CNN

I used to consider CNN a useful place to get (mostly) objective reporting. That was 10+ years ago and I have sort of watched it since then out of habit (not that there really is any place better, broadcast media is purt near worthless), but have noted that it steadily declined in quality until it is on par with the usual mishmash of nonsensical ‘reporting’ that we now have to endure as ‘journalism’. This was really driven home by two pieces by Glenn Greenwald:

Why didn’t CNN’s international arm air its own documentary on Bahrain’s Arab Spring repression?
A former CNN correspondent defies threats from her former employer to speak out about self-censorship at the network
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression

and his follow-up piece:

CNN and the business of state-sponsored TV news
The network is seriously compromising its journalism in the Gulf states by blurring the line between advertising and editorial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news

I would be a little shocked if any of my reader(s) feel that CNN is a reliable, non-partisan and unbiased news source, but I had sort of grown numb to how far it had fallen over the years. Granted the focus is CNNi (the international arm of CNN), but when you view the screen the differences are so subtle as to be indistinguishable, so who knows what you are listening to droning in the background. It has been clear that Fox and MSNBC are not ‘news’ but infotainment for years (decades?), now CNN is clearly nothing more than infotainment as well. Thank god for the ‘net and bloggers like Glenn!

Being smarter than yourself

Preferences
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/preferences/

I strive mightily to be smarter than myself, but, sadly, tend to fail a large proportion of the time. For instance, last weekend during our pool/greenhouse construction, I was ‘persuading’ a spacer in between two rafters with a hammer. It was a tight fit (it is _supposed_ to be a tight fit), but part of the rafter started to tear loose and bind up making the spacer nearly immovable. Accordingly I backed up and swung my arm way back in order to bash the hell out of it. Naturally, I missed the spacer entirely and brought all that energy down onto the side of my knee. It was amazingly painful, though I am rather proud of myself for not tumbling down the 15 feet or so to the ground. Fortunately it seems I hit enough muscle that I didn’t break anything and after lying down for a few minutes (and catching my breath from all the cursing; I actually started to grey out because I was cursing so much!) I was able to gimp around. Clearly, the rational solution to the original problem was to shave a wee bit of wood off the spacer and then restart the install process in such a way that I didn’t get it bound up with the rafter (this is exactly what I wound up doing). Why did I find that approach impossible until after I had attempted to crippled myself for life? It seems I am organically wired to take the path of _greatest_ resistance no matter how insane that approach is upon reflection. I have occasionally been able to outsmart myself by steering myself around/away from provocation, but, strangely, I find myself incapable of doing so once I have gone a certain distance down the path of most resistance.

Interesting also was Scott’s description of little boy monkeys playing with trucks while little girl monkeys preferred dolls (not being euphemistic here, we are talking about non-human primates; go read his article!). Clearly there can’t be any cultural impact here, they are monkeys! The idea that we are actually wired to prefer certain activities is quite interesting to me (prior to reading Scott’s article I always felt that any bias that was found was the lingering results of culture), though I see it as a bit of a crutch to excuse my outlandish behavior. Of course, it is possible that by realizing that it is something organic, perhaps I can make stronger efforts to head myself off before I get too far down the path of most resistance. Though I feel I am worse at flying off the handle than my dad was, he was also noted for his ability to get quickly frustrated and react with ‘direct physical applications of force’ (beat the hell out of something). I don’t recall ever thinking my behavior was acceptable or permissible and I don’t condone my behavior to myself, yet it is very difficult behavior to avoid once it gets started. On the other hand, I know I have an addictive personality when it comes to video games (as a youth I spent a hundred bucks or more a month (this was 30 years ago, so much more in today’s dollars) on the old stand-up games (man, I wish I was rich enough to get a refurbished Tempest game!)), so when they became ‘free’ games you could play at home I steadfastly refused to pick up the controller because I was convinced I would never put it back down again. I guess I should give some thought to putting in some extra effort at being smarter than myself and not allow a life-time’s failures dictate the rest of my existence…

Global cooling?

Night-Shining Clouds Get Glow from Meteor Smoke
A key ingredient in noctilucent clouds appears to be “smoke” from meteors as they burn up.
http://news.discovery.com/space/noctilucent-clouds-meteor-strike-120904.html

This article motivated me to write on a subject I have been thinking on a while now. Global warming is all the rage lately and people go out of there way to demonize anyone who even suggests that the treatment might be worse than the disease, but I would like to point out that there is actually a lot of evidence that human activity has gone a long way toward keeping our planet _cooler_ than it might otherwise have been. Take this for instance:

… Methane, which comes from landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities and coal mining, has become more abundant in Earth’s atmosphere since the 19th century. Methane has been found to increase the formation of noctilucent clouds.

“When methane makes its way into the upper atmosphere, it is oxidized by a complex series of reactions to form water vapor,” Russell said. “This extra water vapor is then available to grow ice crystals for NLCs [noctilucent clouds].”

If so, noctilucent clouds could be an indicator for the presence of methane, one of the main greenhouse gases.

Given that these very high clouds reflect light before it has any chance to heat the atmosphere or planet surface, a plausible argument can be made that our pollution is helping to keep the planet cooler. Indeed, I recall reading an article several years ago that the cutbacks in sulfur emissions from power plants (so-called acid rain) had resulted in a rather substantial decrease in high altitude clouds of ice crystals and a consequent increase in solar radiation reaching the planet surface. Similarly the reduction in sulfur in jet fuel has lead to less persistent contrails (contrails, btw, reflect quite a bit of light, something only really appreciated after the grounding of the airlines after 9/11). Interestingly, a different article noted that just like jets produce contrails in the upper atmosphere, container ships actually produce something analogous as they too and fro across the ocean. It is entirely possible that by eliminating human pollution due to fossil fuels we could easily result in a dramatic _increase_ in the rate of global warming (please recall, though, that in the longer run (1,000+ years) we are due to hit another ice age).

This is not meant to condone human’s destruction of our global ecosystem through increases in CO2 (I think humans are doing _way_ worse to our oceans, forests and prairies), just to point out that even small changes enacted at a global scale will have ramifications that we more than likely cannot anticipate, let alone deal with effectively.

If ‘simple’ things like leaking methane can cause extremely high altitude clouds that mask the increased heating of the globe (perhaps due to higher solar output, and yes, potentially man-made increases in CO2), what about more ‘complex’ things like hydrogen? What if we (yes, extremely unlikely) were to provide most of our energy from nuclear? Perhaps the cut back in pollutants might elevate all sorts of secondary problems that have been masking the harm our deforestation and raping of the ocean has caused?

Too bad there is no room for rational debate…

The beginning of the end for Java?

Beware Fake Microsoft And Amazon Emails Exploiting Java Security Vulnerability
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/09/04/beware-fake-microsoft-and-amazon-emails-exploiting-java-security-vulnerability/

I almost blogged on this last week when I heard that Oracle had taken so long to put out a fix. Now, it seems, even the fix is a POS and leaves the software with vulnerabilities. Oracle has a very long history of taking its sweet time with fixes (most particular security fixes) and it seems that they have transferred this attitude to Sun’s Java developers. While Sun was often a bit frustrating in its support for Java (they made it half-way open source, but not really, and for certain classes of users there were licensing fees (much like MySQL, something else I object to using if there are alternatives)), it seems Oracle has taken it to a new level. Java is well established now, so any reversal will take a long time, but it seems to me that unless Oracle changes its behavior (something, based on their past, that seems inconceivable to me) more and more architects and designers will start to turn away (somehow I doubt C or C++ will get the love instead, too bad for me). Once an organization has made the decision to move away from a technology that process is slow, but it is sort of like continental movement: inevitable. It won’t matter that suddenly things take a turn for the better, the decision was made.

Not that I am a huge fan of Java; I prefer working at areas where there are resource constraints (where Java is a poor choice) and with computers getting so damn fast and cheap there are fewer places where there are any resource constraints and it seems my passion is eroding my career prospects. A good friend of mine keeps suggesting I go over ‘to the dark side’ and focus on Java (this is not to say I am unfamiliar with the language, indeed, my dad started to push it on me when it was still in alpha and I have written a couple of small applications over the years). I have so far refused, but that refusal looks more and more like a mistake as time goes by…

The Politics of the Empty Chair

Politics of Clint Eastwood’s empty chair
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/03/opinion/avlon-politics-empty-chair/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

I didn’t watch any of the RNC (and have no intention of watching any bit of the DNC either), but did see and read lots of stuff on Eastwood’s ‘performance’. I don’t feel any need to comment on Ryan’s ‘elaborations of the truth’ (though I read this one with interest: Paul Ryan’s marathon lie), he is, after all, a politician. Romney’s comments were his typical vapid air-headed, say nothing usual, so it really doesn’t warrant comment either, so really, there is only Eastwood. I haven’t made time to watch any of the videos (and probably won’t), so am going by what other’s have written. However, based on what I have read to date, this article above really takes the whole thing to heart. I really like this quote:

… The Politics of the Empty Chair allows narratives to take the place of facts and usher in an essentially fictitious debate, inspiring monologues that feel like dialogues.

It’s the political equivalent of shadowboxing, intellectual combat with a fear-fueled misrepresentation of your opponent. The funniest comment about Eastwood’s performance came via Twitter from Nation writer Jamelle Bouie: “This is a perfect representation of the campaign: An old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.”

Let me be clear, this is not in any way GOP specific. The Dems (as mentioned in the article) are guilty as well of empty chair politics, but to me it seems the GOP has taken it to new heights (or, rather, lows). With all this information available to the average citizen, courtesy of our World Wide Web, people choose to selectively filter information to the point where they will vociferously defend idiotic ideas (surely it can’t all be about gullibility, can it?). Don’t bother me with facts! I already have my mind made up!

Members of the echo chamber love the Politics of the Empty Chair because it allows them to speak for the opposition, creating their own cartoon images, demonizing and distorting them beyond all recognition.

The conspiracy entrepreneurs and professional partisans who profit in this environment need to keep their audiences agitated, convinced that they have access to special knowledge.

They become addicted to division, divorced from the actual responsibilities of governing…

It seems to me (as it does increasingly), that the US experiment is doomed. Perhaps the implosion won’t be as violent as me and the doomsday apocalypse people feel it will be, but I just can’t envision the pendulum swinging back from the insanity I see today. It would require that the average Joe and Jill suddenly start to care about reality and turn away from the ‘echo chamber’. However, based on my interactions with fellow Joes and Jills, I just don’t see any potential for that. Politics has always been a race to the bottom, but I see the bottom continuing to go lower as the pursuit intensifies…

What do you think…

Study: Divided classes promote stereotypes
A new report from the ACLU confirms what feminists have long suspected: Single-sex classrooms don’t help kids learn
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/study_divided_classes_promote_stereotypes/

Based on what I have read, it is not so clear cut as this article makes out. When separated students are treated equally (the opposite of what is described in the article) my impression is that the classes can move through the curriculum more smoothly. Girls and boys, as groups, tend to process different information at different rates (meaning what is clear to girls might need extensive discussion for boys, and vice versa) and when you have combined classes (and all other conditions being equal, a very important caveat) the pace tends to bog down since ‘excess’ focus is on elements that might be clear to one gender or the other.

As this article indicates, though, it is very difficult to _not_ treat the genders differently and I have read extensive reports about how there is bias in the way teachers (women or men) treat boys and girls even when their (the teacher’s) attitudes indicate they are bias free. Girls, as a class, tend to be quieter and better behaved then boys, and as such, tend to get a bit less attention than the boys because they are more noisy and rambunctious. Attention does not necessarily equate to better education, but it does dilute the effort the teacher has to expend on the the rest of the students. One reason why I think that private schools tend to do better than average when compared to public schools: they can toss the trouble makers out. If classes with trouble makers (not necessarily that they are mean or impossible to control, but whose behavior absorbs a lot of the teacher’s energy, thus subtracting from the overall educational experience) were segregated from classes with better behaved students (which, according to what I have read (and experience!), means most of the girls and about half the boys would be in one class and half the boys and a handful of girls in the other) the teacher could focus on different educational techniques better adapted to the target audience.

Of course, this sort of wishful thinking is just daydreaming; tain’t gonna happen here in the US where the factory education method is the only one that gets attention.

A product that could be immensely valuable

Unmixing oil and water
A new filter that separates the two substances only using gravity could help clean oil spills
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/343319/title/Unmixing_oil_and_water

In my research (mostly literature at this point) regarding biofuels, separating oil from water is a significant element. Though this product appears to be in the experimental stage, the manufacturing process appears to be so simple that it could quickly make its way to market. I mention a new method to separate ethanol earlier, I think we might rather suddenly be subject to a paradigm shift that makes biofuels not only competitive, but quickly reach scale where it is more economical than the alternatives (i.e., fossil fuels). I have read so many depressing assessments of the potential of biofuel recently it is nice to have a reason to be optimistic.

It would be even better if I could somehow position myself to be a player in this area…

Promiscuous proteins

Big jobs go to loyal proteins
Cells offload nonessential work on multitasking enzymes
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/343412/title/Big_jobs_go_to_loyal_proteins

This is an interesting idea to me. I have been steeped in the paradigm of one enzyme – one substrate for a very long time. The idea that some enzymes can provide functionality for multiple types of activities is quite interesting and makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. That certain enzymes critical to the success of the cell would become highly specialized over evolutionary timescales makes even more sense (anything that gives an organism an edge in survival/reproduction will help it thrive against competition). Indeed, it helps fill in the ‘gap’ in going from non-living to living (a rather arbitrary line that most agree has to do with replication) if we accept that the earlier versions of enzymes were generalists rather than specialists.

Did you know the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary?

I first read this post by Scott Adams:

Quantifying Gullibility
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/quantifying_gullibility/

Which lead me to read the article he referenced:

Research Pinpoints Brain’s ‘Gullibility’ Center
Changes in this region could explain why seniors, children are less doubting
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/08/24/research-pinpoints-brains-gullibility-center

I admit that I felt like I was going to be fed a line, but both articles appear to be serious and not some sort of April Fools joke. The idea that people become more gullible as they get older jives with my experiences. I felt my father got very credulous as he got older and we had some rather intense discussions (or arguments, depending on your point of view) on some stuff he really seemed to want me to believe (check out Zecharia Sitchin for just one instance). I have other relatives, who shall remain nameless, whose behavior echos one of Scott’s commenters:

I’ve observed the same thing. I had chalked it up to confirmation bias rather than simple gullibility, but maybe this is a better explanation. I have a father-in-law who used to be an engineer with the military. A brilliant guy by any intelligence test you might care to use. But he now believes, and shares, every single anti-Obama story he hears, no questions asked, no sources checked. The absolute worst incident came a few months ago when he shared a satirical story about Obama supposedly being foreclosed upon. The story itself, in my opinion, was hilarious. Except that my father in law didn’t get the joke, and shared it with his Facebook page as further evidence of just how dumb and irresponsible Obama is. It’s gotten to the point where I’m genuinely embarrassed by a man I used to have nothing but respect for.

I recall being quite credulous as a youth and having a very strong belief in UFOs, but as I got older and more objectively evaluated the so-called evidence it became increasingly clear to me that there was no ‘there’ there. I admit, though, to holding out hope for Sasquatch, but faith is sometimes hard to cling to. I do worry a bit, though, that I might follow in my father’s footsteps and get more credulous (that does sound more polite than gullible, doesn’t it?) as I get older. He was a rather grouchy bear as I grew up, so we really didn’t have much in the way of conversation until he retired, so I really don’t know what he was like when he was younger, so maybe he started off from a more credulous location.

Like one of the commenters, I wonder if there could be any treatment developed. I wonder, though, if people would want to give up their gullibility. I can imagine it is a warm safe place where evidence that contradicts your thoughts is simply ignored. Certainly a much simpler place to be, if more dangerous (no amount of wishful thinking will keep a truck from mowing you down if you wander onto a busy road).

Cynic is as cynic does

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA
Mark Mazzetti’s emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia

This an interesting article, as most of Glenn’s are, but that really isn’t what prompted me to blog on it. Rather it was this paragraph…

The more important objection is that the fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed, as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace, then it is transformed in people’s minds from something objectionable into something acceptable. Indeed, many people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism – oh, don’t be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.

It relates to a comment yesterday by DaWei yesterday:

Frankly, choosing Obama suggests that you have given up, totally, on ever becoming anything at all, however badly the odds are stacked against you…

I see more than a little bit of ‘given up, totally’ in me, as I am sure my reader(s) have, and I feel in large part it is because of stuff like Glenn’s column and what I feel is the entirely pointless act of voting. I would like to feel there is some way to reverse the tide (though, if really a ‘tide’, then one must presume it will ebb at some point), but am really struggling with ways of doing so. I recall reading once somewhere a line describing a cynic as an optimist that had been disappointed too many times. Perhaps that is the case with me. I would love to hear ideas to combat our decaying society, though a bit of the historian in me tries to shout that for most of our nation’s history our government has been at least as corrupt and dirty as it is today, yet most of the time it functions well. Perhaps as a long-run sort of thing, but I recall reading about how bad things got during the depression, in particular, how the depression didn’t really start until many years after the crash when very ill advised decisions were made by our government beholden to the monied special interests. If any of that sounds familiar (I trust it does), then we are looking at the likely prospects of getting to repeat that all over again. As I recall, it took WWII to get our economy out of the dumps from the great depression and the major reason our country had such a long expansion after WWII was because we had bombed the hell out of our manufacturing competitors, thus enjoyed a monopoly for a while.

I just can’t shake the conviction that things are vastly more likely to get worse before there is any chance of things getting better. I sure would like to be wrong! I am happy with being a silly idiot worrying that the sky is falling; please let it be so…