Yesteryear's Sci-Fi Is... (#2)

The obligatory link: A missile punch at bullet prices

Yes, I know, from the dateline on the article, I got to this one late. Still, it is an interesting little article. Starting from the chatroom for Constitutional Public Radio, we got on the topic of various rotary cannons last Thursday. Naturally, that got the Wiki juices flowing freely, and several clicks down the line from vulcan cannons, I ended up with this.

Essentially, the Navy is working on a railgun. To put it in easier terms, it's a gun that fires bullets using magnets instead of gunpowder. Of course, being the Navy, they're doing things big. What we're talking about here is a ship-based weapon capable, according to the article, of Tomahawk cruise missile ranges, with about two minutes faster time-to-target, for $1000 a shot (as opposed to the approximately $1000000 per shot for the Tomahawk), and approximately the same amount of destructive force.

From the article: "Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact."

Of course, they're talking about 2020 or so on this project, so we're certainly not there yet. Still, it's cool all the same.

Someone Get Roswell On The Line

The obligatory link: UFO science key to halting climate change: former Canadian defense minister

The title really does say it all here. A former government official who is calling on the governments of the world to take the covers off all that alien technology they've been holding back from the UFO crashes... to help stop global warming.

No, it's not scientific. The only value is that it's worth a laugh. At least he's got his science fiction down, to an extent:

"Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels"

Another Trope Bites The Dust

The obligatory link: Petrol lit with a cigarette? Only in the movies.

Sounds like an episode of Myth Busters to me, but apparently tests have been done by the ATF to see whether or not a lighted cigarette can cause gasoline to combust. Unsurprisingly (if you read either the title or the link title), it won't. Not even if the cigarette is currently being puffed on (which increases the temperature by 200 degrees Celsius or so). Now it's just another thing requiring a suspension of disbelief.

The real question here is, "Why doesn't it work?" After all, the temperatures seem conducive to it. Unfortunately, the folks conducting the test don't have an answer for us. And since it's a rather obscure focus for further scientific study, the world may never know.

Mr. Fusion, Is That You? (What Have You Done With Your Hair?)

The obligatory link: The prophet of garbage

I can't say I ever really thought of "Back To The Future" as science fiction, though the claim could certainly be made. Follow the link, though, and you'll find that someone has apparently turned into science fact what was science fiction when the movie came out in 1985. Next thing you know, he's going to tell us that we don't need any roads.

Global Warming Inceases Fevers - Women And Children Hardest Hit

The obligatory link: Fever claim on global warming

Setting aside the fact that the title of this post is based on a joke, that's essentially what the article is trying to claim. In a nutshell, that rising temperatures correlate with higher incidents of fever and stomach flu, so global warming is going to send more people to the emergency room.

Now, I'm not trying to take shots at children here. I'm just trying to figure exactly why global warming is getting dragged into an otherwise unrelated field of study, since the research itself, while it does need additional study to "add strength to the findings", according to the quoted Doctor, seems that it may bear out.

But, then again, I do know... It's from the same school as, "If you need to hammer a nail, and you don't have a hammer, use a wrench." And, of course, the obligatory "it's for the children" meme.

Another Challenge To The Climate-Change Establishment

The obligatory link: An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

The article really stands by itself, but it is interesting that a lot of people are choosing now to bring up their opposition to what some are calling the "settled" science of climate change. I just wonder how long it will take people to get the hint that the research side of this isn't nearly so over and done with as some would like them to believe.

It's About To Get A Whole Lot Hotter

The obligatory link, right off the top: Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Ever want to know why some people remain skeptical about global warming? Well, this story is a good indication. Honestly, the whole issue seems less like science, and more like the pre-fight verbal jabs one expects going into a boxing match... based on research and numbers instead of the more colorful "I'll kill you and eat your children!" type of banter, admittedly.

The only real trick here is, part of the fight is actually wrapped up in the preliminaries. Yes, Virginia, there are scientists who believe that, based on the research they've done, man has no notable impact on global warming.

Now, it's easy to try to chalk up the continuing attempts to blame the whole thing on man as "science as religion" as some do... but I think there's an easier explanation. If you were being paid to research something, and you knew the predisposition of the people giving you money, wouldn't that tend to cause you to bias your research in favor of that point of view?

So, Who's Miserable?

The obligatory link: Most miserable day of the year

On one level, I can understand the need of some people to be able to quantify something like misery with a number. Not that it helps them do anything with it, mind you, other than being able to think, "Well, at least I'm not as miserable as I was back in XYZ..."

Here's the (supposedly) relevant formula:

Dr Arnalls’ formula is 1/8W+(D-d) 3/8xTQ MxNA.

Key - W: Weather. D: Debt. d: Money due in January pay. T: Time since Christmas. Q: Time since failed quit attempt. M: General motivational levels. NA: The need to take action.

Now, what I wanted to do was plug things into the formula, just for kicks. However, as you may've noticed if you looked at it, there are a lot of variables that are unworkable without an understanding of their normal range.

Take, for instance W (weather). What's the range for weather? Is a sunny day a 1? A 10? How about if it's cloudy, but not raining or snowing? How about taking the first letter from the word for the given weather and converting it into its equivalent number? (Cloudy would be 3, on that scale, for instance.)

Debt and money due in pay in January are easy, and it's probably safe to assume that the formula wants time since Christmas in days, as well as time since failed quit attempt. But how are we supposed to turn general motivational levels and the need to take action into numeric values?

I suppose the rest of us will have to rely on more seat-of-the-pants calculations... And by those calcs, I'm feelin' pretty good.

Delay Dementia By Four Years?

The obligatory link: Bilingualism has protective effect in delaying onset of dementia by four years, Canadian study shows

It's an interesting idea, I suppose. Of course, they don't say what constitutes real "lifelong use of two languages". Does picking up a second language at seventeen count? (And if it does, does that make me an honorary member of the juunana sai cult?)

Looking down the article, it takes better than half the article to finally get to the real statistical value of the study... a whole 184 people. So, file this one under "more research is needed", I suppose.

Science and Technology

A few disparate stories of interest, or at least amusement.

Obligatory link #1: Riddle of Homer's Odyssey island solved?

The short version: A group of Britons think they may well have found the location of the island of Ithaca.

Obligatory link #2: Hitachi develops system that reads what people think from their blood flow

The short version: They hope to adapt this knowledge into technology to allow the handicapped to control various devices by thought, after a fashion. Very cool.

Obligatory link #3: Doom for Hubble's iconic pillars

The short version: We won't see a visual difference for another thousand years, but the hydrogen formation referred to as the Pillars of Creation is almost certainly already destroyed. (Speed of light thing... The images are good, though.)

Obligatory link #4: Two charged with hacking into high school computers to fix grades

The short version: Are they going to go after Janek's little black box next? It's on the table, between the pencil jar and the lamp.

Medicating Society, and...

The obligatory link: Fido's Little Helper

I could hardly believe the headline, honestly. People are giving their pets prozac now? Really? Now, don't misunderstand me here. I get that people love their pets, and are willing to go to great lengths for them in many cases. But... prozac? The champion drug of millions of school kids... coming soon to a cat near you? If I hadn't sworn off emoticons for posting purposes, that one would earn a sweatdrop in no time.

Yesteryear's Sci-Fi Is...

The obligatory link: How things work: Electromagnetic catapults

As usual, it's exceptionally cool to watch things I've appreciated in the past as science fiction in the process of becoming science fact. Now, if we can just get the anthopomorphic robots to use with the EM catapults, we'll have something.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, we have this: Metamaterials found to work for visible light

The upshot here, amongst the many possible application of such things? Two words: Cloaking technology. C'mon, if that can't get the geek in you going, what can?

Food For Thought

The obligatory link: Frozen in time

I'm not going to try to comment on this one, primarily because I'm not sure how to go about doing so yet. However, it's certainly worth seeing and thinking about, so please read it.

Safer Than Sharks

The Obligatory Link: Nuclear Power Safer Than Sharks

There is, of course, a pertinent quote to offer:

"The risk of dying in a nuclear disaster was below that of dying from smoking, driving, owning firearms, drowning, fire, electrocution and snake bites, the report said."

Now, the one thing I thought was conspicuous in its absence from the list was lightning strikes. I suppose I could make an allowance for that being lumped in with electrocution statistics... but, naturally, I'm not going to. Of course, due to the wonders of Wikipedia, and the thoughtful article writer, we can make a comparison.

From the article, "There have been 31 direct fatalities from nuclear reactors since 1969 – including the Chernobyl disaster", and "This did not take into account the estimated 4000 people who could eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure from the Chernobyl meltdown." So, we'll go with a nice, round 4000, since plus or minus 31 shouldn't put it outside the statistical variance. Compared to the ~6.5 billion people currently living (from the World Population entry on Wikipedia), that's a chance of one in 1.625 million. Divided over the 37-year span, it becomes one in 60.125 million instead.

Comparatively, from Wikipedia's entry on lightning, some 2000 people are struck by lightning per year, with an averaged fatality rate of 29%, for a total of 580 per year. Again, out of the world's population, that's one for every 11.2 million, approximately.

Lose One, Gain Fifty-two

The obligatory link: Jungle Secrets

Given all the outcry in the media over the baiji freshwater dolphin apparently becoming extinct in China, this was something of an interesting counterpoint. There's far more out there than we're aware of, even with as long as we've been kickin' around on the planet.

They Say "Still No Cure For Cancer"

The obligatory link: Diabetes Breakthrough

But isn't that close? Scientists are saying they've got a way, at least in mice to virtually stop diabetes. Not a whole lot of commentary needed here. That's just hot stuff.

The Grave Threat to the World Is ... Nature!

The obligatory link: Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO₂ from cars

Y'know, it's an amazing thing. Livestock, living naturally, are a graver threat to our world than are planes, trains, and automobiles? Honestly, it strikes me as vastly amusing that, on the one hand, we have people telling us we're killing the planet, and we need to drive less, or not at all, and we need all of our factories to reduce emissions of various particles by such-and-such percentages, or we're going to burn or freeze the world to death. Meanwhile, on the other hand (or not really, since the two concepts seem to run in the same circles), nature is practically sacred, and can do no wrong. It's just doing what it must to survive, after all. We're the ones getting in the way.

... And now, nature is doing more damage to the world than man is? What are we supposed to do, implement a variant of China's new one dog policy on cattle? I mean, they're not warm and fuzzy, so maybe the outcry wouldn't be as great... Meanwhile, we could have a grand last cow feast, at least until the mad cow scare kicked back in. Or, would we be eliminating that, too? Certainly, by reducing the ammonia output of livestock, we'd be saving the rainforest! See? A truly worthy end. Every cow could go to the slaughter with peace in its soul, since it'd be helping save the world.

Warming? Really?

Obligatory link: Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

Global warming is one of those things. You know the kind. "It'll give you cancer!" "No, it won't give you cancer, but it'll cause you to grow premature nose hair!" "Of course it won't do that, it'll make your fingernails fall off!" Within all the hype, there is some truth. Yes, there is a warming trend currently. However, to date, the evidence that mankind has anything to do with it has been contradictory at best (some would go so far as to say nonexistant).

And so, in the middle of this, comes the above release by professor Deming, claiming that he's been asked to make statements he believes to be untrue to push an agenda that mankind is at fault in the current warming of the earth. Could he be wrong in his conclusions? Certainly. Part of science is being wrong, and then re-hypothesizing and figuring out what's really going on. But what is undeniable is the continued litany of stories of people who want to push a scientifically unproven theory on the world as a given fact.

Just ask yourself, before you throw this out as anti-environmentalist agitprop, who really stands to gain by pushing unproven theories. After all, it isn't the scientists. They're set to lose quite a bit of standing in their community if someone can overturn their conclusions. And beyond that, run a quick Google search for the key words "sun" and "warming".

Man-made? Or a result of increasing activity in that massive, natural fusion reaction we have for a neighbor? Remember, it's 330,000 times more massive than our whole planet, give or take. It's enough to keep us in orbit, who's really surprised if it modulates our planetary temperature, too?