Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

I really, really hope the journals get published.

The Unabomber's stuff is up for auction. And I desperately want them to publish his journals. Ted Kaczynski's nuttier than the spelling of his last name, but the man is also one of the most interesting psychopaths you could ever take the time to read about.

For starters, he's very complicated. Dr. Charles Epstein, one of the Unabomber's victims, characterizes Kaczynski in the article linked above as, "the essence of evil. He's evil and amoral. He has no compassion." Dr. Epstein has, to say the least, every right to feel that way about Kazcynski, however I would argue that his remarks, largely correct though they are, fail to paint the full picture of the second most famous terrorist to ever target Americans.

Let me be clear in my remarks, Ted Kaczynski is not a man to be admired or respected. His attacks were awful. His fears, perhaps not as ungrounded as they may appear at first blush, are, never the less, hardly a justification for his actions. That being said, I reserve the word 'evil' for those whose crimes are motivated by the pleasure they derive from them. I think that pleasure was absent from Kaczynski's motivations.

Kaczynski, like, I would wager, all terrorists, was motivated but that most dangerous of concepts, 'the greater good.' His manifesto is peppered with criticisms of how modern society has eroded personal freedoms and about how 'leftism' has made it impossible to act completely morally. In this respect many of his quotes are indistinguishable from those of Glen Beck (Plus, neither of them are overly partial to institutions of higher education) or even some of the more radical Teabaggers many of whom echo the unabomber's views on political correctness's impact on/relationship to morality.

(I feel it's important to note where Kaczynski departs from the American extreme right, however, isn't just in his acceptance of violence, but in what I personally feel is an only logical extension of his distaste for large government and that's his hatred of large organizations of virtually any kind but specifically manufacturing. Not being a great speller, I frequently have misspelled the Unabomber as the 'Unibomber,' thinking the 'uni' was short for university. In fact the term comes from the FBI case designation, 'Unabom' which was a contraction of 'UNiversity and Airline BOMber.')

Kaczynski's lack of compassion for others could be clearly seen in his short story, 'Ship of Fools,' which has been turned into a stop motion animation short that is worth watching. Listen to the language Kaczynski uses to describe the other groups/passengers on the ship of fools and notice also the way that he dismisses their problems as trivial compared to his own (the ones that, by and large, only he can see):

Still though, Kaczynski is not an entirely unthoughtful person, far from it. Take, for example, the strange case of Bill Geerhart who, in 1999, posed as a little boy and sent letters to various celebrities, politicians and serial killers. One of the people he wrote was Ted Kaczynski. Below is Geerhart's letter and Kaczynski's response...




This note is turning into something far longer than I intended it to be, so I will cut this short by opening up a whole new can of worms and just point out that we are, as Americans (or, perhaps, just as humans in general), rather inconsistent with our views on Terrorism. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is all too frequently a PR campaign. Look at how some have even defended the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller as justifiable because they believe the doctor, an abortion provider, to be himself a murderer or that his murder wasn't 'really' terrorism because what some(usually specified as Islamic)terrorist groups do is 'worse.' How do you feel about water boarding? How do you feel about what North Korea is doing to our journalists? Or about what we're doing to an Iraqi journalist? Do the ends justify the means? Is it best to fight fire with fire? Is Ted Kaczynski's greatest crime terrorism or is Ted Kaczynski's greatest crime being wrong about what is the greater good?

Personally, I think he's a terrorist. Personally, I think that's why Dr. Epstein thinks he's evil and not because Kaczynski's a neo-luddite and Epstein's a geneticist. I also think that for a man preoccupied by the notion of acting in a 'competely moral way,' Kaczynski was quick to decend into tribalism....

... and I can't wait to read the intellectual acrobatics that will be required to justify his actions in his own mind.

PS: Kaczynski fun fact, the Unabomber is a virgin.
PPS: Learning more about the Unabomber is really fascinating. Obviously he was mentally ill, but the degree to which his mental illness impacted his life... was incredible. He couldn't read people's emotions, he couldn't distinguish facial expressions... surprising? No, not exactly, but fascinating.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Politics and Brand Management.



What's amazing is that the Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas) is the one that posted this video. He believes that he got the better of Steven Chu, our energy secretary and a Nobel laureate. That sound you here after Mr. Barton's question is the good doctor laughing.



The 'science' tag is only for Dr. Chu and Dr. Chu only. The other tags are all for Joe Barton... well, ok, they can share the 'Government' tag.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Darwinism

I understand this guys point... but I kinda feel like he's missing it, too. I mean, from my experience, the only people repeatedly using the term "Darwinism" are exactly the people who are TRYING to belittle the science. No self respecting biologist, anthropologist, geneticist, etc etc would ever use the word "Darwinism" to describe the science of what they do. It's the crazy nutters who believe the world is only 6,000 years old, our ancestors were chimpanzees and dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God, who call evolutionary science "Darwinism". At any rate, an interesting piece nonetheless.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

What would it take for you to change one of your fundamental beliefs?

I previously posted about the possibility that we’re living in a hologram universe. Today, I encountered more articles about it. It seems that its picking up speed- more experiments are already being done, more theories are already being tested- and we should have a better idea as to whether or not its true in the next few years.

The idea could revolutionize physics. It could provide the key to a unified field theory. It could also mean that we live in two dimensions despite experiencing three. I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around that. It so utterly challenges one of my fundamental beliefs about the universe to the extent that there’s a chance I may just reject it on some level… because not doing so would mean I’d have to seriously consider Nick ‘Nancy Boy’ Bostrom’s simulation argument. (Bostrom, to his credit, doesn't believe the affirmative of all of his arguments.)

My beef with Bostrom:

I haven’t read him as extensively as I should considering how respected he is among futurists. I really should read him, but I have trouble getting passed what I see as weird leaps in logic that he makes. For starters he seems incapable of making any sort of prediction that doesn’t center around a base of, ‘either the universe is nothing like we think, or all intelligent species destroy themselves!’ This in turn is based off of very little. Further, he uses Beysian reasoning a lot which always sets off my bullshit detector.

More to the point, the simulation argument is one of those things people discuss that can’t can neither be proven nor disproven and also provides us with no new information. Another example of this kind of thing- ‘This rock isn’t really a rock, it’s a hyper-intelligent being that has disguised itself as a rock. So intelligent is this hyper-intelligent being that it is now in all ways indistinguishable from a rock.’ Or as Nick Bostrom would put it, ‘Given that there is virtually an infinite number of stars in the universe, and that some percentage of these stars would have planets that could support life, and that some percentage of those planets would produce intelligent life, and that some percentage of those intelligent life forms would enjoy nothing more than traveling across the universe to disguise themselves perfectly as rocks, then we are forced to conclude that either some percentage of the rocks on our planet are actually super intelligent beings disguised as rocks, or that all intelligent life destroys itself before its able to achieve its deepest desire (of traveling across the cosmos and perfecting its rock related camouflage). We must hope that some percentage of our rocks are hyper intelligent aliens or it would not bode well for our future.’ Yeah, thanks Nick.

Still, if it turns out we’re living in a holographic universe than that seems, at least to me, that I need to take the simulation argument slightly more seriously. And this in turn raises the question, what would it take to convince you to change your position on one of your fundamental beliefs? From Atheist to Theist (or Deist)? From Christian to Atheist? From Democrat to Republican? From Libertarian to Socialist? What would it take?

Friday, January 30, 2009

Why can't more science be so clearly inspired by cartoons?

FTA: C-Questor of Weybridge, Surrey, has developed a technique to drop and plant hundreds of tree seedlings from a helicopter, greatly increasing the speed with which forests can be replanted, and reducing costs.

I'm all for it. I also sort like the idea of using this tech in combination with military efforts. 'Yeah you used to have city there, but you know what, effe it, now it's a new growth forest. Peace, suckas!'

Glibness aside, this is extremely cool.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Science! It begins!

Headline: FDA approves human embryonic stem cell study

Now before I give credit to Obama, this was begun under Bush. Yes, yes. But we can expect a whole lot more where this came from!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Way to go, Science!

Man, that headline doesn't really sell the sarcasm. FTA: Smith says that cloaking technology could remove cell-phone interference in buildings, letting people have clear conversations even inside an elevator.

The article's amazing headlin, "Invisibility Cloak Closer Than Ever to Reality," is some what deceptive, FTA: The Duke cloak does have its limitations. It only works in two dimensions. Both the background and the hidden object must also both be wrapped in the metamaterial.

So... how is that invisible exactly? Isn't it just blending in at that point?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/15/invisibility-cloak.html

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Respected Scientist or Really High D-Bag…

OK kids, here’s how the game is played… I’m going to post an excerpt from either a) a science article or b) the ramblings of a really high douche bag. It’s then up to you to determine which it is… here we go…

"If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."

Well on the one hand there is a science-y sounding name in there, GEO600… on the other hand it does sound like the kinda crap that hippie that lived down the hall from you freshman year was always going on about…

Give up? It’s ‘A,’ a respected scientist named Craig Hogan who was recently appointed director of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Thankfully the article is not as douche-y as similar theories put forth by people like Nick Bostrom (who I think is a cowardly Nancy). Bostrom would jump all over this as evidence that all of creation is just a simulation by a superior intelligence, a la the Matrix, for dark purposes.