Wherein I (Badly) Forecast The Election

Who here has heard the name Dan Brown before? Lots? Really? Ok who here has heard of someone named Dan Brown other than that crappy author? Well, I have! Thanks to his chanel, Pogobat, I now know of a great political website. It's called 270towin.com, and is unsurprisingly about the electoral college. It offers great maps that show past voting history and what the current outlook is. It also gives you the chance to play with an interactive map so you can try and forecast the elections yourself! Isn't political science fun?

Ok, so 'fun' is a relative term here. At any rate, I've spent the morning hanging out at 270towin. They have compiled all the polls taken this election season, which is great for figuring out which states are likely to vote which way. About half the states (24) states (including D.C.) had no polls done since 08/01/12), while 27 states did. Of those 27, only 10 had more than three polls done since August 1st.

I took the polling data from these states and averaged them. This should help to eliminate any margin of error errors, however, the smaller the sample size the greater the likelihood of error. I then took the averaged number and applied it to the 270towin interactive map to achieve my (bullshit) forecast of the 2012 presidential election! See? Told you political science is fun!

Ok, so, according to my analysis, Obama wins 305 - 221, with Iowa and Nevada still undecided (no data from one, even split from the other). Surprisingly, the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania swung towards Obama, with Florida going to Romney.

So there we have it, one person's moderately reasonable prediction for the 2012 Presidential election. For anyone interested, check out PogoBat, C.G.P. Grey, Fallacy Files, and 270towin.

Wherein I (Badly) Forecast The Election

Of Two Minds

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal inadvertently lead me to a bit of depressing news. Well, technically it was SMBC Theater, not the comic. But any way.

This video mentions state constitutions that ban atheist congress members. This seemed moderately ludicrous. My own atheism is complicated, and it's rare to meet someone who doesn't instantly start making assumptions about why I'm an atheist, but I'm hardly one to say that atheists are under attack or facing the same kind of discrimination other minorities are treated to. There is a certain amount of resistance to atheists, sure. But it's mostly annoying assumptions about your (lack of) beliefs.

Which is why I found the idea of multiple states banning atheists in their government so weird. I decided to check it out. Good ol' Wikipedia giving me little more than a link to the relevant state constitutions. This meant I had to peruse the contents myself.

So here they are, a countdown of sorts of the states that outlaw atheism:

South Carolina: Article 27, Section 4 states: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this constitution."

Arkansas:  Article 2, Section 26 states: "No religious test shall ever be required of any person as a qualification to vote or hold office; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his[sic] religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations."

While Article 19, Section 1 states: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Mississippi: Article 3, Section 18 states: "No religious test as a qualification for office shall be required; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect or mode of  worship; but the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall be held sacred. The rights hereby secured shall not be construed to justify acts of licentiousness injurious to morals or dangerous to the peace and safety of the state, or to exclude the Holy Bible from use in any public school of  this state. "

While Article 14, Section 265 states: "No person who denies the existence of a supreme being shall hold any office in this state."

Tennessee: Article 1, Section 4 states: "That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state."

While Article 9, Section 2 states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

The following two are the strangest of the bunch. The first one up there, South Carolina, never made it unconstitutional to have a test of religious faith for their civil leadership. Technically they never contravened their own constitution. The bill of rights for  Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee all contained language that specifically outlawed having a test of religious faith. Each of these states also had, buried in the misc. section at the end of their constitution, a statute that said you had to have some form of belief in a supernatural power in order to be eligible for public office. They have each clearly made a portion of their own constitution unconstitutional. It's almost zen.

But these two really take the cake. First up,

Texas: Article 1, Section 4 - "RELIGIOUS TESTS.  No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

In other words, you don’t have to pass a religious test to attain public office, so long as you have a religion.

Maryland: Article 36 - "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion"

And Article 37 - "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

Texas, and especially Maryland, have managed to hold two completely contradictory ideas at once - That no religious test be required to hold office, and that you must be religious to hold office. This seems totally nonsensical to me. At least South Carolina isn't contradictory, even if they're flat out bigoted. But I can't comprehend Texas and Maryland. Maybe because I haven't attained full buddha yet. Here we have these two states who managed, in one statement, to hold that religion is of no importance, and that it is of utmost importance. Maryland has achieved full zen.

Good job, assholes.

Of Two Minds

I Have A New Laser

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I like science. There is just so much about it that is awesome. Look at all the toys that science gives us, like R/C Cars and helicopters (Did I mention I got a new laser pointer?) Or what about all of those handy dandy tools, gadgets, and gizmos that we have, thanks to science. You've got things like power tools and non-stick pans and the triumvirate of computers, cell phones, and the internet. If nothing else, the lifesaving technologies that we have available to us (thanks vaccines!) are rooted in science. If you're of a more philosophical nature, when we seek to understand the world we expand our potential both as a species and as individuals. The knowledge that the scientific process creates can be used to enrich our lives. It can create new markets and new ways for people to exhibit their genius. Plus, science makes fireworks more awesome.

If I had to choose a favorite aspect of science then I must say that it is the scientific mindset. I like the idea of curiosity run rampant. But a curiosity self-tempered by critical analysis and empirical observation. I want to know about the world. I want to understand how it works. I find joy and beauty in reality. There is a depth and breadth of ideas available to me. There is a multitude of ways to explain the world. Some are right and some are wrong, and it is through critical analysis and empirical evidence that I can tell the difference. To me, the scientific mindset is innately curious, rigorous in its self-examination, skeptical, and above all, absolutely in love with the real world. That resonates with me.*

I think that what I find most attractive about this way of thinking is its versatility. The tools and techniques used in biological chemistry are vastly different from those used in astrophysics. How a historian goes about their business is different than that of a sociologist. The very nature of the topic explored dictates such changes. Yes, there is a ton of overlap between areas, and they all make use of mathematics. They may have surface differences, but they are fundamentally the same thing. And it is precisely that fundamental similarity that I am talking about. The drive to understand the world through logic and empiricism underscores much of science.

I have long thought that the mind of science could have much more widespread use than it does now. Consider social programs, such as foreign and domestic aide. We have to get a grapple on the magnitude and complexity of the problems; we have to find their cause. We have to figure out ways to cure or alleviate the symptoms, and we need ways to check that our plans are working. We could also consider civic law. What laws work, which don't? What are the ultimate goals of our laws? How can we know, for sure, that a law is no longer needed or has caused more trouble than it cured?

I wish to be clear. I'm not making the claim that we need more science literate people in congress. We most certainly do, but the effort is wasted if there isn't a corresponding rise in scientific thinking. We don't just need more science knowledge at play in our political system, we need a more systematic way of understanding our society. With a country as large and complex as ours, in world as large and complex as ours, we need some way to see what's going on. We can't just think up something, fight for it in congress, and hope things get better once it passes. We have to do research to make sure we haven't missed anything. We have to hypothesize an idea for what could work. We have to test this hypothesis out. This could involve more research, questionnaires, field studies or pilot programs. Once we have as much data, as much knowledge, as much understanding, of the problem and our solution as possible, we can then make it into law. We would of course do follow up studies to ascertain that program’s effectiveness, and we would always be open to the idea that there is a better way of doing things.** Given our current situation, any step in this direction is going be a step in the right direction.

I would begin with the political process itself.  As a citizen, I want to know as much as I can about issues and candidates. What has this person voted for in the past, what bills have they fought for? Speaking of, what about having an easily accessible repository of bills? You could link this in with a candidates voting history for a whole heaping helping of juicy data. I want to have such things because I want to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote. I want to see metrics galore of our society, with lots of statistical analysis. I want to see this data used to determine what works and what doesn't. I want us to lose our need of campaign promises and flawless leaders. I want us to lose our fear of failure.  In short, I want us to embrace the scientific mentality so that we can rationally decide what the best course for our society is.

That being said, it is unsurprising that I liked this article by Mark Henderson for The Guardian. He starts with a quick rundown of how science acts like an idea sieve, separating the good ideas from the bad. He then moves into the lack of the experimental thinking in government. He claims each new piece of legislation is a social experiment. Yet unlike with medicine, there are no experimental trials or pilot programs.

He then elaborates his point by putting forward several areas that could use a touch of experimental thinking, a dash of scientific reasoning. He hypothesizes that the school day be modified to match teen’s circadian rhythms. He also proposes a way to empirically prove which works better, prison or rehabilitation for drug offenders. He also shares his ideas on how foreign aid may benefit from scientific thought.

He certainly makes a compelling case, at least one argued better than mine. I truly think that, especially in a democracy, we need all the facts we can get. Science is great for that!

Awesome

*Which makes sense, since it's my definition

**A bit idealistic, I know. Ideals are perfect, and we can never achieve perfection. But we can come close. Just because something is impossible is no reason to stop trying.

I Have A New Laser

The Overview

One of the most amazing things to come out of the space race (aside from the obvious) are the two treaties from 1967 and 1968, most especially the idea that
"the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

And that
"astronauts are the envoys of mankind" and should be treated as such. As such, I support similar expressions and intents found in this recent state department release concerning national security in space.

State Department: "Space Security - An American Perspective" | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference: "- It is in the shared interest of all nations to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust.

- All nations have the right, in accordance with international law, to explore and use space for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent with this principle, "peaceful purposes" allows for space to be used for national and homeland security activities.


- The United States considers the space systems of all nations to have the rights of passage through, and conduct of operations in, space without interference. Purposeful interference with space systems, including supporting infrastructure, will be considered, in the U.S. view, an infringement of a nation's rights."

I strongly believe that space is the province of all humanity. I also strongly believe that the only way we, as a species, are going to have a long lasting presence in these cosmos is by working together, as one planet. I want to see, within my lifetime, not American boots on Mars, not Russian or Chinese or European boots on Mars. I want to see Human boots on Mars, I want us, as one species, to become more than we ever hoped for.

'via Blog this'

The Overview

A More Peaceful Competition

China's New Space Exploration Vision Shoots for the Moon | China Space Program & Chinese Space Missions | Human Spaceflight & China Moon Missions | Space.com:

""The report includes an impressive list of accomplishments, impressive as much for the political will for success demonstrated as the technical achievements," Johnson-Freese said. Furthermore, the document notes that "guaranteed funding" through "multiple funding streams" is a goal, she added.

"The Chinese do an excellent job in learning from others and I think they do not want to see themselves in NASA's position of having lots of good ideas, but more rhetorical political support than actual funding to follow through on those ideas," Johnson-Freese said."

'via Blog this'

Any form of government will work perfectly if the people in charge are perfect. Since people aren't perfect, I prefer democracy. But there are definitely certain attributes of tyrannical communism that helps to get things accomplished. Joking aside, I don't think that we will see a new space race with China, at least, not like the first one. There's certainly a heady atmosphere of nationalism to be sure, but there isn't near the same feeling of hostility that permeated the Cold War era. Though I do hope that we (Europe, Russia, et al) start competing to be the best in space. Just not with bombs and trying to destroy each other and stuff. But with you know, telescopes and satellites and rovers and stuff. Science is way cooler than wholesale death any day.

A More Peaceful Competition

Linkage: Language, Politics, and other miscellany

Ok, so here's my final installment of links. This one was harder because I have a lot of stuff I just never visit, so I had to visit them before I posted them. Which took awhile. And was slightly annoying, as I realized most of the links I have are utter crap. But these ones aren't!

Language & Writing

Dialect Blog - great posts about all the different dialects of English.  always worth a look.

Visual Thesaurus - Awesomness in words.

The Open Notebook - Great resource for writing tips

Paperrater - A good final check for essays. Grades, word counts, all that, all in one place. And free!

Etomyonline - Online etymological dictionary

Politics & Society

 Politifact

Factcheck - Both these websites are all about fact checking political statements. This is a very handy resource.

Open Secrets

Global Debates - Online debates regarding global issues

Fora - A lot of cool stuff in here. Mostly conservative. Lots of videos.

TED - Like Fora, but more liberal.

PBS

Free Knowledge

Justice - The Harvard class

MIT Open Course - Online classes, to varying degrees of depth.

 Academic Earth - like the above, but pulls from all universities.

Miss Elaine Eeus

Forkes Report - My uncles blog.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe

Skeptics Dictionary

The Internet Archive - Home of the wayback machine!

Library at Alexandria - Not the one burned down, but a modern equivalent. Which is neat.

There you go, a shit ton of links for your viewing pleasure. I have some more stuff to write for school, and those will be posted soon. Also anything else I feel like writing, but I know for sure I'll write the stuff for school. I paid good money for the classes, so failure is not an option. If I do fail, Gene Kranz will kick my ass. Probably not, but you never know. Cheers!

Linkage: Language, Politics, and other miscellany

Told You So

Told You So: The President addressed a live audience for CNBC this past Monday. He fielded questions from several audience members, ranging from a Wall Street banker to a middle class worker, and covering a number of topics that focused on the economy and jobs. I won't create a synopsis here because The Huffington Post has already done so. But there are two points that Obama makes which I would like to point out. First, he says the programs that were put in place to stop this recession are working as evidenced by the increasing stability of the financial system. The analogy that he uses is one of us trying to dig ourselves out of a deep hole. A few months ago he would make remarks about how we are in the bottom of a deep hole and that we must stabilize our financial sector as a first step towards digging ourselves out of this recession. Well, here we are with several reforms (though not as many as was hoped) effecting the financial sector aimed at equality and transparency. We still have work to do, he implies, but we also have accomplished much.


The second point is found in the second video. He remarks that he warned Wall Street in 2007 that we were heading towards a collapse and that Wall Street's tactics in getting money out of consumers was a big part of the impending collapse. He said that reforms had to happen right then. Those reforms did not happen, our markets did collapse, and now we are starting to see reforms. But he repeatedly stresses that we must continue these reforms until we can be sure that we won't face the same problems later on down the road.

Told You So

Republicans Prepare

Republicans Prepare: for victory after November. The GOP is expecting to win a few seats this November and are planning to use the small amount of leverage that this affords them to enforce changes to the White House's legislative agenda. A few of the plans include forcing any legislation to cite it's constitutional authority and to vote against appropriations funding for certain aspects of the already voted on and passed health care law. 

The health care laws were discussed and filibustered for months, with a lot of trading, compromising, and mud slinging. Some of those laws came to vote, and were passed. Kind of. Words on paper are great, but nothing will get accomplished without money or action. And those same laws which have already been passed must once again be put to vote: How much money will we allocate for this law? If the money allocated is nothing at all, then the program cannot proceed. If, as is most likely, a pittance is allocated for these programs, than these programs will fail (which sets up a perfect "I told you your plans would fail" moment for the republicans a few months down the road. Never mind their attempts to make them fail any way) and what's worse, the offices and personnel and taxpayer money becomes a useless and costly appendage to our government. The laws have been passed and regardless of their personal thoughts on the matter, our elected governors have sworn to uphold the laws of this nation, and have dedicated themselves to a system in which all vote and all abide by the vote. These recently passed laws are laws and therefore must be upheld until we openly and honestly discuss the need for these laws in the forum designated by the structure of our government and it has been decided that these laws are no longer necessary.

But that quibble aside, some of the GOP's other initiatives are worth investigating, such as extending insurance pools to those with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans Prepare

Free Knowledge

Free Knowledge: As a first test run, I typed the word "music" into the search bar on the Harvard Libraries website. 277,126 entries were returned. Just to narrow down the field a little, I chose to view only music scores only. All 80,909 of them. As this was still a little wide a field for me to explore on my first journey through the site, I decided to limit my search to music manuscripts published in the last ten years. Which was a little less than ten thousand. As I like orchestral works, I limited again my search terms to just orchestral works. I finally had a number small enough to work with. I had the manuscripts for 394 orchestral works of music produced in the past decade.

Let's try another word now: Physics. This returned 67,773 entries, well below those returned for music. Which was surprising, but nevertheless we shall carry on. But which subject of physics should I click on? Physics Philosophy (1,235 entries)? Gauge fields (210)? Relativity (1,096)? Music Acoustics and Physics (580)? I think I'll combine this search with one of my other, interests, History (831). I could stay here and ponder the historical evolution of the sciences that we call physics, but I won't. The point is that I could. With this tool we have access to a vast reservoir of knowledge. For free. We can study any subject that we please, all we have to do is type it into the search bar.

Free Class: Of course, not all knowledge can be offered for free. If we want someone to dedicate their life to spreading the knowledge that they have gained than we must give them the money necessary to live. So I have no problem with paying for education, because teachers deserve some recompense for their work. But on the other hand, sometimes knowledge can be given away for free. Because what is a class, ultimately, above and beyond simply acquiring information? It's actively participating in the lesson. It is in working with the teacher yourself in order to understand. However, setting up a camera during certain classes could provide an immense amount of information to those who haven't actually attended a class. Which is exactly what Michael Sandel's class Justice does. He makes freely available on the Harvard website recordings of his classes. Now, this works rather better with his class than with some of the other things I have already mentioned. Music takes actually playing an instrument in order to fully understand music theory. Physics is sp often arcane, difficult, complex, and plain old confusing that simply having a recording of other people learning about the science is often insufficient to learn the science yourself. However this class is all about philosophy, morality, and of course, justice. Which makes it the better choice to have filmed. If you have any interest in the issues that effect us today than I suggest bookmarking this page.

Quarterly Shift: There are a large number of issues that are effecting the midterm elections coming up soon, and many that effect the White House. This article from the New York Times gives a run down of some of those issues, and how President Obama is handling them. Some of these issues have occurred since Obama took office, and some are holdovers from before. According to the article, Obama has had some losses these past two years, but is finishing with a string of wins recently. This article gives a good abstract of the atmosphere going into the final quarter before midterm elections.

Americans At War: In this article from CBS News it appears that the RNC chairman Michael Steele is preparing to wage war on the democratic party. He intends these next three months to be very difficult for democrats, both in session and in the polls. Does Steele really believe that the GOP can regain the majority in the senate this November? Probably not. He knows that by winning a handful of seats his party can confidently halt any legislation proposed by the enemy, the democrats. If this happens, than the GOP will have less reason to fear if a few republicans waver in their loyalty to the GOP. But should the GOP be working to stop the democrats at every turn, or should it be working in the best interests of the nation as a whole?

Tid Bits: And finally here's a few quick links. The first comes from TechDirt and explains to some small extent the byzantine copyright laws regarding audio recordings.

And not to leave out space, the second is a photo gallery of the recent alignment between Jupiter, Venus and the Moon. Thanks to CNN for the pictures.

Free Knowledge

News Briefs

UK To Launch Mini-Satellites: The UK Space Agency has teamed up with British company Clyde Space to launch miniature satellites called CubeSat's. These new types of satellites are cheap and easy to produce, reducing the consequences of failed experiments. The use of this type of satellite technology will spur on innovation and creativity while also teaching the skills necessary to carry off more large scale projects.

There are a number of other companies within the UK which are gearing up for a commercial space market. EADS Astrium has fostered several relationships within the industry and within the academic community, making it one of the largest space companies in the UK. Space Systems Engineer for EADS, Dr. Ronan Wall, has said

"CubeSats provide a 'playground for innovation' by enabling us to test new technology that simply could not be tried on major risk-adverse missions. The concept also ensures that we can develop the next generation of space professionals, both in engineering and science, by giving them the ideal skill set to succeed in the industry"

Business is not the only investment the British people are making. According to SpaceRef The American Conrad Awards have recently partnered with ManSat Limited, an Isle of Man based global commercial space corporation, to bring the 2010-2011 'Spirit Of Innovation Awards' to its island. The SPOIA program is a competition that challenges students to create innovative new products that can be brought into the commercial marketplace. Hopefully the next SPOIA competition can expand into more than just two countries.

There is a growing international interest in space exploration, commercial space frontiers, and enriching our lives through science and education. America has long been a leader in a number of these fields, but we must step it up in order to enter the next stage. We will no longer be competing against other nations; we will be competing to see who can cooperate the best with other nations.

Social Experiment: Have you ever gotten sick and tired of people haranguing you and harassing you and telling you what to do all the time? Of course you have! Who hasn't? Well, probably Dan Brown. But he will have plenty of opportunity to do so over the next year. You see, Mr. Brown will not only be allowing people to see him as he does stuff, people will be telling him what to do, all the time, for one whole year. It's a project that Dan is calling Dan 3.0, and you can check it out and all of Dan's other videos at his YouTube channel.

Transparency In Political Advertising: A campaign finance bill aimed at introducing transparency into certain political ads is facing resistance from republicans in the senate. If this bill gets made into law then any organization that airs political ads independently of candidates and political parties will be forced to disclose their involvement with the ads.  In this way we can potentially see the motive behind the ad and judge it's worth accordingly.

Obama - "Nobody is saying you can't run the ads; just make sure the people know who in fact is behind financing the ads."

The largest disagreement with the bill is that companies and organizations that have large contracts with the government cannot put out political ads. This seems to fly in the face of the first amendment. Any person or organization has the right to free speech, even if they have a vested interest in the outcome of an election. At the heart of it, we all have a vested interest in the outcomes of political races, even if we're not directly receiving cash and contracts from a member of congress.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Monday that the bill is designed to "protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment."

Maybe a line needs to be drawn when those producing the ads have a vested personal interest in the success of the campaign. Maybe blocking a person's right to free speech is not the best way to root out corruption. We must choose which path we take wisely.

Distraction: This is ridiculously petty and a complete distraction from the real issues at hand. The Iowa state's GOP is spraying a cloud of ink into the water to blind us. What's worse is that if this bill does pass (I'm assuming no amendments are lost, but are simply bumped up a number) than anytime an American citizen earns a Nobel Prize they will no longer be an American citizen. How are we to be the best and brightest nation if our citizens are not allowed to receive the highest recognition of their work? Why make it impossible for an American to become a Nobel Laureate? Every minute spent arguing and debating this is a waste of time. 

Small Business Bill Being Slowed By GOP: A bill that had been under consideration for three weeks has been put aside thanks to the efforts of the republican party. This bill was aimed at opening up the small business lending market with cash and tax breaks, as well as reducing the capital gains taxes on long-term investment in small business. Republicans argue that though the bill had been on the floor for three weeks, they have not yet had all their considerations voiced. They want more time to discuss the bill before it gets put to a final vote. Richard Shelby (R-Ala) compared the measure to the bank bailout (which has been somewhat underwhelming) and warned that this could lead to the types of risky loans that got us here in the first place. The GOP likely wants to ensure that this works better than the bank bailout and that it minimizes risky loans.

House Set To Debate NASA Authorization Act: And for those of you interested, here's a rundown of the various competing NASA Authorization Bills before congress right now. While all have their merits and weakness's, with this you can at least give them a side-by-side comparison.

Certain enterprising individuals urged people to tell their representatives to support the senate version, as the senate version comes closer to President Obama's stated amount of $812 million to be used for commercial space flight. 

News Briefs

The Function Of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices

Science fiction is known for having weird, far out technologies. But sometimes what was once fiction becomes reality¹.  I have never been completely sure whether it's the fiction influencing the science, or whether a science fiction writer, presumably well versed in science, can see possibilities that someone immersed in science cannot.  I found both possibilities intriguing. If fiction influences reality, than that is a clear demonstration of how we Humans are capable of creating just about anything that we can imagine. It basically getting together and thinking logically about a concept until it becomes real. And that's essentially what's going on in this situation. Someone dreams up some crazy technology, maybe to resolve a plot point or maybe just because the idea is really cool. A scientist reads it, and then sets about trying to make it real. Some one imagines a concept, and someone else creates it. Or maybe a writer can see new possibilities. Sort of like thinking outside the box, or how an outsider sees more of the game kind of thing. An intelligent, thoughtful person who dedicates themselves for a time to learning about a subject can sometimes have amazing insights into the subject. Since your average person is quite capable of being thoughtful and intelligent (though they don't always realize this potential) this would be a clear demonstration of how ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things. A scientifically literate society which happily funds scientific research would likely give gains in both situations.  Which ultimately is the answer to the question, does science fiction influence science, or does science fiction see what science can't? It's a little bit of both.  Science fiction can feed the imagination of a scientist. That scientist then produces results. A fan of science, who possibly writes science fiction, may be able to make the subtle connections between the results, thus pointing the way to further scientific breakthrough.

Of course, some things in science fiction are more likely to generate a real world analogue. And some things in science fiction, while not having a true analogue, will have certain striking similarities. Generally the names for things in science fiction can have striking parallels in reality. Conversely, some real science can sound like fiction. I can easily imagine a writer somewhere utilizing Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices to get the hero out of a pickle.  It sounds like something straight from Star Trek, like the Heisenberg Compensator, or bio-mimetic gel, or transparent aluminum² (Which is a direct translation from fiction to reality). Which I don't think is really all that amazing, since most of the names for things in science fiction use real world concepts. However, SQUIDS³ are completely real, and while not acting as a suitable plot device, they do serve several functions in medical and biological contexts.

I think there are a number of scientists, such as Michio Kaku, who treat science fiction as a wildly game of "Can I make that real?" There may be no real intention of creating a Batman-style grappling hook⁴, or a suit like Iron Man's. But to try and create something like that anyway is just plain fun.  And fun is half of science. A scientist loves to connect the dots, a scientist enjoys immensely put the pieces of a puzzle together. A scientist has fun doing their job. So science is just as much about random association as it is about logical thought. Attempting to create something from science fiction can highlight previously ignored facets of science or inspire ideas for new and innovative technologies. Working on something like force fields or light sabers, while not likely to come to fruition, can often still yield interesting and useful real world applications of science.

Incidentally, Michio Kaku wrote a book and subsequently hosted a show on the science channel call "Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible" wherein he tried to create science fiction realities such as force fields and light sabers. One episode of the show was dedicated to creating a suit like Iron Man's, though he did add one capability to this suit: Mind reading. He figures that one could use atomic magnetometers⁵ to passively read someone's mind.  Interestingly enough, these devices, as he points out, can also be put to use imaging someone's brain or other body part in a way that is far more compact than current imaging machinery, and would likely be cheaper than current methods.  You can see the development of this technology here⁶, here⁷, and here⁸.

What really gets me about this is the time frame in which the technology has had to operate in. I'm not thrown so much by the progress and duration of its development as I am by the political climate that was in place during its development. The first two papers come from 2004, and the last from 2008. With all the talk of health care last year, and with all of Obama's pre-presidential campaigning for scientific development (of which some measure has been seen during his presidency⁹), one would assume that this technology would have been brought up, discussed, and made generally known.  I would imagine that a strong candidate for future medical technologies, such as these atomic magnetometers,  technologies that not only makes health care cheaper but also makes certain medical treatments more accessible and spurs on new medical technologies would have been used as a poster child for the need for health care reform and scientific research. 

The medical field is currently burdened with drug and technology companies fighting for the greatest profit margin. This tends to make these companies more cautious, repressing the risk taking that could generate a new technology. This also tends to force a company to defend its profit margin by any means necessary, such as preventing other companies from developing new technology.  These companies have a vested interest in maintaining the superiority of their product.  Lobbying on behalf of these companies hampers  scientific research by forcing politicians to restrain new developments, new lines of research, new technologies. Repressing scientific research severely constrains the potential of a society. We are a culture of visionaries. We can see new possibilities, and work to achieve them.  Scientific research can have direct and profound impacts on our living conditions.

This one specific technology, or even a handful of others such as low intensity MRI scans¹⁰  or interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy¹¹ would have lent weight and credence to both arguments, that our health care system needs reform (Our money hungry system denies the citizen of promising technology as a byproduct of that hunger) and that pure scientific research is important (As evidenced by these technologies)

Which brings us to the big questions:  Why haven't these technologies seen more government funding? Why haven't these technologies seen more media coverage?

________________________________________________________

1 John Blodgett, Continuum, "When Science Fiction Becomes Reality", University of Utah (2009)

² Live Science Staff, Live Science, "Military: New Aluminum Windows Stop .50-Caliber Bullet" (2005)

³Wikipedia, "SQUID"

⁴ Gizmodo, "MIT student creates real life Batman utility belt"

⁵ Wikipedia, "Magnetometer"

⁶ I.M. Savukov, M.V. Romalis, Physical Review Letters,  "NMR Detection With An Atomic Magnetometer", Princeton (2004)

⁷ P.D.D. Schwindt, S. Knappe, V. Shah, L. Hollberg, J. Kitching, L. Liew, J. Moreland, Applied Physics Letters, "Chip-scale Atomic Magnetometer (2004)

⁸ A.S. Levitt, The Future Of Things, "Atomic Magnetometers to shrink MRI" (2008)

⁹ D. Vergano, USA Today, "  Scientific Climate Is Changing As Obama Takes Office" (2009)

¹⁰ E. Rotman, The Future Of Things, " First Low-Intensity MRI Scan Of A Human Brain" (2007)

¹¹ G. Molho, The Future Of Things, "ISAM - Computed Image Revolution"

The Function Of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices

The End Is Near

Seen here imitating Neo

The White House now has an imminent threat: Apophis. Though the likely hood is small, it is entirely possible that this asteroid may be hitting us relatively soon. While the chances of such impact are small, the consequence is dear. While the odds are in our favor compared to what we regularly deal with, on a cosmic scale the odds are very small for us. That consideration aside, this issue has raised awareness for the need to closely monitor the skies for all such threats. The White House only now really understands that need, and is seeking a way to meet that need.

The country is not entirely stable. We are engaged in two wars far from home. We have a global energy crisis. We have an impending global food crisis. We have a global environmental crisis. Just pouring the money into NASA won't sit well with most voters, despite the relatively cheap investment needed. The WH must justify the expense somehow, and Apophis suits the purpose. Additionally, the WH sees this as an opportunity to look like the good guy, a political booster shot for the whole idea of our government. They can accomplish this by claiming they gave NASA a mandate to start this research years ago. In order to look like the good guy, though, you have to make someone the bad guy.

Image via Wikipedia. And Space!

Using this situation to build prestige will hurt NASA's image. If the WH wants to achieve its goal within the time alloted, they are going to need not just the loyalty of NASA, but that the public be loyal to NASA. By attaching blame to the administration, the WH forces NASA to defend itself any way it can. The have chosen to freely admit that there was a mandate to search for Near Earth Objects. They also raise the point that though the WH did indeed order them to achieve this goal, they did not provide any funds for the job. This has thus far been a frank telling of fact, with no concern for the guilt involved. And yet NASA goes still further, and says that they never asked for funding. NASA always fess's up. They rarely make mistakes, and when they do, they admit it. From Apollo 1 until now, NASA has always been very honest. This gives most people pause. If nothing else, they figure, NASA honestly tries, and usually succeeds, in their endeavors. That can rarely be said about a politician. I think that most people would be willing to give money to NASA to accomplish the goal of cataloging all large NEO's, and developing the technology and experience to do something about it if one of those objects is heading straight for us. All that is needed is for the WH to do the same: Dispassionately lay out the facts. Then together, NASA and the WH can confidently and openly declare what needs to be done, how it will be done, and how much it will cost.

The backwards 'N' indicates their certainty

As some have said, the end is near. The end of our old ideas of nationalism. Globalization is coming. From many sources does it come. From the WWW and GPS, Google Earth, and global woes. The exploration of space is vital to the future of Humanity. But such exploration must be done as a species, not as nations. And yet it is space exploration that is helping drive globalization. From the WWII and it's subsequent cold war came the Apollo-Soyuz test project. From those two events we have the international space station. And now nature has seen fit to give us a dispassionate global threat, one that enforces cooperation. The end is indeed near. Globalization is coming.

The End Is Near

Red Moon

Russia wants to go to Apophis and change it's course in order to prevent the asteroid from hitting the Earth.
WTOP
Pravda

Anatoly Perminov, rocket scientist. Quite accomplished and credentialed. But it seems that he's spinning a party line. Why can he not quote his source? Where is his refutation of the NASA figures for collision? Who made the observations he's going off of? Why bring up such sentiment as

"People's lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people"?

Why should we pay? Who should pay? According to Perminov, Russia will create the plan, and then invite other nations to participate. Of course, since the system won't be built at that point, it's likely that part of the deal is that you have to pay to play.

Why is he spinning? Well, maybe intercepting and changing the trajectory of Apophis is not the primary goal. It may be just a cover for something else involving long term space travel and complex maneuvers. Is it possible that Russia is aiming for the Moon? After all, America beat them to the Moon forty years ago, and now there are other nations poised to. Russia did not like being beat by America, and likely does not want to be beat again, especially as China is one of the most likely to go to the Moon next. But Russia cannot come right out and say, we're off to the Moon. As it is, those nations eyeing the Moon do not have the goal a high priority. But if Russia announces that it's headed for the Moon, then some countries and China certainly would rev up their space program.

Why should we pay? Everyone, ostensibly because we are all facing imminent threat, and the time to act is now. Of course, we're not really facing any sort of threat and we will know long before the event that we will be struck. But it does not seem that we will be paying for a preventative, life saving mission. It sounds like we will be financing Russia's politically motivated moon shot.

Why demand that Russia come up with the plan and then we follow it? If the ultimate goal is the Moon yet Russia's stated goal is changing the trajectory of Apophis, then Russia will have inevitable contradictions in priorities. Russia may push an engine that is better suited for a Human moon shot, or a guidance system that that can also guide you to a moon landing, and if other nations are in on the planning stage then the best systems for the stated mission will be used. Russia must tailor the plan to their ultimate goals and then hide that within the plan that gets presented to other nations. I'm sure that they would have areas that they're willing to compromise with, so they can be seen to "show willing" but it they will not change certain parts of the plan for baffling reasons. If no one signs up, then they do it anyway, but if they can they will dupe other people into financing them.

Russia is going to make a play for the Moon, and is hiding it's attempts under the shroud of Apophis, and hopes that other nations will buy into their plan.

Popular Mechanics

But we should not ignore this threat. Minor though it is, it's consequences are deadly. As NASA plans, we should monitor the situation, possibly sending a radio transmitter to the asteroid. We have plenty of time to avoid catastrophe, and we need time to gather more information. We do not want to accidentally be the cause of our own demise. NASA claims that we will know by 2014 what the asteroid will do. That still leaves us twelve years to do something about it before the 2026 deadline. If we could go to the Moon in eight and a half years, certainly we can send a robot to bump into a rock in twelve.

Red Moon