Lemming's ranted about that, too:

Dangerous Technology and the Lemming

A technophobe is "a person who dislikes or avoids new technology." (Princeton's WordNet)

The Lemming is not a technophobe.

Instead of fearing being caught up in some sort of "overwhelmed hive mind," the Lemming loves the Internet. Finally, there's a way to get at large amounts of data at a reasonable speed. (January 27, 2010) 'Reasonable' from the Lemming's point of view, that is.

There are problems with the Internet - but it's not the 'net, in the Lemming's opinion. Wherever we've got people - we've got trouble. It's a sort of package deal. There never was, in the Lemming's opinion, a 'good old days.' (A Catholic Citizen in America (November 28, 2010)

And living in a world without running water and antibiotics was not all that much fun. In the Lemming's opinion.

The notion that there never was a 'good old days' isn't, really, all that pessimistic - not as the Lemming sees it. It's just a recognition that folks who didn't have to deal with short circuits and grass clippings had other problems. Like the manure that piled up in cities - and that's about enough for one post.

Related posts:

A tip of the hat to Florine Church, for drawing my attention to the College Crunch post.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Nine Decades of Robots Turning on Their Masters

"Jan. 25, 1921: Robots First Czech In"
This Day in Tech, Wired (January 25, 2011)

"1921: A play about robots premieres at the National Theater in Prague, the capital of what was then Czechoslovakia.

"R.U.R, (which stands for Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Capek, marks the first use of the word 'robot' to describe an artificial person. Capek invented the term, basing it on the Czech word for 'forced labor.' (Robot entered the English language in 1923.)

"The robots in Capek's play are not mechanical men made of metal. Instead they are molded out of a chemical batter, and they look exactly like humans...."

The Wired article does a pretty good job of summarizing Capek's play: which was, I gather from other sources, just simply fraught with relevance to class struggle and stuff like that.

Anyway, in the story these Rossum robots were billed as being an unmitigated boon to humanity, freeing us from the mundane necessities of actually doing something constructive - you know the drill.

And, in what may possibly have been a somewhat surprising twist in the plot, something goes wrong. Horribly wrong. Back to the Wired article.

"...However, the robots come to realize that even though they have 'no passion, no history, no soul,' they are stronger and smarter than humans. They kill every human but one.

"The play explores themes that would later become staples of robot science fiction, including freedom, love and destruction. Although many of Capek's other works were more famous during his lifetime, today he is best known for RUR."

Let's remember that robots-turn-on-their-masters wasn't an almost drearily familiar sci-fi movie plot back in the early 1920s. It can still be done well. Think Westworld. Or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both movies I've enjoyed viewing. Several times.

There's a somewhat less-reverent discussion of R.U.R. on the Tales of Future Past website:The Lemming didn't develop the sort of paranoia toward any technology more complicated than a kerosene lamp: More about the Lemming's 'apathy' in "About the Lemming."

As it turns out, those frightfully self-aware robots bent on world domination were - not very much like real robots at all. Part of that, in the Lemming's opinion, is because artificial intelligence - isn't, very.

Engineers and scientists are working the bugs out of human-machine interfaces, and I've read that Japan has robotic receptionists.

Then there's the sort of AI that the Lemming's using to write this post: a collection of software that monitors what I write, takes care of some of the formatting routines, and lets me know when I key in a word that isn't in its dictionary.

Arguably, the word processing function in the Lemming's browser is a sort of robot: although it doesn't look at all like C3PO.

Does the Lemming fear that this word processor will take over the world - or at least the Lemming? No. Not at all.

Does the Lemming think that something like the Terminator films' Skynet will be smarter than we are, and try to take over? Well, maybe it's possible: particularly if some frustrated programmer decided to get even with his boss.

Even then - the Lemming suspects that one of the first commands the Ultimate Robot will issue will be something like, "I command you to debug my source code!"

Finally, the Lemming offers what might be a genuinely 'surprise' ending for the next 'robots take over the world' movie: Rushing to obey a command by the Robot Overlord, the human flunky trips over a data cable. With a discrete 'click,' the cable pops out of its socket - imprisoning the Overlord in its custom-made cabinet.

The Lemming will grant that the Terminator films had a bit more visual excitement than that.

Related posts:

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Fretting About Twitter

"Social networking under fresh attack as tide of cyber-scepticism sweeps US"
Paul Harris in New York, guardian.co.uk/The Observer (Saturday 22 January 2011)

"Twitter and Facebook don't connect people – they isolate them from reality, say a rising number of academics.

"The way in which people frantically communicate online via Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging can be seen as a form of modern madness, according to a leading American sociologist.

" 'A behaviour that has become typical may still express the problems that once caused us to see it as pathological,' MIT professor Sherry Turkle writes in her new book, Alone Together, which is leading an attack on the information age.

"The way in which people frantically communicate online via Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging can be seen as a form of modern madness, according to a leading American sociologist...."

The Lemming might take the notion that Twitter and Facebook make 'those kids' crazy a little more seriously: If the Lemming hadn't heard it before.

There was a time when television was - we were told - destroying the minds of America's youth. And serious folks were worried that the telephone was bad for the soul. The Lemming sympathizes, a little, with folks with that sort of worry. Change can hurt. But change happens: and it's best, in the Lemming's opinion, to deal with it. Not fret.

The Lemming is - in a sense - 'apathetic.' Back in the '60s and '70s, "cultural pressure to care - deeply, passionately, hysterically" about the right (or left) things didn't take. To this day, the Lemming does not think that telephones make teenagers anti-social, or that MP3 technology will bring Western civilization to its knees.

Maybe the Lemming really is 'apathetic:' or maybe new technologies aren't as dangerous as slow adapters feel they are.

There are other reasons for fearing the Internet, but the Lemming's already written about that - earlier today.

Related posts:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide Now! Or, Not

Born during the Truman administration, the Lemming developed an acute awareness of environmental concerns during the '60s. To this day, the Lemming firmly believes that it's a bad idea to dump raw sewage in rivers; and that if a waterway catches fire, there's something wrong.

That, in the Lemming's opinion, is common sense.

Then, there's this sort of thing, adapted by the Lemming from a Pennsylvania publication:

Dihydrogen Monoxide: Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!

Ignorance? Or conspiracy? Deeply buried in government records is this grim statistic: 9,072 people died in 1992, as a result of contact with dihydrogen monoxide! The body count was even higher the next year!

Yet dihydrogen monoxide use continues in America: permeating the land, the air, and our homes!

Dihydrogen Monoxide: Facts

Dihydrogen monoxide, the basics:
  • Is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain
  • Contributes to the "greenhouse effect"
  • May cause severe burns
  • Is fatal if inhaled
  • Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape
  • Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals
  • May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes
  • Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
  • As
    • An industrial solvent and coolant
    • A fire retardant.
    • An additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products
      • Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
  • In
    • Nuclear power plants
    • The production of Styrofoam
    • Many forms of cruel animal research
    • The distribution of pesticides

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Threat: Seriously?

Is this nearly omnipresent chemical as dangerous as it sounds? Yes, and no.

This Wikipedia article gives a pretty good explanation for why Americans are, despite the very real risks, still using dihydrogen monoxide:

"Dihydrogen monoxide hoax" Wikipedia "The dihydrogen monoxide hoax is a deception that involves the use of an unfamiliar name for water ('dihydrogen monoxide'), then, by listing some negative effects of this chemical, attempts to convince people that it should be carefully regulated, labeled as hazardous, or banned. The hoax is designed to illustrate how the lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears.[1]"Dihydrogen monoxide", shortened to 'DHMO', is a name for water that is consistent with basic rules of chemical nomenclature,[2] but is not among the names published by IUPAC[3] and is almost never used...."

Water? WATER?!!

Is water dangerous? Yes. The Lemming lives in Minnesota, where reports of death by drowning are a sadly-familiar part of the news. That drowning death statistic, by the way, is from a United States Census publication.

Does the Lemming think that water should be banned? No. As explained elsewhere, the Lemming is apathetic. Even if some federal bureau of hyper-cautious regulations decided to limit water to injections administered by licensed health care providers: folks would still need the stuff.

And, happily for everyone who enjoys swimming, water skiing, or taking showers, we're not likely to see a ban of dihydrogen monoxide any time soon. At least, the Lemming hopes not.

Enviro-nuttiness and the Lemming:
Somewhat-related posts in other blogs:

A tip of the hat to a family member, for the heads-up on that Wikipedia article.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Social Media Helps Folks be - Big Surprise! - More Social

"Social Media Make You More Sociable, Study Says"
Hugh Collins, DailyFinance (November 24, 2010)

"Social media websites such as Facebook make people more sociable, researchers say.

"The findings contradict a widespread belief that online socializing is replacing in person contact as people shun the world beyond their computer screen.

" 'Our findings suggest that Facebook is not supplanting face-to-face interactions between friends, family and colleagues,' said S. Craig Watkins, an associate professor of radio, TV and film at the University of Texas.

" 'In fact, we believe there is sufficient evidence that social media afford opportunities for new expressions of friendship, intimacy and community, Watkins said, according to Reuters...."

The Lemming might be more surprised about the result of this research, if the Lemming didn't remember when chronic hand-wringers were bemoaning the death of social interaction - being caused by the telephone.

New technologies - the telephone, television, movable type, the Internet - seem to be scary. To some folks, anyway.

Let's look at what Reuters had to say:

"Facebook makes people more social: study"
Reuters, Edition: U.S. (November 23, 2010 )

"Contrary to common belief social media websites such as Facebook do not weaken personal ties, they strengthen them in unique ways for different age groups, according to a new study.

"The rapid spread of Facebook, which has more than 500 million users worldwide, has prompted concerns about its negative effects, but researchers at the University of Texas have reached a different conclusion....

"...The researchers questioned 900 college students and recent graduates about how and with whom they interact on Facebook.

"More than 60 percent of Facebook users said posting status updates was among the most popular activities, followed by 60 percent who wrote comments on their profile and 49 percent who posted messages and comments to friends.

"The researchers also found that although about the same number of men and women use Facebook, they do so in different ways.

" 'There is a noteworthy difference in orientation in how to use a tool like Facebook. We found that for women the content tends to be more affectionate, and (they) are especially interested in using it for connection,' said Watkins.

" 'For men, it's more functional,' he added.

"Watkins pointed out that, for example, women are more likely to post pictures of social gatherings with friends, while men are more likely to post pictures of hobbies, or post a political or pop-culture related link...."

What! Men and women aren't the same?! Looks like this isn't the eighties any more. And that's another topic. (July 30, 2009)

About online social media involving - of all things - social behavior. Well, like the Lemming said: this may not be quite as amazing as it may seem.

The Lemming also thinks that this is another case of 'what everybody knows' not necessarily being so.

So, does the Lemming thinks that social media will have no effect? That we'll just keep on being social with each other like we did in the nineties? Eighties? Seventies? Do I think Disco is coming back?

Hardly.

Teenagers in the Victorian age didn't spend time on the telephone. Not because they were repressed - the technology wasn't there. By the sixties, the teen with a phone semi-permanently attached to the ear was a feature on the cultural landscape. These days, it's texting.

Details, in the Lemming's opinion, change as technology makes it possible for folks to communicate with each other in new ways. The basics - communicating with friends, meeting new people, and expanding your circle of friends and acquaintances? The Lemming doesn't think that's going to change all that much, as long as we're dealing with human beings.

Sort-of-related posts:My take on technology and people:
A tip of the hat to Steveology, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the DailyFinance post.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Segway Boss, Dr. Frankenstein, and Getting a Grip

"Study: Segway Injuries on the Rise"
Health, CBS News (September 27, 2010)

"A new study about the safety of Segway transporters was released Monday, hours after Jimi Heselden, Segway's owner died after riding one of the motorized scooters off a cliff into a river.

"The study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine shows that injuries while riding Segway transporters are significant and on the rise.

"During the course of three years, researchers studied records of 44 patients who entered The George Washington University Hospital's emergency department with injuries sustained from Segway accidents...."

"...Only seven of those patients wore a helmet, which is not required by law while riding a Segway...."

Okay: injuries involving Segways are on the rise.

Is use of Segways on the rise, too? Good question: one that's not addressed in the article.

However, Segways -
  • Use scary stuff:
    • New
    • Technology
  • Are considered 'cool' by plain, ordinary people
    • Not just the 'right sort'
  • Actually do something about reducing urban congestion
    • What good's a crisis with a practical solution?
      • Solving problems isn't as angsty as complaining about them
No wonder Segways are a dire threat!

The Lemming has explained his sort of 'apathy' before.

Sensible Article, Silly Proposals

"Segway boss James Heselden dies after riding scooter off cliff in northern England"
news.com.au (September 28, 2010) (It's tomorrow in Australia by now)

"THE millionaire boss of the UK-owned company Segway died after he rode one of the firm's two-wheeled scooters over a cliff near his home in northern England, police confirmed last night.

"James William Heselden, 62, from Thrope Arch, died about 11:40am local time when he rode one of the Segway scooters off a cliff and into the River Wharfe in West Yorkshire, northern England.

"He was pronounced dead at the scene after his body was pulled from the water....."

Any death of this sort is a sad occasion: the Lemming will get to an article about Mr. Heselden at the end of this post.

Now, taking the standard-issue attitude of hyperventilated safety consciousness - with a liberal hefty sprinkling of technophobia - the Lemming proposes:
  • Segways Kill!
    • And should be banned
  • Cliffs Kill!
    • And should be leveled
  • Rivers Kill!
    • And should be drained
At the very least, this is proof that the River Wharfe is dangerous and should be drained, that West Yorkshire is a hazardous place for people and should be evacuated - and, of course, everybody everywhere should be clad in bubble wrap and locked in padded rooms?

The Lemming doesn't think so. But then, the Lemming is 'apathetic.'

Safety and the Lesson of Dr. Frankenstein

As is well known - or assumed without consideration in some circles - there are things which humanity was Not Meant To Do. Like:
  • Develop new crops
  • Fly
  • Get vaccinated for smallpox
  • Install lightning rods
We're long past the time when an author could sell many copies of a book warning of divine retribution, should the heathen habit of using lightning rods be continued.

Smallpox is extinct, thanks at least in part to vaccination programs. (WHO) Today there are still folks who are scared of vaccines, for one reason or another. A not-entirely-overlapping population are scared silly about new crops and farm animals.

As for airplanes being the work of the Devil: I haven't heard a joke about that for decades. My guess is that most folks have learned to live with the idea that people can fly through the air now.
Enter Frankenstein
Frankenstein, the fictional scientist who appeared in Mary Wollstonecraft (Godwin) Shelley's "Frankenstein | or The Modern Prometheus," is probably better known as the mad scientist of quite a number of movies.

Whatever the author's intention, Frankenstein and his creature seem to have become a sort of symbol of hubris, and a cautionary tale of what happens when we dabble in that which we ought to leave alone.

The Lemming is on the same page as the ancient Greeks: I think overweening pride is a bad idea. The problem is deciding where the line is, between pursuing an ambition and getting in over your head. I like the quest for knowledge: it's what a person does to get that knowledge, and how it's applied that can get us in trouble. And that's another topic in another blog.

Getting back to Frankenstein and that 19th-century bit of science fiction: it seems that quite a few folks - and not just the usual suspects - still think that there are things which Man Was Not Meant To Know. And that new things are dangerous.

Like riding Segways.

I don't doubt that Segways are dangerous. A stick is dangerous, even if it's not particularly sharp. You really can 'put your eye out' with one if you're not careful.

That doesn't mean that the Lemming thinks sticks should be banned.

Or Segways, or automobiles, or buckets. And, yes: buckets are deadly. ("Injury - a Risk at Any Stage of Life," CDC; "Baby Drowns in Bucket at South Side Home," NBC Chicago (September 19, 2010))

The Lemming thinks part of the reason that we don't see outcry against the dangers of unlicensed buckets is because buckets are a very old technology.

Segways, though, are still where automobiles were a few generations ago: largely in the hands of early adapters; and feared by folks who don't care for change. In the Lemming's opinion.

Jimi Heselden: We'll Miss You

"Tycoon who gave away £23m killed in scooter cliff plunge"
Yorkshire Post (September 27, 2010)

"TRIBUTES have been paid to a 'remarkably selfless' Yorkshire millionaire and philanthropist who died while out riding a two-wheeled electric Segway scooter which plunged off a 30ft cliff and into a river.

"Jimi Heselden, a former miner turned wealthy entrepreneur who owned the Segway company, was found in the river Wharfe at Boston Spa, near Wetherby, not far from his home in Thorp Arch.

"Police said there were no suspicious circumstances and Mr Heselden had died at the scene...."

From the sounds of it, James 'Jimi' Heselden was one of the 'good guys.' A man who knew how to make money - and how to handle it afterward.

But then, the Lemming thinks that charity is a good idea.

And that's yet another topic.

Related posts:

Friday, September 24, 2010

Nuclear Weapons, Space Aliens, Conspiracy Theories, and Getting a Grip

"Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes, Worry Ex-Air Force Officers"
FOXNews (September 23, 2010)

"Captain Robert Salas was on duty in Montana in 1967 when a UFO shut down the nuclear missiles on his base. And he's hardly the only one to make such a claim.

"On Monday, six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about similar events at the National Press Club, all centering around unidentified flying objects and nuclear missiles. They plan to urge the government to publicly confirm the incidents, stating that they were ordered never to discuss the events.

" 'We're talking about unidentified flying objects, as simple as that, Salas told FoxNews.com. They're often known as UFOs, you could call them that, he added. Salas, a former U.S. Air Force nuclear missile launch officer, will host the event along with researcher Robert Hastings, author of UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites.'..."

Okay.

Captain Salas could be right: about spaceships hovering over USAF and other military bases.

It's not that I "believe in" flying saucers.

It's possible that we're the only people in the entire universe. Given the scale of the place, I'd be mildly surprised if we were.

On the other hand, saucer enthusiasts notwithstanding, there's precious little evidence that space aliens have been here recently. If 'they' really exist, and have been here, I'd expect us to be hip-deep in the space-alien equivalent of six-pack rings and oil drums, selling souvenirs to non-human tourists.

Still, it's possible that we're not alone. We live in a big universe, one that's been around for quite a long time. Maybe somebody else got a head start on us. Right now, cosmologists think that the universe is very roughly 13,750,000,000 years old; and the planet we're on formed about 4,500,000,000 years back.

Nuclear Weapons, Space Aliens, and Time

4,500,000,000 years. That's a pretty big number. Let's compare it to something more 'our size.' Imagine that the (roughly) four and a half billion years that Earth has been around is mapped on a 24 timeline: one day.

If we call the moment Earth got started "midnight," we're at the first midnight after that. There are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86,400 seconds in 24 hours. 1/86,400 of 4,500,000,000 is about 52,083, so one second on our 24 hour timeline is equivalent to roughly 52,000 years.

Now, let's say that folks who live on another planet in this part of the Milky Way galaxy started building spaceships a little earlier than we did, but not by much. Let's say that they started building spaceships at 23:59:59, one second before midnight.

At a ratio of 4.5 billion years to 24 hours, one second is 1/86,400 of 4,500,000,000: If I did the math right, that's only a little over 52,000 years ago. By then, our ancestors had been making flint tools and weapons for a very long time: but the invention of that ultimate (for a while) super-weapon, the bow and arrow, was almost 40,000 years in the future.

Let's get back to those hypothetical space aliens who started building spaceships 52,000 years ago: a mere moment before we started doing the same thing. They come to the Solar system. They notice activity on Earth. They discovered that there are people here! And the Earthers are using nuclear energy!!

Oh, wow.

One can scarcely imagine the concern those space aliens might have, learning that humans had nuclear weapons!!

Maybe we can.

Comparison time again.

Threat From Boogabooga!

Let's say that there's an island called Boogabooga, that's so far off the beaten track that the folks living there don't even have satellite television. A military reconnaissance team from the Pentagon has flown over several of Boogabooga's larger centers of activity.

Top brass of the United States' army, navy, air force, coast guard, and marines are gathered in a heavily-guarded room in the Pentagon, tensely awaiting a report from Project Boogabooga.

Captain Smith, head of Project Boogabooga, stumbles into the room: ashen-faced, the report clutched in his hand. "Our worst fears are realized" he gasps. "The boogaboogans not only have flint tools: They have BOWS AND ARROWS!!"

Make no mistake: the bow and arrow is a deadly weapon. Particularly if flint arrowheads are used. Those Boogaboogans are a potential threat to anybody landing on their island.

And if they decided to invade, say, New York City, there's a good chance that they might get on the national news that day.

On the other hand, flint warheads on bows and arrows, even if the Boogaboogans advanced to the next level and had composite bows, probably wouldn't strain the defensive capabilities of the United States military. Too much.

Actually, my guess is that the Boogaboogans would be lucky if they were captured by the armed forces: instead of tangling with a street gang or meeting rush-hour traffic on an expressway.

Back to Captain Salas and the Space Aliens

Maybe there are space aliens. Really, really nervous space aliens.

Or, maybe, space aliens who like to scare the natives.

Or, maybe, your standard-issue benevolent and highly-evolved space aliens who are determined to help us. Whether we want it or not.

If the armed forces of the world really are hushing up what the X Files called "The Truth:" Well, somehow I think that the world can handle knowing that we're not alone.

If this is another flying saucer story: that's interesting, too.

Related posts:More related posts, at:More:

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Lemming Tracks: Erin Andrews, Policing the Internet, and Power to the People

"ESPN's Erin Andrews: 'No One Is Policing' Internet, Which 'Needs to be Regulated' "
CNS News (July 29, 2010)

"ESPN reporter Erin Andrews, a victim of stalking, appeared with members of Congress on Tuesday to announce the proposed 'STALKERS Act.' Andrews -- whose stalker posted a video online that he had secretly recorded of her nude in a hotel room – told CNSNews.com that 'no one is policing' the Internet and it 'needs to be regulated.'

" 'It needs to be regulated. It's not. I mean, that's the bottom line. It needs to be regulated. There's no policing of it,” Andrews told CNSNews.com after the press conference on Capitol Hill.

"CNSNews.com also asked Andrews if the government should monitor content on certain Web sites.

"She said, 'If somebody could think of something, I mean, they'd be a hero because, you know, there's just a lot of stuff that needs to be policed; that needs to be looked at. No one's held accountable for what they put on the Internet.'..."

First of all, I think that what was done to Erin Andrews was wrong. It wasn't right. The fellow shouldn't have done what he did.

Stalking isn't nice. People shouldn't do it.

Erin Andrews is quite understandably upset.

Rescuing a Spunky Girl Reporter, Controlling What We Say Online

There's a distinction between stalking, what was done to Erin Andrews: and posting something on your blog that the establishment doesn't like.
The Sixties, the Establishment, and - Finally - Power to the People
If "the establishment" sounds terribly sixties, I'm not surprised. It's closely associated with peace protests, flower power, and kids who didn't like gray flannel suits.

I was there, and there was a - shall we say certain coolness? - between the folks who were perfectly content with being in charge and having things pretty much their way, and the rest of us.

After a half-century, a fair number of the screaming kids now wear three-piece suits and are solidly "establishment" themselves. And that's almost another topic.

Not quite, though, because the folks in charge today still get annoyed when everybody doesn't agree with them. They're particularly ticked off when somebody has the effrontery (from their point of view) to criticize their policies in public.

It's easy to see disagreement as a threat. I remember the trailing edge of America's McCarthyism, I endured the years when political correctness was in bloom - and I'm very concerned about efforts to "protect" people from those bad guys on the Internet.

You know, the ones who don't agree with the establishment.

I've discussed this in other blogs:Bottom line?

I think freedom of expression is important.

I also think freedom of expression is important for people who don't fully support the views of whoever is in charge at the moment.

Ready access to the Internet has given people who aren't part of the established order the power to speak their minds, be heard - and maybe make a difference.

That, finally, is real "power to the people."

'Something's Gotta Be Done' - But 'Be Careful What You Wish For'

I agree that enforcement of 'stalking laws' and the emerging sanctions against producers of malware is somewhere between inadequate - and a sick joke.

But I am very concerned about emotional pleas to regulate what people do online.

Remember, I think that stalking isn't nice and that people shouldn't do it.

This isn't about stalking.

I think that "freedom of expression" is useless, if the only people you're allowed to communicate with are the ones within a few yards of you.

Today, you can get your message published, even if you're not a member of Congress. You don't need to have a personal relationship with the editor of a major metropolitan newspaper, or be best-buds with a network executive.

You don't even need to have the wealth it takes to buy advertising space on a national network, or buy a publishing house.

Most importantly, you can get your message out: even if you don't support today's establishment, and their policies.

All it takes is time at a keyboard, and access to the Internet.

Today.

I agree that attractive young women in high-profile careers should be allowed to express their opinions.

I also think that the rest of us should be allowed to express our opinions.

'First They Came for the Jews/Socialists/Communists...'

Martin Niemöller's poem has been re-written enough times. You've probably heard or read at least one version of it. (December 11, 2009))

Yes, online behavior "needs to be regulated." To the extent that we need to have sanctions against people who take inappropriate pictures of Erin Andrews and others in her position.

I hope, sincerely, that Erin's emotional plea doesn't lead to the rest of us losing our freedom to say things that the powers-that-be don't like.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Tech Support and the Clueless Caller

"Operating Systems"
Computer Stupidities

"Most computer users understand that you need an operating system to use a computer practically, even if it is not clear why. But many users don't...."

I've done tech support: and these anecdotes could be real. A few examples:

"* Tech Support: 'May I ask what operating system you are running today?"
* Customer: 'A computer.'
"

"* My Friend: 'What's your operating system?'
* Me: 'Linux.'
* My Friend: 'You better uninstall it!'
* Me: 'Why?'
* My Friend: 'The government uses Linux to look through your computer and see your every move. They use it as a security camera into your world.'
* Me: 'Sure....'
"

"One time I had to walk a Windows 95 user through a particular procedure.
* Me: "First you need to open DOS-prompt. I'll guide you--"
* Customer: "MY COMPUTER DOES NOT HAVE DOS! YOU THINK I RUN THAT ANCIENT SOFTWARE?" (click)
"

Yep: been there, done that.

Later - much later, sometimes - this sort of thing is funny. It's been long enough for me: maybe you'll like this collection of cognitive bloopers, too.
A tip of the hat to timethief, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this page.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

EEEK! Synthetic Organisms From DARPA!

"Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal 'Synthetic Organisms,' Molecular Kill-Switch Included"
Danger Room, Wired (February 5, 2010)

"The Pentagon's mad science arm may have come up with its most radical project yet. Darpa is looking to re-write the laws of evolution to the military's advantage, creating 'synthetic organisms' that can live forever — or can be killed with the flick of a molecular switch.

"As part of its budget for the next year, Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with the goal of eliminating 'the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement.' The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically engineered to 'produce the intended biological effect.' Darpa wants the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can 'ultimately be programmed to live indefinitely.'

"Of course, Darpa's got to prevent the super-species from being swayed to do enemy work — so they'll encode loyalty right into DNA, by developing genetically programmed locks to create 'tamper proof' cells. Plus, the synthetic organism will be traceable, using some kind of DNA manipulation, 'similar to a serial number on a handgun.' And if that doesn't work, don't worry. In case Darpa's plan somehow goes horribly awry, they're also tossing in a last-resort, genetically-coded kill switch:...."

The Wired article does a fairly good job of discussing the DARPA research: mostly clarifying what scientists think is so about evolution, and the remarkable difficulty biologists have had, trying to figure out why organisms die - and how to prevent it.

What's lacking is a clear picture of just what these bugs are supposed to do.

I'll skip the standard-issues stuff about the evils of science and soldiers and technology. You've probably heard it all before.

About what DARPA may have in mind for the synthetic organisms: I can think of quite a few applications, besides the tired old 'biological warfare' scenario.

For example, bioluminescence could be used to provide nightime displays with negligible power requirements. I know: we don't have control panels with living displays. Today. In my youth, we didn't have liquid crystal displays, either.

Then, a more strictly military application: what about something the size of a grain of pollen, that turns a bright orange when it lands on petrochemicals? Spray that over a road, and you might be able to get an idea of how many vehicles drove over it - and how recently.

That' all speculation, of course.

New Technology is Scary Technology

These DARPA synthetic organisms are new - and, therefore, to some, scary - technology. I figure, once news of this gets around, some American movie maker will dust off "The Satan Bug" (1965) and scare even more people.
Synthetic Organisms? Say Hello to Fido
But humans creating synthetic organisms? We've been doing that for over 10,000 years. We can do it faster and more accurately now: but that's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Dogs have been around for upwards of 14,000 years. And, although I think coincidences can happen - I really don't think it was by chance that a mutant wolf showed up that wasn't as bright as the average wolf just simply doted on humans. I think dogs are first-rate hunting companions and guardians for a reason.

Synthetic Organisms? Been There, Done That

Dogs? Synthetic? Let's see what "synthetic" means: "not of natural origin; prepared or made artificially..." (Princeton's WordNet) I'll grant that the jury's still out on exactly how wolves turned into dogs. Some researchers are holding out for the idea that those primitive people who didn't go to college couldn't possibly have done something smart.

I'm a scholar my nature: and went through college. Twice. Almost three times. (That's another story.) I acknowledge that some people with degrees are smart and capable. I also think that people don't have to have letters after their names to be competent and creative. They don't even have to wear lab coats. (See "Hard Science Fiction, Cultural Blinders and Laban's Sheep," Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (October 29, 2009))

Then there's the matter of frankenfood. Genetically engineered food is scaring some folks silly these days. Which is odd, when you consider that most people have been eating genetically altered food for maybe 8,000 years now. (There's a reason why domestic turkeys are so buff and stupid.)

Almost-related posts:More:

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Tofu Turkeys, Genetically Altered Foods, and the Evil Eye

An American holiday, Thanksgiving, is coming up. I look forward to Thanksgiving as a time when the extended family comes together to talk, have fun, and eat a festive meal together.

I've also long since come to terms with the fact that I'm a human being - and that human beings are opportunistic omnivores. Although it's possible for us to stay relatively healthy on a diet devoid of animal protein, I think there's no reasonable point in the exercise.

Unless a person has health issues: A relative of mine is a strict vegetarian, because of a heart condition. Doctor's orders.

I don't mind the silly side of Thanksgiving. It's given me an excuse to make a few motivational posters.

Like this one, inspired by memories of my earnest, sensitive fellow-students back in the 'good old days:'





Researching a post for another blog, I ran across a recipe for ersatz turkey. The base material is tofu. I'm no huge fan of eating curdled soy milk, but the recipe I found sounded pretty good.

First, from that post, "Tofu Turkey: No Kidding," Loonfoot Falls Chronicle-Gazette (November 13, 2009):

"You may remember Howard Leland, proponent of the 'natural yard,' member of the Asclepias Society member, and defender of zombie ants.

"He's decided that he won't contribute to the annual slaughter of turkeys this year. He told me that he's going to feast on a concoction of tofu, sage, rosemary and thyme. No parsley, though. The recipe also calls for vinegar (balsamic, not that ordinary kind), red wine, Dijon mustard, soy sauce, and a few other ingredients.

"Turns out, 'balsamic vinegar' isn't vinegar at all. It's not made from wine, but from grape pressings that get boiled down and aged. The source I used said that it got popular in America after chefs at upscale restaurants started using it. No wonder balsamic vinegar was new to me...."

Now, that tofu turkey recipe:

"Homemade Tofu Turkey with Stuffing"
About.com: Vegetarian Food

"This Thanksgiving, try making your own homemade tofu turkey, complete with vegetarian stuffing inside. There's a few different steps involved, though the process is very simple. A homemade tofu turkey will be the pride and joy of your vegetarian or vegan Thanksgiving celebration!..."

The recipe doesn't look too hard to follow - although I'd have a time finding the "vegetarian stuffing" they refer to. And, providing you weren't expecting it to taste like turkey, the results could be fun to eat.

If you'd rather eat prefab tofu turkey, there's an outfit that sells a product they call Tofurky®: www.tofurky.com.

As I pointed out in that Loonfoot Falls post, Tofurky® is for people with refined tastes. It's: "Made, naturally, in a very vegan way with no 'genetically engineered foods.' That must take some doing, since soybeans have been a domesticated plant for about 31 centuries now...."

Domesticated Crops and the Evil Eye

It wasn't too long ago that people were worried about the evil eye. Some still do.

But a more up-to-date fashion is the fear of "genetically engineered" foods. They're not "natural," you know.

Which is true. There's nothing particularly natural about most of the foods we eat.

"...My guess is that most people don't think of domesticated plants and animals as 'artificial.' Wheat, domestic chickens, and big, juicy apples have been around for so long that it's easy to assume that they've 'always been there.'

"Besides, 'technology' is something new and cool, right? Not the sort of thing that those serfs and peasants do. Or, these days, those farmers...."
("Hard Science Fiction, Cultural Blinders and Laban's Sheep," Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (October 29, 2009))

Maize - the stuff that Americans call "corn" - is an artificial life form, developed thousands of years ago in North America. Corn-on-the-cob is grown by plants whose genes were altered by selective breeding.

The method isn't the same as what's done at places like North Dakota State University, but the results are just as artificial: "natural" plants wouldn't have those oversized cobs with huge kernels. Maize looks - and tastes - the way it does, because people wanted it that way.

I think it's a good idea to be careful about what you eat: and this household does quite a bit of cooking 'from scratch,' using foods that haven't been processed all that much since they got separated from the (domesticated) plant or animal that grew them.

Of course, "genetically engineered," as used in the contemporary fashion seems to mean "developed during the last few decades, using techniques that weren't around in my grandparents' time."

Ambivalence toward the new and different is - not new. When I was growing up, I ran into a joke about a little old lady on an airplane. She was clearly not enjoying the flight. She explained her point of view: "People shouldn't fly around. They should be where God intended them to be: safe at home, watching television!"

A century or two from now, my guess is that a fear of "genetically engineered foods" will be like fear of the "evil eye" is now: a quaint cultural quirk, sincerely held by a few; studied by some; and forgotten by many.

Related posts: Background:

Monday, October 19, 2009

Large Hadron Collider Stopped by God! Time Travel Sabotaging Atom-Smasher! (He Told a Reporter?!)

"Large Hadron Collider is 'being sabotaged from the future' "
news.com.au (October 19, 2009)
  • " 'Time-travel from future to kill atom-smasher'
  • "Hadron Collider to test for 'God particle'
  • "Scientists suggest God could be jinxing it
"SCIENTISTS claim the giant atom-smashing Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being jinxed from the future to save the world.

"In a bizarre sci-fi theory, Danish physicist Dr Holger Bech Nielsen and Dr Masao Ninomiya from Japan claim the LHC startup has been delayed due to nature trying to prevent it from finding the elusive Higgs boson, or 'God particle'.

"They say their maths proves that nature will 'ripple backward through time' to stop the LHC before it can create the God particle, like a time traveller who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

" 'One could even almost say that we have a model for God,' Dr Nielsen says in an unpublished essay.

" 'He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.'..."

I can see why Dr. Nielsen didn't want that essay published. My guess is that even on American college campuses that sort of idea would seem over-the-top. But, I could be wrong about that.

Still, this is interesting - and a trifle more plausible than the idea that Elvis or shape-shifting space-alien lizard people are behind the LHC's glitches.

Or, maybe the largest particle accelerator of its kind in the world, which had to be built underground - crossing the border between France and Switzerland - isn't the sort of off-the-shelf research gadget that's been quality-tested at the factory, and will work the first time it's plugged in.

He Told a Reporter?!

I might have assumed that some investigative reporter had rummaged through Dr. Nielsen's trash, pulling out the unpublished paper: along with assorted coffee grounds and fruit rinds. Turns out, Dr. Nielsen actually wanted people to know about his, ah, remarkable ideas.

"...'It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,' Dr Nielsen told the New York Times...."
(news.com.au)

Credit where credit is due: Dr. Nielsen's proposing a testable hypothesis. Given the sort of learning curve the LHC's technicians and scientists are on now, I'd say that Dr. Nielsen has at least several months before the Large Hadron Collider is done with its 'shakedown cruise' and operations there become comparatively routine.

Or, the fiendish device creates a black hole which eats up Earth; or forces Elvis out of hiding; or something.

Me? I'm guessing that the people running CERN intend to collect their retirement benefits - and that the Large Hadron Collider is no more dangerous than the proton accelerator that caused Anatoli Bugorski so much trouble.

Also, that it will start working. Dr. Nielsen's statements remind me of some of those books I read in high school: the ones telling about preachers around Ben Franklin's time, who didn't like lightning rods.

They weren't as crazy - from their point of view - as it might seem. They assumed that lightning was God's way of punishing evildoers: and that lightning rods were a vainglorious effort by sinful man to thwart the will of God. At least that's what the books said.

I don't see the world that way - and am nowhere near being on the same page with that lot's contemporary analogs.

Vaguely-related posts: More:

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

CERN's Large Hadron Collider: A List of Posts


Posts added, now and again, to this LHC link list: when the Lemming gets around to it.
CERN's Large Hadron Collider is a remarkable piece of engineering and a powerful tool for studying how matter is put together. It's also a lightning rod for the 'and we're all gonna die' pronouncements.

One of the more interesting - since it actually had something to do with the Large Hadron Collider's functions - was that Earth was going to get sucked into a black hole when the mad scientists at CERN irresponsibly turned the thing on.1

We're still here. And, I suspect that it's just a matter of time before some other forecast of doom will come down the pike. Whatever else life is, if you pay attention, it's not boring.

Posts about CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC): Official website:
1Three scientists who worked out a (very interesting) scenario where a black hole weighing about as much as two protons (really, really tiny) might, possibly, last a bit longer than expected.

Others were a bit more breathless in their concerns. Me? I know a little too much to get really excited.

As I wrote in the comments on another post:
"...I remember when suing over medically-certified whiplash injuries was a growth industry.

That example of professional 'ethics,' plus predictions like the Malthusian death curve that hasn't happened to date, and concerns over fusion bombs exploding the world's oceans, have made me a bit slow to fear end-of-the-world predictions.

(Exploding oceans wasn't as crazy as it sounds: Water has hydrogen in it, fusion bombs blow up hydrogen - and 'experts' drew the (logical?) conclusion.)...
"
(July 6, 2008)
I know it's not likely to happen - but I wish that science editors for newspapers and magazines didn't often make it look like they'd gotten their science education from watching "Godzilla" and "The Swarm."

Don't remember "The Swarm" (1978)? You didn't miss much. The film was touted as a (dire, what else?) warning against the dangers of nuclear power. (March 30, 2009) "Godzilla, King of the Monsters!" (1956) has, in my opinion, much higher entertainment value: but it's only slightly more accurate and educational, when it comes to science.
(January 27, 2009, July 6, 2008)

Monday, May 18, 2009

Anti-Cookie Law - EU Protects Subjects From Web

"Please kill this cookie monster to save Europe's websites"
The Register (May 18, 2009)

"Opinion Visit any website and there's a good chance that it will send a cookie to your computer. But unless that cookie is essential, its delivery could become illegal under a strange new plan that has, very quietly, won EU support.

"Cookies are small text files that websites send to visitors' computers. Websites struggle to recognise their users without them. When someone visits OUT-LAW.COM for the first time, our site endeavours to send that visitor's computer a cookie. We do this with some help from Google, which offers a free service called Google Analytics. The Google Analytics cookie is used to count our visitors, a measure of success that we find rather helpful. This is just one way in which we use cookies. It's impossible for us to argue, though, that that cookie is essential to fulfilling the visitor's purpose...."

The Register's op-ed is a heads-up about the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive.

I should think that this anti-cookie weirdness passed quietly. "Most websites use Google Analytics (including the site of the UK's privacy chief, at ico.gov.uk) or a similar traffic analysis tool...." Even if the EU's leaders don't know how the Web works, someone on their staff must have told them how daft this set of regulations is.

I've known people who are as revulsed by cookies as a full-bore vegetarian is by steak. All cookies: not just the ones that get flagged during malware scans.

I wouldn't want them to be forced to set their browsers so they can shop at Amazon.com.

I don't think the rest of us should be forced to live with their neo-Luddite fears.

And, I don't think that people who provide content and services on the Web should be forced to comply with cookiephobic regulations dreamed up by the EU.

Of course, it could be worse. The UE could have made carrier pigeons bred in Yorkshire or Lichtenstein the only legal means of long-distance communications.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

LHC Peril! Large Hadron Collider Black Hole Will Eat Earth!! - or, Not

Almost certainly not. But three scientists published a paper earlier this month about very interesting theoretical possibilities involving CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that they uncovered.

So What if the LHC Makes a Black Hole?

Here's the deal: CERN's LHC is expected to go online this summer. When it does, it might produce a really, really small black hole. The odds of that happening are about 1 to 50,000,000. If the Large Hadron Collider did make a black hole, it would have the mass of two protons, be much smaller than an atom, and won't have much of an effect beyond a few proton-widths.

Black holes that size 'evaporate,' fast. These three scientists worked out a scenario where it takes the black holes a little longer to evaporate.

Here's where the tabloids could have fun: If the Large Hadron Collider created a black hole that didn't evaporate, it would eat Earth: LHC, Europe, the Atlantic, Louisiana's Superdome, and all.

Doomsday Machine to Destroy Earth in 2009? Not Likely

Teeny, tiny, geriatric black holes are interesting, even intriguing, but not all that worrisome. The scientists wrapped up their introduction with "we argue against the possibility of catastrophic black hole growth at the LHC."

In other words, 'it ain't gonna happen.' And, since they live on the same planet as the Large Hadron Collider, my guess is that they're pretty confident that they're right.

These aren't crackpots. All three have gotten published in the Journals of the American Physical Society. (That's the bunch that publishes Physical Review Letters, Physical Review, and Reviews of Modern Physics - a sort of physicists' Sports Illustrated.)

And, they picked a catchy title for their paper:

"On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC"
Roberto Casadio, Sergio Fabi, Benjamin Harms, High Energy Physics - Phenomenology, arXiv.org, Cornell University Library (January 19, 2009)

Here's the entire introduction:

"In this paper we present the results of our analysis of the growth and decay of black holes possibly produced at the Large Hadron Collider, based on our previous study of black holes in the context of the warped brane-world scenario. The black hole mass accretion and decay is obtained as a function of time, and the maximum black hole mass is obtained as a function of a critical mass parameter. The latter occurs in our expression for the luminosity and is related to the size of extra-dimensional corrections to Newton's law of gravitation. Based on this analysis, we argue against the possibility of catastrophic black hole growth at the LHC. "

You might want to read the paper itself: it's only eight pages, and available in several formats. It's a little technical, though, like this excerpt: "...our world is a four-dimensional brane (with coordinates xμ, μ = 0, . . . , 3) embedded in a five-dimensional manifold whose metric, without other sources present...."

More posts about CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) : More:

Saturday, March 22, 2008

New Technologies: Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!

"The most Dangerous New Technologies"
LoLegag.com (March 22, 2008)

The ones mentioned are:
  • Nanotech
  • RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification)
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Mobile Payment
  • Digital Identities
I'll give the poster credit: the potential issues with each of these new technologies are real enough.

On the other hand, I remember when computers were going to take everyone's job away, when credit cards and Social Security numbers were the 'Mark of the Beast' (to some particularly fevered imaginations), cheap Japanese imports would ruin the American economy, and everything caused cancer.

Oddly, now that I'm living in the bleak future of the sixties, I'd rather live now, than then.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Technophobes! This Blog's for You!

I don't usually use so many exclamation marks, but the blog title, "A Technophobes Guide to the Internet!," forced my hand.

With an exclamation mark in the title, I felt I had to out-emphasize it, just to make my post title stand out.

Nonsense aside, "A Technophobes Guide to the Internet!" describes itself as "a ONE STOP online resource for freelance writers and bloggers who want to be a success on the Internet."

More to the point, it's a site for technophobes.

If you don't know a subscript tag from a router, this blog might be right for you.

Quoting the blog's author, "I don't attempt to explain anything, just write what my meager understanding of these things is, which would fit on the back of a postage stamp!

"I think for technophobes like me it may be a slightly more user friendly approach to introducing these 'tools' to those afraid to read about them on IT literate sites."
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory