Cool satellite tracking websites

* Chris Peat's Heavens Above
* NASA's SkyWatch
* Science@NASA‘s J-Pass

Huh...the anti-intellectuals in the Dumbass administration missed this

From the DOE:

Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors

[snip]

Nature’s reactors

In the early 1970s, French scientists noticed something odd about samples of uranium recovered from the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa. All atoms of a specific chemical element have the same chemical properties, but may differ in weight; these different weights of an element are known as isotopes. Some uranium samples from Gabon had an abnormally low amount of the isotope U-235, which can sustain a chain reaction. This isotope is rare in nature, but in some places, the uranium found at Oklo contained only half the amount of the isotope that should have been there.

[snip]

So how did nuclear reactions occur in nature?

Deep under African soil, about 1.7 billion years ago, natural conditions prompted underground nuclear reactions. Scientists from around the world, including American scientists have studied the rocks at Oklo. These scientists believe that water filtering down through crevices in the rock played a key role. Without water, it would have been nearly impossible for natural reactors to sustain chain reactions.

[snip]

Oops...oh, and very cool what nature can do.

IP over Firewire

Geek to Live: Fast, one wire network (IP over FireWire)

Nice listing of CV numbers

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER

As always, the devil is in the details

Was just revisiting the 2000 election fiasco...

How Bush Lost Florida But Won In The Supreme Court And The Media

[snip]

A Third Hypothetical

The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties - by 225 votes - and the state Supreme Court's order - by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore's statewide-recount victory was played down.

Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.

The U.S. Supreme Court's proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.

"Ironically, it was Bush's lawyers who argued that recounting only the undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to undervotes," the Post wrote. "Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore's chances would have been dramatically improved."

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters - both nationally and in Florida - might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.

[snip]

For when I have time to actually understand this

Our nutjob leader is in here somewhere...and it's pretty scary.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PLAY TECHNIQUE AND A PSYCHOANALYTIC VIEW OF EARLY DEVELOPMENT

For when I have time to get to this

Rawls' Mature Theory of Social Justice

Yep, this pretty much sums it up

From PZ:

Imagine that a scientist and one of these deranged libertarian right-wing anti-environmentalist science deniers go out for a drive one day...

LIB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: No lake!

LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: Ditto!

You'd think he was talking about the current administration

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Cargo Cult Science
Richard Feynman
From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

Fun with chemistry...

The Extreme Diet Coke & Mentos Experiments

I usually hate giving away the ending, but

this one was so good...

From Conservative Utopia? We Don't Have To Guess over at the Booman:

So next time a "Conservative" like Ann Coulter tells you to just pack up and leave the country if you don't like the way George Bush does things, tell him or her this: I'm not leaving. You already HAVE a country to go to that believes in your ideology. Go there. I'm still trying to create one that believes in mine--and so was Thomas Jefferson.

Tell them, in other words, to go to hell. Because their hell already exists on earth.

I love you Apocalypse Pony!

So good I had to screen capture

Replicating it just wouldn't do it justice...

Fun with maps

Cartogram of the 2004 election using red/blue color scaling and county populations:


World spending on healthcare:


It's interesting to note that the maps for healthcare, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions are almost identical.

Just an effort to educate myself on the Great Depression

An article by Robert Samuelson

Staff report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Great Expectations and the End of the Depression (h/t from The New Economist)

Nice collection of links from U of Colorado

Depression study by UCLA economists.

Hypocrite, thy name is Michelle

Much like Rush, Michelle Malkin has a problem (only one? hardly, but this one is hilarious!). To wit:

Michelle Malkin: Anchor Baby
11 April 2006 by Mark

Watching Michelle Malkin's blog descend into the undeniable, historically-proven abyss of Fascism -- blaming an internal enemy for a nation's problems -- doesn't have to be all gloom and doom. Sure, she's unhinged. Sure, she's a mirror image of almost every enemy our country has ever fought against, cloaked only in a thin disguise of uberpatriotism. But we can still have fun at her expense.

And, of course, we should.

[snip]

So it behooves us, then, to poke around in Malkin's own backstory a bit to find blobs of truth which we can then stretch into gooey hilarity through the taffy pull of satire. It doesn't take long to find one such bit: Michelle Maglalang was the product of one Dr. Apolo Maglalang and his wife, who he inseminated during what can assume was a disgusting act of utter perversity. Doc Apolo -- sounds like a Marvel Comics villain! -- still works as a pediatrician in New Jersey. He came here on a "work visa" from the Philippines. Shortly thereafter, little Michelle was born, causing (one can assume) great pain as she violently stretched her mother's vagina to the breaking point. (I add that last bit of color commentary only because I know it will drive Malkin absolutely nuts to hear me talking about her mother's vagina, even if only in a clinical way.)

A cursory review of Doc Apolo's medical background comes up empty. He doesn't have any lawsuits pending against him, even though one could argue that conceiving a neo-Nazi* should probably be illegal. He hasn't any citations against him medically, and holds the required medical licenses, etc. But the timing of Malkin's birth is what's important. She was, in fact, what the Right likes to call an "anchor baby" or "jackpot baby":

Put simply, an anchor baby is the offspring of an illegal immigrant who, under current legal interpretation, becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and, in turn, is the means by which parents and relatives can also obtain citizenship for themselves by using the family reunification features of immigration law. (Link)

According to the facts, Doc Apolo arrived in the US under a work visa sometime in 1970, and Malkin was born "months" later, in October. Now it's conceivable that Doc Apolo arrived in the US in January, immediately knocked up the missus, and never intended on using the fetus as a convenience. It's conceivable, but unlikely. The window of opportunity there is just too small, and in all likelihood Doc Apolo arrived here with the full understanding that he was bringing with him a pregnant wife due to give birth sometime inside the term of his visa. But even if he didn't intend on little Michelle being a jackpot baby, the fact that he stayed in the US through October, rather than return to the Philippines like a good immigrant, means Michelle was a jackpot baby --- a fact which immediately granted Doc Apolo's caterwauling spawn legal US citizenship, and tossed a whole bunch of US rights into his family's lap.

What does Ms. Malkin have to say about "anchor babies"? Here's what:

During my book tour across the country for Invasion, this issue came up time and again. In the Southwest, everyone has a story of heavily pregnant women crossing the Mexican border to deliver their "anchor babies." At East Coast hospitals, tales of South Korean "obstetric tourists" abound. (An estimated 5,000 South Korean anchor babies are born in the US every year). And, of course, there's a terrorism angle.

[more]

OopsHilarious!!!!

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

An interesting dailykos diary regarding Maslow's Hierarchy and relating it to politics.

Winning Hearts, Meeting Needs

[snip]

Here's my point. The farther down the pyramid we can be driven, by insecurity, illness, lack of expression, etc, the less human we become. We will do ANYTHING to feed ourselves and our families. After that, we will do anything to keep that resource safe.

To me, this explains why people vote against their self interest at one level of the pyramid to protect the next layer.

It explains to me why the abortion rate goes up under the Republican administrations. The feeling of security and having social needs met are much more supportive to a woman who is pondering whether to take the pregnancy to term; she is more likely to have the child if she feels financially and medically secure.

By piling debt on the class of society with fewer resources, the Republicans actually drive the needs to a lower and lower level where people will do whatever it takes (fill in the blanks here) to feed themselves and feel secure. Even vote for a Republican. Who can vote for a Democrat that wants to take you to the higher level of needs when you haven't got the basic levels secure?

When we talk about issues, we need to link it to the most basic level of human needs.

[snip]

Where are the Christians like Christ?

This is an issue that really pisses me off about people who claim to be Christian but support today's Republican party. From Street Prophets:

Politics, Poverty, Religion and the debasement of Jesus

by Cogitator
Thu Jun 1st, 2006 at 04:13:38 PDT

Promoted by Deb, with added block quotes to make the attribution a bit clearer.

Just what did Jesus have to say about about tax structures? Personal financial portfolios? Offshore corporate tax havens? Municipal bonds?
My biblical research has failed to locate any such directives.

Various admonitions in the Bible though seems to particularly weigh in on those who use its spiritual contents for personal profit. Some examples:

More below the fold.

Much longer and really gets to the heart of the issue and how it relates to Social Security, health care, etc. Go read it.

Curious GWB

Forget bombs — Bush drops the beat in this hip-hop spoof about an administration in a tailspin. Who knew the prez had such mad flow?