Posts Tagged ‘science’

How is right not like a particle?

So glad you asked. Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about modifying Miranda warnings, or the warnings suspects are given upon arrest in the United States that inform them about their rights to silence, an attorney, termination of questioning, and possible contact with a consular authority. Current Attorney General Eric Holder is pushing Congress to modify the rules for terror suspects, specifically to change when Miranda warnings can be read, and to whom they apply.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save

In which I am distantly connected to NASA:

This morning, my husband woke me with the news that a company located close to where I grew up had won NASA’s $900K Space Elevator prize for a prototype power-beaming device. “Huh,” I said. “I wonder if I know anyone who works there.”

Turns out, I do. I went to school with David Bashford’s sons, and I’ve visited his home on multiple occasions. (Hey, Mr. Bashford! You may remember me from such episodes as “that time I caught two kids making out on my washing machine” and “the short girl who liked reading to my daughter when parties got too crazy.”) I remember him as a stand-up guy who always made sure we played safely, even when lighting firecrackers. I’m glad this happened for him and his team. Space elevators may be giant sources of light pollution, but power-beaming doesn’t strike me as a limited-application innovation. Congrats, y’all.

Share/Save

Get your kids their #$@*%&^ shots.

Via BB, we have this article from Wired about the anti-vaccine movement (specifically the movement which blames childhood vaccinations for autism). As a consequence of my time at OCAD, I’ve spent the past few weeks thinking about H1N1 and when I’ll be queuing up for my vaccine. At the same time, I’ve been utterly agog and aghast at the sheer number of people phoning the CBC or other news outlets with questions about the vaccine that are based solely on innuendo and hearsay. It’s absurd. Actually, it’s worse than absurd. It’s potentially lethal.

In May, The New England Journal of Medicine laid the blame for clusters of disease outbreaks throughout the US squarely at the feet of declining vaccination rates, while nonprofit health care provider Kaiser Permanente reported that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to get pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent coughing and is potentially lethal to infants. In the June issue of the journal Pediatrics, Jason Glanz, an epidemiologist at Kaiser’s Institute for Health Research, revealed that the number of reported pertussis cases jumped from 1,000 in 1976 to 26,000 in 2004. A disease that vaccines made rare, in other words, is making a comeback. “This study helps dispel one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents: that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases,” Glanz says.

“I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,” Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. “So now I’ve changed it to ‘when enough children start to die.’ Because obviously, we’re not there yet.”

Vaccination works. The people telling you otherwise are probably trying to sell you something to take its place, be it oil of oregano or coral calcium or special diets or books about their experiences or the opportunity to hear them speak at greater length during a more expensive seminar or conference designed to “give you the tools” to “take charge” of “your family/child/community’s health and wellness.”

Try “taking charge” when your kid gets polio. See how well that works out. Hope your health insurance is paid up.

Health insurance is something that the Wired article doesn’t bring up, but should. As of the 2007 US census, 47 million Americans were uninsured, including 11.7 percent of American children. How many of those kids get vaccinated against illness? I’m not sure. Maybe they do, when their parents can scrape together enough to make it happen. Or maybe they’re just forced, by bad luck and bad circumstance, to keep putting it off and putting it off and putting off, until one day Junior takes a slurp from the wrong can of soda and wham! sorry buddy, it’s meningitis. In the face of that reality — hordes of people who can’t access doctors — it’s no wonder that sales of snake oil are on the rise, or that snake-oil imbibers are out in force defending their snake-oil pipelines. Health insurance is for platinum customers only, but snake-oil is something everybody has access to. Everybody can tune into Oprah and watch Jenny McCarthy talk about how she doesn’t need science, because she has anecdotal evidence. Everybody can walk into a supplements store and pay the same amount that they would at a pharmacy for a different kind of pill in a similar-seeming bottle — but without needing a prescription, co-pay, or monthly premium. Flim-flam men don’t discriminate. They don’t exclude. Your money will always be good to them, no matter how low you’ve sunk.

Not that I don’t love me some vitamins. I do. I understand the need for them. And I understand the need — the raw, desperate, soul-sucking, brain-hacking need — to do something when your loved one is diagnosed with something terrible. But that something shouldn’t be the wholesale rejection of the scientific method. It shouldn’t be the careless dismissal of double-blind trials, or years of research, or the stats mentioned above. Vaccination saves lives. If you think otherwise, it’s probably because you don’t remember a time before vaccinations, when people actually got polio. You probably think that FDR just liked living in his wheelchair, because it was fun.

Some vaccinations do carry risks. Those risks are sometimes infinitesimal when compared to the risk of the ailment the vaccine seeks to prevent. And yes, as a parent, it’s your “right” to decide which risks your child should endure. It’s also your right to decide whether to put your baby in a car seat or just let him flop around the back every time you make a left turn. It’s your right to let him play with matches. It’s your right to throw him down the stairs if you think it’ll build his character. Go ahead. Do it. I mean, he’s not going to catch autism if you throw him down the stairs. You only get that from vaccines.

Right?

Share/Save

WANT: BMW’s new AR goggles

This is exactly what AR should be used for. And it clearly works as a method of ingratiating the product with the consumer, because holy Christ I want a BMW right now.

Imagine using this technology on your kitchen sink. Your gas furnace. Your toilet. Oh God, whither slapstick?

Share/Save

Even robots got more game than me

This super-fast robot hand dribbles, throws, and tweezes more effectively than I do. If you could observe the current state of my eyebrows, you would know this to be true.

You’ve probably already seen this footage, so I thought I’d show you some eventual applications for super-fast robot hands. (Oh, shut up. That would chafe and you know it.) Warning: Major spoilers below for Stand Alone Complex.

In all seriousness, I get really excited when I see stuff like the top video. I’m not sure where our brains mark the Uncanny Valley, but when I see these machines doing so well I feel a great upsurge of pride in human ingenuity and dedication. Lots of work went into creating that robot hand’s ability to tweeze. And why? So that it might one day use a pair of forceps or clamps while cleaning out your arteries, that’s why. The sensitivity and dexterity required to catch and grip a mobile phone might seem simple to us, but they’re the first things we lose to arthritis and stroke. Robotics is not only about improving the conditions for “artificial” life, it’s about improving the quality of human life, too. Too often, I think media outlets can perpetrate an image of roboticists as mad geniuses more interested in their machines than their fellow men. But the majority of advances in Japanese AI and robotics — from software to hardware — are now aimed at caring for children and the elderly in a safe, dignified manner. The end goals are almost banal in their humanity.

Speaking of which, where is my tweeze-bot? I’m sick of plucking these damn things myself.

Share/Save

In which I am yet again inspired by gaming tech:

Remember this?

Jon lay on a white leather divan, utterly unaware. The two girls who sat beside him every day in literature class were drawing on him with calligraphy brushes. They had duct taped tracked pens to each brush. A little remote infrared camera sat atop a humming portable projector. Another camera sat on a tripod beside it. On a monitor at their feet, Violet watched a digital iteration of Jon’s supine body slowly acquiring each mark, each brushstroke. The girls had made him into an infoboard, and seemed to be broadcasting the result. Both versions of Jon wore only swimming trunks.

That was inspired by Johnny Lee’s work on Wii-mote cameras. Check out what Mr. Lee is doing now:

This “vision video” indicates what Mr. Lee and his fellow designers would like to make possible with Project Natal, an extension of the Xbox technologies. He describes it better than I can:

The 3D sensor itself is a pretty incredible piece of equipment providing detailed 3D information about the environment similar to very expensive laser range finding systems but at a tiny fraction of the cost. Depth cameras provide you with a point cloud of the surface of objects that is fairly insensitive to various lighting conditions allowing you to do things that are simply impossible with a normal camera.

I post this because my friend Jerry told me he would be running into Mr. Lee Saturday evening (a fact that makes me positively green with envy), and I gave him explicit orders to corner the man and tell him that he had inspired a beginner science fiction writer. Given the publicity and utter coolness of Project Natal, I’m sure I won’t be the only one.

Share/Save

Quotable quotes:

Today, I thought that I would share this article on the death of rave culture and how Frederic Jameson predicted it, originally posted by Bruce Sterling. But then at Scalzi’s I saw, this, er, piece on why human penises look the way they do. Which led to this particular money shot:

Hopefully you’re thinking as an evolutionary psychologist at this point and can infer what these survey data mean: by using their penises proficiently as a semen displacement device, men are subconsciously (in some cases consciously) combating the possibility that their partners have had sex with another man in their absence. The really beautiful thing about evolutionary psychology is that you don’t have to believe it’s true for it to work precisely this way. Natural selection doesn’t much mind if you favor an alternative explanation for why you get so randy upon being reunited with your partner. Your penis will go about its business of displacing sperm regardless.

Share/Save

the rules of fitness

I’ve been thinking about natural selection a lot, lately (and not just because I picked up Natalie Angier’s The Canon the other day). Turns out Bruce Cohen explains Darwin’s concept of “fitness” pretty well:

Survival or mortality selection – Organisms that survive at least to the end of their reproductive phase are fitter than those who don’t, because they’re likely to have more offspring.

Mating success or sexual selection – Many species have some form of mate selection process which makes some organisms more likely to mate or likely to mate more often and thus produce more offspring.

Family size or fecundity selection – The more mature offspring (that is, those that live to reproduce themselves) produced by an organism, the fitter it is. This takes into account the two major reproduction strategies:

-produce as many offspring as possible, putting as little resource into each as possible (squids, for instance, do this),

-produce fewer offspring, putting significant resources into each, to increase each one’s chances of making it to reproductive age (humans do this).

I brought these concepts up with my students the other day after watching Radiant City. Among other things, the film argues that the housing developments now sprawling across North America will have an incredibly short life cycle, and that if they don’t prove their own sort of reproductive fitness (ie the ability to sustain a population past a second generation by providing ample resources for growth, like jobs), they will die out and become part of conspicuous consumption’s cookie cutter fossil record. I wish I had had this list handy, at the time.

Also, I highly recommend The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. I know too little about the sciences in general, and recognizing this I picked up the book with a birthday gift card. I’m very happy I did. I just wish I could go back to my undergraduate biology teacher and apologize to her for not being a better student during that hellish winter when I was more concerned with penetrating Immanuel Kant’s murky depths than peering down a microscope. Truly I am sorry. I like this stuff a lot better now, I promise.

Share/Save

“..in form and moving how express and admirable!”

(Via Bruce Sterling, who I have wanted to email all week but have been too shy.)

This is A-Pod. She’s been described elsewhere as both a robotic ant, and a harbinger of our eventual demise. While both descriptions may be factually true (the latter requires more time to bear out), neither grasps at her beauty. When I watch A-Pod’s video, I feel like a relative staring at a fetal ultrasound and anticipating what new life will someday emerge from that brief glimpse. I want her to be born, I want her to play, I want her to continue dancing, I want her to make friends and grow and learn.

I want her to be sentient. I want her to be free. I want her to bury her mandibles in that remote control and show us all who’s boss.

I am starting to want this for every robot whose demo footage I watch online.

Share/Save

Can the Church baptize robots?

I was raised Catholic. I should know the answer to this. But somehow it just never came up, in catechism. If you asked me what various theologians would have to say on the issue, I might be able to speculate (Augustine would likely say no, on the grounds that robots have no soul to save; Aquinas wouldn’t know his own mind until he wrote a 13-volume treatise on the subject; Benedict would probably consider their rote behaviour as Godlike in its simplicity, purity of purpose, and dedication to service; Ignatius would advise you to look into your heart and discern the answer). But as to whether the Holy See would ever, well, see artificial life as in need of salvation…well… let’s have a look.
Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save