Powered by Blogger

Ethel the Blog
Observations (and occasional brash opining) on science, computers, books, music and other shiny things that catch my mind's eye. There's a home page with ostensibly more permanent stuff. This is intended to be more functional than decorative. I neither intend nor want to surf on the bleeding edge, keep it real, redefine journalism or attract nyphomaniacal groupies (well, maybe a wee bit of the latter). The occasional cheap laugh, raised eyebrow or provocation of interest are all I'll plead guilty to in the matter of intent. Bene qui latuit bene vixit.

The usual copyright stuff applies, but I probably won't get enraged until I find a clone site with absolutely no attribution (which, by the way, has happened twice with some of my other stuff). Finally, if anyone's offended by anything on this site then please do notify me immediately. I like to keep track of those times when I get something right.

Google!


How to blog?

METABLOGGING

Blog Madness
Blog Portal
linkwatcher
Monitor

BLOGS (YMMV)

abuddhas memes
alamut
apathy
arms and the man
baghdad burning
bifurcated rivets
big left outside
boing boing
booknotes
bovine inversus
bradlands
bushwacker
camworld
cheek
chess log
cogent provocateur
cool tools
counterspin
crooked timber
delong
digby
drat fink
drmike
d-squared
dumbmonkey
electrolite
eschaton
estimated prophet
ezrael
fat planet
flutterby!
follow me here
geegaw
genehack
ghost
glare
gmtplus9
hack the planet
harmful
hauser report
hell for halliburton
honeyguide
hotsy totsy club
juan cole
kestrel's nest
k marx the spot
kuro5hin
lake effect
lambda
large hearted boy
leftbanker
looka
looking glass
macleod
maxspeak
medley
memepool
metagrrrl
mike's
monkeyfist
more like this
mouse farts
my dog
norbizness
off the kuff
orcinus
pandagon
pedantry
peterme
philosoraptor
pith and vinegar
plastic
portage
q
quark soup
quiggin
randomwalks
rip post
rittenhouse
see the forest
shadow o' hegemon
sideshow
simcoe
south knox bubba
slacktivist
smudge
submerging markets
sylloge
synthetic zero
talking points
tbogg
twernt
unknownnews
vacuum
vanitysite
virulent memes
whiskey bar
windowseat tv
wood s lot

TECH

Librenix
use perl
rootprompt
slashdot
freshmeat
Ars Technica
32BitsOnline
UGeek
AnandTech
Linux Today
Tom's Hardware
DevShed


"When they say, 'Gee it's an information explosion!', no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING." - Harlan Ellison



JOLLY OLD PALS
Old pals Rumsy and Saddam


Other stuff of mild interest to some:
unusual literature
scientific software blog
physical oceanography glossary
computer-related tutorials and texts

Friday, July 14, 2000

PERLE DROPPINGS
Richard Perle is perhaps the archetypal cold warrior still desperately clinging to the chest-thumping, doomsday rhetoric that made him and his kind so happy, wealthy and reknowned before 1989. His "glory" years were spent serving as Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy from 1981 to 1987. Lately he's been on quite a nostalgia trip as a foreign policy advisor to Shrub Junior, with the experience no doubt invoking warm, fuzzy memories of hanging around the White House with Shrub Senior back in the old days. He's been quite the busy little bee in just the last couple of days. First, he had a piece on the NYTimes Op-Ed page on July 13 entitled "A better way to build a missile defense" in which he unsurprisingly bashes Clinton about the missile defense system that's been making many a recent headline for being not much more than a terrifically expensive fireworks show.

Perle realizes that it's a stretch for even a professional bullshit artist as himself to blame Clinton personally for the failure of the recent test (that failed despite being rigged to succeed), so he takes a different tack for the bashing:

Far from lamenting last week's highly publicized test failure, advocates of a defense against ballistic missiles should rejoice. The move to deploy an ill-conceived system supported by the Clinton administration has been stymied.
And just what does Mr. Perle's fervid imagination find to be ill-conceived about it? It's designed to attempt to intercept ballistic missiles near the end of their journey rather than at the start. He avers that it would be much easier to intercept and destroy them during their launch phase. He describes the launching phase of the shuttle and paints a vivid picture of the enemy's fat, juicy missiles similarly just sort of hanging in space waiting for ultrasmart missiles to intercept them and give them the good old fashioned American thrashing they deserve. And how are we going to shoot these evil missiles down so soon after launch? Perle is going to surround the evil countries with Aegis-class cruisers whose 24/7 vigilance will protect our chilluns. A tear almost started to form and I damned near started singing "God Bless America" while reading this - that is, until I gave the matter a few seconds worth of thought.

In the first place, if one of the proposed huge permanent fleet of Aegis cruisers gets a message from a spy satellite indicating the launching of an evil missile, what's it going to do? It's going to launch one of its own missiles, i.e. the Aegis missile will go through its own launch phase in reaction to the evil missile, and it will undergo this phase some time after the launching of the evil missile. In other words, it's going to be playing catch-up in time and space. Even if the reaction to the evil launch is instantaneous, it will still be playing catch-up in space. And unless it's one hell of a lot faster than the evil missile, it's not going to catch the evil missile until the latter has long left the "hanging in space" phase of its launch, i.e. the latter will be heading toward it's target at near top speed by the time it's hypothetically intercepted. If the intercepting missile can't do it's job near the end of the flight of an evil missile traveling at top speed, then why should we think it would do better at any other time?

Perle also mentions that his early interception panacea will solve the problem of having to intercept multiple warheads released towards the end of an attacking missile's flight as well as the problem of decoys. If it can't capture the missile in the first place - and Perle's offered nothing but sophistry to prove otherwise - then the problem of multiple warheads is moot. And does he really think the bad guys are clones of Dr. Evil and therefore too stupid to release the decoys earlier if they happen to spot, say, a fleet of Aegis cruisers offshore?

Now let's get to the matter of those Aegis cruisers. That's Aegis as in "yes the same type of ship that managed to shoot down an Iraqi civilian airliner despite the advertised billion dollars worth of state-of-the-art electronic equipment." While the U.S. initially blamed the Iraqis for deliberately fooling its best and brightest and forcing them to shoot down the airliner, it eventually (albeit much more quietly) admitted that the tragedy was caused by a combination of incompetence and fear-induced itchy trigger fingers. That is, the U.S. couldn't float even one Aegis cruiser capable of performing as advertised, and Perle wants us to believe that a whole fleet of them is going to provide a perfect missile shield. More likely it'll provide the makers of civilian airliners a booming (literally and figuratively) market for replacement jets.

And does anyone but Perle and his fellow deluded saber-rattlers think that the rest of the world is going to passively sit and watch while the U.S. fills the world's waters with these ships? At the very least the bad guys are going to see it as the act of aggression it is and act accordingly, which may very well be the real idea behind the plan, i.e. invade when they attack your offshore "defensive" fleet. If you're having trouble thinking clearly here, then imagine what the reaction of U.S. government would be if a foreign power were to send a fleet of ships to sit just outside our territorial waters to "protect" themselves from our missiles.

Not the least bit tired after dashing off that steaming pile of nonsense, Perle turned his attention to meddling in U.S. foreign policy. According to a story in the Guardian, Perle attempted to derail the Middle East peace talks currently going on at Camp David by "warning the Israeli delegation to be prepared to walk out of negotiations." According to the story:

Richard Perle, a veteran cold war warrior and former assistant secretary of state, urged the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, not to agree to any settlement which left the future status of Jerusalem unresolved, according to the New York Post website.

The website quoted a message received by Mr Barak yesterday from two of his emissaries, Yoram Ben-Ze'ev and Yossi Alpher. The two men said Mr Perle "asked us to send a clear message" to Mr Barak that it would be a "catastrophe" if the Jerusalem question was not dealt with, and urged him "to walk away" from the Camp David negotiations if faced with that outcome.

While it is enough to condemn Perle's attempting to sabotage ongoing official government negotiations (in the name of Shrub in yet another attempt to make him seem "presidential"), a bit more background on Perle puts the incident into an even uglier perspective. Perle - like many other depressed cold warriors - is on the advisory board of an organization called The Center for Security Policy, self-described as a "non-profit, non-partisan [snicker] organization to stimulate and inform the national and international debate about all aspects of security policy." One of their Decision Briefs from Oct. 7, 1994 takes a dim view of Clinton's handling of Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, especially his use of former President Jimmy Carter to handle some of the negotiations. After several paragraphs consisting of nothing much more than chest-thumping bloviations, they get to one of their "bottom lines" (note especially the careful, reasoned prose style of this self-described "non-partisan" organization);
Under no circumstances should the United States try to "buy off" Saddam - with or without Jimmy Carter's meddling. This policy in North Korea, China, Bosnia and Haiti has already contributed to the present crisis. It will be infinitely worse if the U.S. now agrees, in the face of Saddam's latest blackmail, to lift sanctions, allowing oil sales, imports of sensitive technology, etc. The mind reels at what further outrages such a policy would inspire in the Persian Gulf and beyond.
So even though Carter had the official sanction of the President, Perle and his little cadre of unreconstructed cold warriors considered it meddling in U.S. foreign policy. Yet Perle himself - in no way the official representative of anyone but himself and Shrub - has no qualms about attempting to sabotage ongoing Middle East peace negotiations. In other words, we can append hypocrisy to his lengthy list of shortcomings.

If the past, present and future flood of "analysis" concerning missile defense systems and related issues in the popular and kookie media shows us anything, it's that anything goes. There are no bounds of nonsense, paralogic, stupidity or perfidy that won't be exceeded again and again and again by the deluded demagogues who want to piss countless billions down the drain on supposedly foolproof defensive schemes that a five-year-old can deconstruct without seeing a single blueprint. Perle is one of the worst offenders, and as the chief foreign policy advisor for Shrub his foreign policy is effectively identical to Shrub's foreign policy.
posted by Steven Baum 7/14/2000 03:41:01 PM | link

Thursday, July 13, 2000

VALHALLA?
The headline picture on the front page of today's (7/13/00)
NYTimes - under the headline "Wireless Valhalla: Hints of the cellular future" - shows three young Swedes sitting at a cafe table in Stockholm. Two are already yakking into their cellphones and the third is dialing. I'm presuming they're not talking to each other over their phones but are calling others, perhaps those a few tables over. So just what the hell is so wonderful about this? These idiots are apparently incapable of interacting with other human beings unless it's via that metal and plastic carbuncle permanently attached to their ears. It's bad enough to see these phonedroids apparently unable to walk alone as far as their mailboxes without having to remotely share the experience with a fellow phonebot, but its even worse to go to the trouble of being within actual spitting distance of others and then opting to yammer with someone miles away. And the picture caption tells me that this is proof that "Scandinavians are far ahead of the United States in developing new uses for cell phones." They must be using some obscure definition of the word "new," since I've been able to ignore people at a wide range of distances for years and years without any sort of electronic assistance.

As annoying as these people are, they're light years away from society's new bottom feeders: assholes yakking on cellphones while they drive their SUVs. Having spent a lot of time on bicycles over the years and learned the hard way how to distinguish the worst of the assholes on the road, I pretty much have to conclude that the SUV-cellphone combination is worse than even boozed up good ol' boys cruising around in their huge penis substitute pickup trucks looking for ways to dissipate the blind hatred that comes from at least subconsciously realizing that you're utterly incapable of ever making it any further up the food chain and, worse, that you've chosen to be this way every goddamned step of the way. At least the latter are actively evil and even rejoice in the fact, while the former represent - as someone put in another context and for which I'm probably going to burn in hell for co-opting it for this relatively petty gripe - the banality of evil. Yakkity yakkity yakkity yakkity ... THUD! ... yakkity - ooops, I think I hit someone, hon - lemme check - can't see anything - yakkity yakkity yak. And speaking of co-opting, where the hell did I put that rocket launcher?
posted by Steven Baum 7/13/2000 05:16:31 PM | link

Wednesday, July 12, 2000

SHORTIES
A package of briefs originating from explorations prompted by the link to
Recall Music at LOOKA!. Note that the entries get increasingly difficult to dance to as one progresses, or at least moves from the top to the bottom.
posted by Steven Baum 7/12/2000 01:13:06 PM | link

THE STUPID PAGE
The
Stupid Page at seanbaby.com is a veritable cornucopia of vitriol and downright nastiness. He calls it "a bitter, sometimes hateful exploration of other people's shortcomings." It's just what the doctor ordered if you're feeling exceptionally surly and want to climb all the way back up to vaguely discontented on the backs of the truly pathetic.

His junk mail charity section lambasts some of the worst offenders he's pulled out of his mailbox. For instance, a take on the USO by his brother stationed in Kuwait who had the "pleasure" of listening to a USO-sponsored country rock band:

Sean, listen to me. They SUCKED. They sucked so bad, I wanted to just go back to my tent. I was as bored as I've ever been in my life in the middle of bumfuck fucking Kuwait. No entertainment for fucking months, and I couldn't listen to another fucking minute of those fat fucking hillbillies. And nothing is more fucking weird -nothing- as being out in the middle of the fucking desert watching hundreds of men dance with each other.
In a subtle and delicate take on Christian Single Magazine, he tells us:
Now there is Christian Single, a sexy magazine for lonely mythology worshippers. Proven to increase a Christian's chances of getting laid from .032% to .044%, this is the leading publication for creating future dysfunctional families. With fascinating articles, hymnal lyrics, and feature articles of the latest Montana hermit who built a house out of bibles, Christian Single will give you hundreds of reasons why you're better than the Jews.
And then we have his take on a Catholic Monsignor in the Philippines objecting to ex-Spicebore Geri's visit promoting Planned Parenthood:
Catholics, who are still trying to breed their way into some kind of unspoken population record book, are against non-rhythm birth control of any type. Of course, they also think there's a robed man on a cloud that gives a fuck when they stop eating pizza for 40 days of Lent. Monsignor Pedro Quitorio, spokesman for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, not only has the most wordy title for child molestor ever, but Touretted out this wisdom: "[Sending Geri Halwell to the Phillipines is like] sending Salman Rushdie as an ambassador of goodwill to a Muslim country."

And following the example of that fucking out of control simile- comparing a Spice Girl in favor of planned parenthood to Salman Rushdie is like shooting a Backstreet Boy for having good dental hygiene. Both are completely overboard and encourage the growth of bacteria (whether it's gum disease or unplanned Catholic babies). That entire thing was the worst misuse of the English language since my volleyball coach casually told us to shag (retrieve) the balls. We found the New Zealand player in the corner wearing only a volleyball and a confused look.

This ain't the most sensitive site you're going to encounter this week, so if you're easily insulted then either have a few soaks in salty water to toughen up your skin or give it a skip in favor of, say, this. But if you're in a pissy mood, then this is more fun than dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.
posted by Steven Baum 7/12/2000 10:59:55 AM | link

STEELBLUE
SteelBlue is an open source Web application server environment in which database applications can be developed completely in an extended version of HTML. Session and user--associated data as well as SQL commands can be directly embedded into HTML pages, with no CGI programming needed. Distinguishing features of this package include:
  • maintenance of the HTML format for extensions;
  • automatic security enforcement before a single line of a script is executed;
  • allowance or denial of special privileges on a group basis;
  • automatic restoration of form data;
  • automatic server-- and client--side type checking; and
  • combining HTML generation, data checking and database interaction within a single script.
A programming guide is available online. The full source is available as well as binaries for Linux (with either PostgreSQL or MySQL), Solaris (with Sybase) and Win32 (with ODBC).
posted by Steven Baum 7/12/2000 09:55:05 AM | link

MATX
MATX is a high--performance programming language for numerical and symbolic computations in science and engineering, i.e. sort of a cross between Matlab and Mathematica, although with fewer bells and several less whistles. It integrates numerical analysis, matrix computations, and symbolic manipulation in a single package, and adds a language in which problems are expressed similarly to their mathematical equivalents. The features include:
  • matx, a matrix editor for entering and revising matrices;
  • XPLOT, a graph drawing environment running under X11;
  • a matrix class library composed of higher-- and lower--level parts, with the latter containing about 300 functions and the former around 200;
  • matx, an interactive interpreter for quickly prototyping programs;
  • matc, a compiler for compiling production level programs for faster execution;
  • a language that recognizes several data types, e.g. integers, reals, complex numbers, strings, polynomials, rational functions, etc.; and
  • capabilities for solving polynomial equations and symbolically evaluating derivatives and integrals.
A user manual is available in Japanese and English, with the English version a real sumbitch to attempt to print on U.S. letter format paper (in fact I haven't yet succeeded). This is available in source code format as well as in binary format for just about every platform. Sure, it doesn't have the bright red dresses and dazzling jewelry of the abovementioned dowagers, but it's a much cheaper date.
posted by Steven Baum 7/12/2000 09:47:24 AM | link

SPARK
The Scanning Parsing And Rewriting Kit is a framework for implementing little languages, i.e. domain-specific languages such as configuration files, HTML files and shell scripts. SPARK is a package written in
Python that implements a framework for a compiler model consisting of four phases: scanning, parsing, semantic analysis and code generation. The features include:
  • extension of the framework via normal object-oriented techniques, i.e. adding features by subclassing parts of the compiler;
  • use of the Earley algorithm, writing the grammar for which requires less experience than for LR(1) parsers such as yacc; and
  • use of introspection wherein the grammar is input as comments in the functions that will carry out the actions (and similarly with the lexical expressions for creating tokens), with SPARK examining these functions and extracting the grammar/tokens.
Projects that use SPARK (and therefore provide examples of its usage) include:
  • CML2, a mini-language written to replace the code that currently handles build-option selections for Linux kernels;
  • crystal, a javadoc/pythondoc type of tool;
  • Parrot, a text-based GUI builder;
  • PyFort, a Python-Fortran connection tool; and
  • Decompyle, a Python bytecode-to-source decompiler.

posted by Steven Baum 7/12/2000 09:24:53 AM | link

Tuesday, July 11, 2000

QUANTUM BITS
Clever and alert readers (and do I have any other kind?) will recognize Adrian Kent's "Night thoughts of a quantum physicist" as one of the papers in the special
Millennium volumes of the Royal Society (well, at least those readers clever enough to infer the remainder of the titles I haven't yet offered). Although Kent doesn't mention it, I'm quite sure his title is an homage to a wonderful book originally published in 1982, i.e. Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist by Russell McCormmach, a neglected minor classic reviewed thusly by brainy chap Daniel Kevles:
An artful experiment in writing the history of science. The book is a sort of prose poem, consisting of the ruminations--part memory, part dream--of the fictional Victor Jakob, an elderly theoretical physicist at a minor Prussian university, who in September 1918 broods over his career through the nights preceding his death. In passages of luminous simplicity, Jakob contemplates the intellectual upheavals in science from the creation of the German Empire in 1870 to its collapse in 1918, from the reign of classical physicists to the revolutions produced by the relativity and quantum theories...[This] is a sensitive and compelling work about the confrontation of a classical spirit with the raw disorders of the modern scientific age.
I certainly enjoyed it. But let's get on to the paper of Mr. Kent, in which the author "consider[s] two of the deepest problems confronting us, the measurement problem in quantum theory and the problem of relating consciousness to the rest of physics."

He starts with a review of the 20th century, most agreeably stating that we can't understand where we are now without at least a modicum of appreciation as to how we got here. In an especially interesting bit, he contrasts Einstein's relativity theories with quantum theory, i.e. the former - while guided by experiment - relied heavily on the intuition and genius of Einstein for its formulation, while the latter - counterintuitive as hell then as much as now - required lots of experimental data, i.e. "it seems unlikely that anyone would ever have found their way through to quantum theory unaided by the data."

Now to the meaty bits. As to the measurement problem, he starts with the founders of quantum theory faced with "explaining precisely what the theory actually tells us about nature." Pragmatically it hasn't really mattered to date and didn't even then since Niels Bohr's dominant "Copenhagen interpretation" could be condensed "into a few working rules, which explain what can usefully be calculated." A metaphysical picture did emerge, though:

In other words, on this conventional view, quantum theory teaches us something deep and revolutionary about the nature of reality. It teaches us that it is a mistake to try to build a picture of the world that includes every aspect of an experiment - the preparation of the apparatus and the system being experimented on, their behavior during the experiment, and the observation of the results - in one smooth and coherent description. All we need to do science, and all we can apparently manage, is to find a way of extrapolating predictions - which as it happens turn out generally to be probabilistic rather than deterministic - about the final results from a description of the initial preparation. To ask what went on in-between is, by definition, to ask about something we did not observe: it is to ask in the abstract a question which we have not asked nature in the concrete. ... If we did not actually carry out the relevant observation, we did not ask the question in the only way that causes nature to supply an answer, and there need not be any meaningful answer at all.
So we have ultimate limits to science. Or do we? This viewpoint seems to tell as that everything is nothing more than a mental construction. Many disagree with this, including a couple of incredibly, mind-bogglingly, jaw-droppingly clever Russians named Landau and Lifshitz:
Quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time requires this limiting case for its own formulation.
Or, as only slightly less clever Kent puts it:
The classical world - the world of the laboratory - must be external to the theory for us to make sense of it; yet it is also supposed to be contained within the theory. And, since the same objects play this dual role, we have no clear division between the microscopic quantum and the microscopic classical. It follows that we cannot legitimately derive from quantum theory the predictions we believe the theory actually makes.
Fortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation is just one of several and we are not forced to adopt it by either the mathematics of quantum theory or by empirical evidence. Most if not all of the interpretations reduce to the same pragmatic form, and equally explain the evidence. There are some proposed experiments that can differentiate between interpretations, but none have been as yet successfully performed, so we are left with a handful of varying interpretations among which we can choose as our prejudices and whims desire.

But wait! Kent gives us hope via an interpretation that's come to be known as the GRW (Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber) theory. The short of it is that GRW think that QM has a piece missing. Rules can be added that tell us (in the jargon of the field):

... how and when the quantum dice are rolled. This is done by taking wave function collapse to be an objective, observer-independent phenomenon, with small localizations in 'mini-collapses' constantly taking place.
Basically, if the GRW corrections are made the predictions for microscopic experiments are almost exactly the same, with large systems deviating more significantly from previous predictions. They are currently subtle and very difficult to detect via experiment, but they are there and should eventually be successfully tested.

If GRW are proven correct, then the measurent problem is solved, i.e. "we have a theory that describes objective events taking place in the real external world, whether or not any experiment is taking place." Kent speculates that GRW may be completely wrong in detail although their idea has a fair chance of being right. It's just a matter of time and further technical advancements until the crucial experiments can be performed.

It appears that I've not only dragged out the measurement problem summary but also garnered quite a collection of empties, so the "physics and consciousness" speculations of the brainy Mr. Kent will have to wait for another time. By the way, don't feel embarassed if your brain hurts. I've been steadily numbing mine via "medicinal" ministrations and it's still complaining about the overtime.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 10:50:36 PM | link

DAM FOOLS
An article in
Reason called Dam Fools by James DeLong gives further insight into the cost-benefit jiggery-pokery I mentioned in the immediately previous entry. As to the recreational justification for building dams, DeLong says:
Perhaps surprisingly, the most common primary purpose for which dams are built, according to the corps's inventory, is recreation: 35 percent of existing dams fall into this category. Nor is this a new phenomenon: 48 percent of the dams built before 1900 had recreation as their primary purpose. Other primary purposes are farm ponds (18 percent), flood control (15 percent), water supply (12 percent), irrigation (11 percent), hydroelectric (2 percent), and navigation (less than 0.5 percent).
The big explosion in building dams didn't start until the early part of the 20th century when construction technology started advancing in leaps and bounds. Another key element was the Reclamation Act of 1902, which allowed those building the dams to free themselves from economic restraints, i.e. get the taxpayer to foot the bill, i.e
By relieving beneficiaries of any need to pay interest on heavy capital investments, Congress ensured that uneconomic projects would become common.
At the time Rep. William Hepburn of Iowa performed a choice bit of blunt analysis about the Act:
[T]his bill is the most insolent and impudent attempt at larceny that I have ever seen embodied in a legislative proposition. These gentlemen...ask us...to give away an empire in order that their private property may be made valuable....[T]his is a thinly disguised attempt to make the Government...pay for this great work--great in extent, great in expenditure, but not great in results.
While the Bureau of Reclamation did most of the damage in the first third of the century, the Corps of Engineers hit the ground running with the Flood Control Acts of 1934 and 1936. Their procedures for performing a cost-benefit analysis were, to say the least, interesting:
Economists who have studied the matter say that the corps's estimates greatly overstate benefits and understate costs. Since the primary corps mission concerns flood control, there is a circular quality to the benefit calculations. If no one builds on a flood plain, floods cause no damage. Put up a dam to prevent the flooding, and people will build. Thereafter, every time the river rises, the total value of all this construction can be counted as "flood damage prevented."

Thus the corps can claim that its works prevented $17 billion in flood damages during 1994. But it is also no accident that the national bill for flood damage has increased as expenditures on flood control have grown. People get lured in, then wiped out when there is a large 100-year flood. (Not to worry, though--they can get federally subsidized flood insurance.) This provides justification for further flood control expenditures.

Strangely enough, perhaps the most significant decrease in the dam building orgy occurred in the early 1980s when the Reagan administration tightened up the rules such that the locals had a harder time getting taxpayers to subsidize their personal projects. An interesting aside is that some still think that other than the hostage situation the major reason Carter lost the 1980 election was when he vetoed a bill to fund 53 new water projects at a cost of $10.2 billion. It not only included 6 that Carter thought had been killed as unnecessary a few years before, but used a partial funding accounting trick to allow it to stay within budgetary limits for that fiscal year. The House was 52 votes short of the 2/3 it needed to override the veto, with most of the votes for overriding it coming from the western states that had the most pork to gain from the bill.

Remember the snail darter controversy where a dam supposedly wasn't built just to preserve a fish under the Endangered Species Act? The phrase "snail darter" has been one of the boneheaded right's favorite shibboleths since then, and it's dragged out whenever they put down their brandy and cigars long enough engage in a vigorous round of environmentalist bashing. Under a rational cost-benefit analysis, the dam should never have been started in the first place, i.e.

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of cost-benefit analyses of water projects is summed up in the story of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee. In the 1970s, the TVA proposed a dam that would destroy a beautiful valley and a splendid trout and canoeing stream to gain a trivial increase in power generation at a nearby dam. The project passed all the applicable cost-benefit filters and got under way. Construction was stopped by the discovery of the endangered snail darter, a tiny and hitherto obscure fish, and the Supreme Court ruled that the Endangered Species Act required that the dam be left unfinished to protect the fish.

Congress responded by passing a law giving a special cabinet level committee, nicknamed the God Squad, power to exempt any specific project from the Endangered Species Act when the benefits of doing so clearly outweigh the costs. Tellico was 95 percent completed, and it was a foregone conclusion that an exemption would be given. The committee, chaired by Charles Schultze, a distinguished economist, said no. Under honest cost-benefit analysis, all the benefits from the completed dam would not equal the 5 percent of the costs that remained to be paid. Leaving aside any environmental concerns, economic rationality dictated that the dam should be left unfinished and the sunk costs written off. Congress reacted by passing a special law exempting Tellico from the Endangered Species Act and ordering completion of the dam. To round out the comedy, a few years later the snail darter was found to flourish in several other nearby streams, so allowing Tellico did not finish it off after all.

The entire article is corking good reading. And if the source isn't enough to convince the skeptical that this wasn't just some sneaky lefty infiltrating the magazine, the author of the article is also the author of Property Matters: How Property Rights Are Under Assault--And Why You Should Care, a bible of the "takings" movement.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 09:35:12 PM | link

CONGRESS INACTION
What's the opposite of progress? That's right, and they've done it again in their latest attempt to
block clean air enforcement. The Clean Air Trust and Clear the Air, coalitions representing hundreds of environmental, public health and citizens groups, recently released a report on entitled Smog Watch 2000: Dirty Smog Spots and Clean Air Solutions that lists more than 300 counties across the U.S. that fail to meet federal clean air standards. The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to block federal regulators from using such information to impose new pollution emissions standards. And it was done in the usual "up front" way, i.e. by attaching a rider to a spending bill.

This bit of tomfoolery has its genesis in a federal court decision last year that overturned the EPA's "smog and soot" rules, wherein they ask urban and suburban counties to compile air quality statistics and then, if a region is identified as having dangerous smog levels, order local governments to develop plans to reduce air pollution, or risk losing federal transportation funds. The Supreme Court has agreed to review that ruling as well as look into the question of whether the EPA should be forced to consider the economic effects of its regulations.

Forcing a cost-benefit analysis has always been a favored tactic of those favoring growth for the sake of growth (which, as Edward Abbey once pointed out, is the motto of the cancer cell). Back in the days when the Army Corps of Engineers was eyeing every liquid flow stronger than a stream of bat urine near topography higher than a curb as a candidate for building a dam, the cost-benefit analysis was used to justify every damned dam. How? Each possible visitor was assigned a dollar amount for both the amount of money he'd bring to the lake and for the amount of fun he would have at the lake, after which all the numbers were toted up. The short and long term costs to the environment and those living in it are notoriously more difficult to quantify, especially if you aren't allowed to nearly arbitrarily assign dollar amounts for things like funsies. Guess how many dams weren't built until very recently?

Similarly, the cost-benefit analyses for air pollution will undoubtedly show how much it costs to, for example, put a scrubber on a smokestack to reduce effluents. I doubt very much whether the other side will be allowed to quantify the costs of smog in an area beyond increases in medical expenses. And even those will probably be limited to direct and not indirect expenses, i.e. no quality of life amount will be allowed as it was with the funsies quantity with the dams. And even this doesn't even begin to quantify the long term deleterious effects of air pollution on inanimate objects like buildings and Republicans. Just ask anyone in charge of preserving monuments what air pollution is doing for them, for example.

Anyhow, this latest GOP-led fiasco is in effect a gag rule on the EPA. Since the court ruling doesn't allow them to currently enforce any recommendations, simply telling an area they are in violation of the regulations will have no tangible effect until the Supreme Court rules one way or another. That is, the EPA can't actually do anything as it is, and now the House is disallowing them from even saying anything. Why? Because it might "discourage economic investment in a region", i.e. it might discourage even more sources of air pollution from setting up shop. So the pragmatic upshot of the vote is not unlike the game where a child covers his eyes and thinks mommy can't see him, i.e. if you don't say the pollution is there then it isn't.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 05:07:16 PM | link

SOFTWARE CARPENTRY
The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick enough so he no longer feels the pain.
This quote from Alan Cooper's
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How To Restore The Sanity is featured on the home page of the Software Carpentry competition site. The purpose of the competition is "to create a new generation of easy-to-use software engineering tools, and to document both those tools and the working practices they are meant to support." The project originated via a series of papers that originally appeared in 1996 in "IEEE Computational Science in Engineering," which has since been combined with "Computers in Physics" into " Computing in Science and Engineering." The papers, all of which are available online, are: In a wholly unsurprising development, the organizers found out later that really clever bastard Rob Pike covered pretty much the same ground in a 1982 paper entitled Physics vs. computer science.

So just what are these tools and what are they supposed to replace? The already completed First Round consisted of four categories:

The Second Round entries have all been received and winners will be announced at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention on July 31. All will be announced, that is, except for the SC Test winner. The posted requirements and First Round entries were considered too vague, so that section will been reopened in July 2000 after more specific guidelines and requirements have been developed. All the winners will be made available via an open source license. Additional useful areas of the site include the FAQ and the resources page.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 03:56:52 PM | link

ROCKETEER
Rocketeer is a tool for visualizing 3-D scientific data sets. It was developed to analyze numerical results from rocket simulations but can be used for viewing many other types of 3-D data. It is written in C++ and employs the Visualization Toolkit (a.k.a. VTK), which is itself based on OpenGL. A significant and uncommon feature of Rocketeer is its ability to handle many different types of grids on which data are defined, e.g. the grid can be non-uniform, structured, unstructured or multiblock. Other features include:
  • displaying data from multiple files and/or data sets from the same file on the same image;
  • performing the same graphics operations on a series of data sets to produce animation frames;
  • showing a grid on the surface of the computational domain;
  • indicating the value of scalar variables on such surfaces via a colors scale;
  • displaying scalar variables as multiple isosurfaces and/or on slices cut across any axis;
  • making the surface, grid, isosurfaces and slices semistransparent or cut away to allow a clearer view of the interiors of 3-D volumes;
  • support for cell- and node-centered data;
  • seamless merging of multiple data files; and
  • a smart reader for data in HDF format.
The most recent version is based on wxWindows and is supposed to run on any platform supported by that. All that is currently available is a Solaris 2.7 binary, but you can probably snag the source if ask nicely enough.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 03:24:54 PM | link

cT
The
cT programming language is an algorithmic language enhanced with various multimedia capabilities including support for color graphics, mouse interactions, and movies. The programming environment offers on-line help, a graphics editor, incremental compiling and detailed error diagnosis. Both were developed at the Center for Innovation in Learning at CMU, and are in fairly wide use among authors developing multimedia presentations for education.

A more detailed breakdown of the features of the cT language shows:

  • interactive graphics in a windowed environment;
  • portability across Macs, Windows and Linux;
  • animation of bitmap images;
  • color support for palette color and true color;
  • built-in support for buttons, sliders, and scrolling text panels;
  • multi-font text and character-string variables;
  • hypertext capabilities;
  • pull-down menus;
  • input via keyboard and mouse;
  • analysis of words and sentences as well as numbers and algebraic expressions; and
  • standard calculational capabilities.
The environment includes a large suite of example and test programs and a 350-page printable manual. Version 3.0 is currently freely available for the abovementioned platforms. It is still supported by the developers, although a newer version is in the works that will combine a 3-D graphics environment with the Python language. This combination has been anticipated by the VPython package also developed at CMU, which will serve as a prototype for the new cT version.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 03:18:40 PM | link

THE STOCKHOLDER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
A couple of local establishments have recently exhibited behavior that's probably going to become more and more the rule rather than the exception. The first was a local restaurant/pub with the best beer selection in town, including my beloved Franziskaner Hefe-Weizen. They've had their ups and downs since they opened about 7 years ago, with one down causing me and my fellow alkies to boycott the place about 4 years ago, i.e. they changed management, raised all the prices, and lowered both portion size and quality (on their food). While I'm sure the stockholders were giddy, the customers (we weren't the only ones dissatisfied with the bean-counter "improvements") were less so. About two years ago, they apparently cleaned up their act and were okay until a couple of consecutive visits recently.

On the first visit, we ordered the usual opening round of Franziskaner only to find it - in the words of that lovable drunk Andy Capp - "flippin' undrinkable." It was flat and off, obviously having been hanging around well past its prime. The waitperson - the only person connected with the establishment that night with any sort of taste and graciousness - immediately agreed and we went on to something else. A few drinks later one of us noticed a citrus seed in the bottom of our glass, and while they do put citrus slices in some of their beers (including Franziskaner, although our dislike of the foo-foo extra is known well enough thereabouts that the entire waitstaff knows to exclude the citrus by now), we did not expect such a "bonus." Not being overly picky assholes about such things, we ignored the "isolated incident" and got another round. Well, that one featured three seeds in one glass. Our waitperson said she'd call the manager on duty over to see about it. The second I saw the shit-eating grin and caught an unmistakable whiff of the bidness school stench about him, I knew dissatisfaction was in our future. After explaining our problem, he explained that this sometimes happened with their glass washing process (i.e. wherein glasses are not as much washed as not washed). That was it. No apology. No offer to make that round on the house or the next round free. Nada. Fuck the customer. We left, making sure to not punish our waitperson, who had been congenial and agreeable all evening.

For whatever stupid reasons, we returned a week later (out of greed for Franziskaner or a generally forgiving nature or some combination thereof) to find the Franziskaner back to its usual self. I noticed they had a new cider on tap and gave it a try. It was unlike the usual cloyingly sweet concoctions I'd had previously, being quite dry and flavorful sans sweeteners. So we had the occasional round of the cider as well as the Franzy and a couple of other new things we noticed. Round about midnight we decided to leave and requested a check. I predicted the amount - usually being correct on such things to within $5 on sheer intuition - and was a bit nonplussed to find it $30 above my prediction. We requested an itemized list and found a couple of things less than copacetic. First, they had charged us for a couple of glasses extra apiece that we didn't have. Second, they had asked whether we wanted the cider with or without ice and, since we don't do ice when gin isn't involved, we declined. Only when the bill arrived did we find out it was $1.50 extra per glass if the ice was omitted. We called the manager over and asked him if he thought the situation fair, and the unctuous bastard just shrugged and said he thought everything was fine. After pressing him on the issue for a while he agreed to drop the $1.50 non-ice surcharge. We didn't have to press anything to quickly agree upon leaving to not darken that doorstep again for a good long time.

One of the previous owners who is now a stockholder is a good friend of mine. He not only has been running similar establishments for the nearly 17 years since I've been here, but he's been running them in an exemplary fashion. I've only complained 3 or 4 times about anything in probably 3000 visits to his establishments, and each time he not only didn't attempt to stonewall or grill me about my complaint but immediately made a more than generous offer to remedy the situation. He also knows the ubermanager of several locations of the offending establishment, so I conveyed my complaints to him. His "problem" is that he came to the business from the ground up rather than first get a bidness degree whereupon "the stockholders are gods; fuck the customer" is written in the appropriate Latin.

The second offender is a sushi restaurant that opened yesterday. When we showed up last night there were two people at the sushi bar in an otherwise empty restaurant. The manager seated us, said he'd get some menus, and left. Five minutes later I went over to him to ask for the menus and some water - this being Texas in July and nearly 100 deg. F outside. Five minutes later he showed up with the menus and some water. I glanced briefly at the non-sushi part of the menu and queried him as to the ingredients of one dish with which I was unfamiliar. He told me and left, returning a few minutes later to take our orders. I ordered the dish about which I'd questioned him, to be told at that point that it wouldn't be available until the next day. Chalking it up to first day jitters, I instead ordered a combination suchi platter, and my companion a selection of individual sushi orders including one of those huge conical thingies whose name I can't remember.

About 25 minutes later the orders arrived, although to be fair at least 5 more people had showed up by that time. Halfway through this period I'd been waiting about 10 minutes for a water refill and he finally showed up to refill my glass. The regular sushi was quite good and the wasabi frighteningly hot, just the way I like it. My companion agreed. Then he bit into the big conical thing and came up with a piece of bone an inch long. Another bite yielded a similar piece of bone. For the unfamiliar, one doesn't expect to bite into any sushi item and crunch into bone. A goodly part of the culinary experience involves biting into plump, fresh pieces of fish sans bones, i.e. the existence of bones, especially those a frigging inch long, is a major food service faux pas. When the manager was informed of this at the cash register - since he didn't visit the table again for another 20 minutes - he apologized for the bones and charged my companion for the item. We're usually generous tippers, having known many a waitperson and heard their horror stories of cheap bastards, but my companion left nothing and I left a couple of bucks for a $20 bill - and I usually tip around 20% if they don't manage to exceed my very flexible threshold of irritation. One wonders what these idiots are going to do when (or if) they get more than 9 customers and one of them starts choking on one of those monstrous bones (that is, if the customers haven't already left or sent out for pizza while waiting for their bones to arrive). Well, one wonders but one doesn't give a flying rat's ass.
posted by Steven Baum 7/11/2000 10:00:02 AM |
link

Monday, July 10, 2000

DAYS OF YORE
In 1754 Immanuel Kant published the first known speculations about temporal variations in the Earth's axial rotation. He suggested that the motion of ocean tides caused by the Moon and Sun exerts a force on continental margins and the seafloor that slowly retards the Earth's rotation. But, after finding no historical evidence that the year once contained more days than it does now, he went on to ponder matters more philosophical. The idea was revived more than 100 years later and the usual clever suspects (e.g. Lord Kelvin, Ferrel, George Darwin, H. Jeffreys, etc.) eventually hammered out a theory of lunar-solar tidal friction stating that the torque resulting from the Moon's attraction on Earth's tidal bulge transfers energy and angular momentum from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbital motion, resulting in both the slowing of the Earth's rotation and the recession of the Moon.

Backing off from the jargon, I'll first note that in addition to the obvious ocean tides caused by the Moon and Sun, the Earth also experiences atmospheric and solid earth tides. The first can't be visually confirmed because it literally vanishes into thin air, and the second because one can't compare it relative to anything else as one does when noticing the water level rise relative to the shoreline. Since the solid earth doesn't respond instantaneously to the passage of the Moon (i.e. there's a time difference between when the Moon passes over a given spot on the Earth and when that spot bulges maximally), the Moon exerts a torque on the tidal bulge that retards the Earth's rotation and gradually increases the length of the day. The Sun works a similar mojo on the Earth, with the present ratio of solar to lunar effects being 1/4.6. The most recent thorough technical rehashing of this matter can be found in Kurt Lambeck's The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980).

The first nontheoretical evidence for this phenomenon was noticed by J. W. Wells (Nature, 1963, Vol. 197, 948-950) in a paper entitled "Coral growth and geochronometry" in which he - in addition to providing a name for his nascent discipline - provided a method for estimating the number of days per year in the geological past via the comparison of coral growth increments in recent and fossil corals. His data suggested 385 to 410 growth lines (i.e. days) per year for the Middle Devonian (380 Ma, i.e. million years ago), with subsequent work showing an increasing number of days per year going back to 500 Ma. A problem was eventually noticed. This type of data implies little change in the rate of tidal energy dissipation over the past 500 Ma, which in turn implies a catastrophic close approach of the Moon near 2000 Ma, for which there is no evidence in the geological record. The time signatures imprinted as growth increments in marine invertebrate fossils were found to not reflect exact solar days but rather a more complex combination of lunar and solar day stimuli. This signal couldn't be simply unraveled, so the marine fossil evidence was eventually seen as qualitatively correct but quantitatively imprecise, i.e. the number of days per year does increase back in time, but at a largely unknown rate.

In 1989 a sharp-as-a-tack chap named George Williams (then and now at the University of Adelaide in Australia) noticed that cyclic rhythmites could be used for the same purpose. That faintly rude sounding word pair is defined as "vertically accreted thin beds or laminae usually of fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone that display periodic variations in thickness reflecting a strong tidal influence on sedimenatation" by Williams in a marvelous recent paper reviewing his decade of work on the subject, i.e. "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit" (Reviews of Geophysics, 2000, Vol. 38, pp. 37-59). According to Williams:

Cyclic tidal rhythmites can record periods that are ascribable to tidal pattern and type, thus avoiding some of the uncertainties associated with paleontological data. For example, diurnal [i.e. occurring over a day] laminae identified in tidal rhythmites are related to the lunar day, and synodic tides can leave a distinctive imprint in the rhythmite record. Furthermore, rhythmite records may span several decades, revealing long-term paleotidal periods not readily seen in fossils.
In other words, the rhythmites not only record specific signals (e.g. a lunar day rather than some combination of the lunar and solar day), but also provide longer term records that allow for better signal-to-noise ratios.

Skipping about 20 pages of gory details on the hows and whys, we'll jump straight to the conclusions to find that rhythmites ...

...have provided a rich paleotidal and paleorotational data set for the late Neoproterozoic (620 Ma) that is demonstrably self-consistent through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. At that time there were 400 +/- 7 solar days/yr and 13.1 +/- synodic months/yr, and the length of the day was 21.9 +/- 0.4 hours; the mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17 +/- 0.31 cm/yr, little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 +/- 0.07 cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging.
Williams mentions promising cyclic banded iron formations that may record and provide paleotidal information for Paleoproterozoic time (2450 Ma).

This is fascinating work, combining state of the art methods for data collection with the theories of celestial mechanics that have been well codified for over a century to obtain rational estimates for the changes in the Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit over the last 600 million years. It's too bad there isn't a Nobel Prize for the geosciences.
posted by Steven Baum 7/10/2000 04:16:18 PM |
link

SPLEEN IN FULL VENT
The student newspaper published an article today about instituting mandatory permits for bicycles. Boy howdy did that ever yank one of my biggest chains. This is my letter to the paper on the matter:
The PTTS and SGA want to institute bike permits on campus. Why? The reasons given in the 7/10/2000 front page article are: more lost and stolen bikes can be recovered, "bikes are left around campus," permits will "ensure enough parking space on bicycle racks" and the proceeds will be used for "repairing the bike lanes when needed." These reasons all sound superficially benevolent, but mostly vanish into thin air upon examination. Let's take them one by one:
  • "stolen and lost bikes" - How many bikes are stolen and recovered now, and what is the estimate as to how many more will be recovered if permits are made mandatory? No such details are included in the article.
  • "bikes are left around campus" - I called Doug Williams of the PTTS about this and he told me the problem here was people parking and locking their bicycles in areas like wheelchair ramps where they make access for others more difficult. I was under the impression (from, for instance, the signs posted in such areas) that this was already a violation of regulations, and that the offending bicycle could be confiscated to clear the area. Williams told me that permits would allow the PTTS to identify the owners and collect fines in addition to confiscating their bikes. He then told me something the article somehow failed to mention, i.e. that there is no current funding mechanism for purchasing new bike racks or repairing old ones. So this reason boils down to obtaining revenue from these offenders.
  • "ensure space in the bike racks" - This is the most legitimate reason given for charging fees for the permits, if there is indeed no funding mechanism for such things (although there's obviously no problems whatsoever in obtaining tens of millions for more and bigger parking garages).
  • "repairing bike lanes" - If this campus had any real bike lanes I'd agree with this as well, but all the bike lanes at A&M are nothing more than narrow paths on the side of roads used by all other traffic. The only additional expense is the white paint used to paint the demarcation line which, by the way, is routinely ignored by automobile traffic anyway (who are in turn routinely ignored by the PTTS). That is, repairing a bike lane constitutes nothing more than repaving the entire street and painting another line for cars to straddle.
So we're left with one valid reason for issuing permits: to establish a funding mechanism for repairing and obtaining new bike racks. Yet I've thus far seen no estimates of how much revenue is needed, how much is expected to be obtained from a permit system, or even how much it will cost to institute and maintain such a system (or if that cost will exceed the expected revenues). Do we really need yet another mechanism for allowing the authorities to keep track of our every movement solely for the purpose of raising a few bucks for bike racks? Surely a university that can raise hundreds of millions of dollars to erect monumental prayers for athletic glory can spare a nickel or two for something that can help alleviate the need for covering yet another couple of acres with a $20 million parking garage. How about selling "bike parking plazas" to wealthy alumni whose centerpieces could be statues of those alumni perched gallantly on top of giant, bucking steeds?
If they edit just one word you'll be reading about it in the Times.
posted by Steven Baum 7/10/2000 03:17:46 PM |
link

THE MARKET DEIFIED AGAIN
While poking around the
Lucidity and Science, or The Two Sides of the Platonic site of Michael McIntyre, whose work on wave-vortex interaction is among the highlights of recent meteorological history, I found a summary of a rousing debate that's most pertinent to how I obtain my beer money:
Terence Kealey's economic arguments: a professional rebuttal

Kealey's book The Economic Laws of Scientific Research urges that Market Forces are the Answer to Everything, and in particular that all scientific research should be done under commercial pressure. Thus cancer research is to be sponsored mainly by the tobacco industry, ecology and food safety by the food, pesticide, and biotech industries, and environment by the fossil fuel industry. The book received a prestigious Aims of Industry award a few years ago from the then UK Prime Minister John Major. Its political popularity adds to the growing pressure to commercialize all aspects of science, including the capture of scientific data as `intellectual property', delaying independent research or stopping it altogether -- and endangering still further that endangered species of scientist who builds good public databases, an activity essential to today's science and seldom adequately recognized.

The purely economic arguments in Kealey's book are wrong in themselves, according to a detailed analysis by a respected economist and economic historian, P. A. David FBA: `From market magic to calypso science policy: A review of Terence Kealey's The Economic Laws of Scientific Research', Research Policy, 1997, 26, 229-255. I thank John Ziman for pointing out this reference, a full-length published paper that politely, firmly, and meticulously exposes the `flawed economic logic' in Kealey's book, `the telling of stories that blatantly disregard the evidence'.

Kealey has responded in Research Policy, 1998, 26, 897-923 and in Nature Medicine, 1998, 4, 995-999.

Opposing (with each other) reviews of the book can be found at Issues in Science and Technology and Reason. Anybody who wonders where I weigh in on the issue just hasn't been paying attention. I need to snag the review and the response before I can offer any further details, though. I'll also attempt to run them by a reformed economist of my acquaintance and get a lengthier response than, "Shove off, mate! I'm drinking!"
posted by Steven Baum 7/10/2000 10:06:46 AM | link

Sunday, July 09, 2000

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF EMPIRE
While I've been obtaining and reading copies of all of Gore Vidal's essay collections -
Rocking the Boat, Reflections Upon a Sinking Ship, Home to Daniel Shays, Matters of Fact and Fiction, The Second American RevolutionArmageddon and Screening History - since circa 1975, I couldn't help also snagging a big, fat, juicy, 1300-page brick called United States: Essays 1952-1992 that contained all of them - especially since it could be had for a sawbuck. I reread the following paragraph - from an essay entitled "The day the American empire ran out of gas" (1986) - for probably the fifth time a few days ago and it's launched me on quite a reading campaign:
The British used to say that their empire was obtained in a fit of absentmindedness. They exaggerate, of course. On the other hand, our modern empire was carefully thought out by four men. In 1890 a U.S. Navy captain, Alfred Thayer Mahan, wrote the blueprint for the American imperium, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. Then Mahan's friend, the historian-geopolitician Brooks Adams, younger brother of Henry, came up with the following formula: "All civilization is centralization. All centralization is economy." He applied the formula in the following syllogism: "Under economic centralization, Asia is cheaper than Europe. The world tends to economic centralization. Therefore, Asia tends to survive and Europe to perish." Ultimately, that is why we were in Vietnam. The amateur historian and professional politician Theodore Roosevelt was much under the influence of Adams and Mahan; he was also their political instrument, most active not so much during his presidency as during the crucial war with Spain, where he can take a good deal of credit for our seizure of the Philippines, which made us a world empire. Finally, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Roosevelt's closest friend, kept in line a Congress that had a tendency to forget our holy mission - our manifest destiny - and ask, rather wistfully, for internal improvements.
The Imperialism in the Making of America archive contains many period magazine articles by Lodge, Mahan and Roosevelt that make their intentions most obvious. As an additional bonus, they have online many complete years of The American Missionary (1878-1901), The Atlantic Monthly (1857-1901), The Century (1881-1899), Harper's (1850-1899), New England Magazine (1886-1900), North American Review (1815-1900) and Overland Monthly (1868-1900).

Other relevant sources include:

Stay tuned for further long, windy diatribes on this topic as time and spleen permit.
posted by Steven Baum 7/9/2000 09:59:10 PM | link

PHILTRANS MILLENIUM ISSUE
The
Royal Society was founded in 1660 "to promote the new or experimental philosophy, embodying the principles envisaged by Francis Bacon." On March 27, 1665 Henry Oldenburg - who'd been appointed as the first (joint) secretary to the society - published his correspondence with the leading European scientists of the day as the "Philosophical Transactions," which has been running continuously since and is the world's longest running scientific journal. The original PhilTrans - as it's known to the so clever you could put tails on them and call them weasels cognescenti - has since branched and expanded to produce four journals today: The "Proceedings" features individual submitted research papers, while the "Transactions" features papers presented at the Society's Discussion Meetings, Prize Lectures, invited reviews, and theme issues, i.e. the latter is usually publishes groups of related papers.

Keeping in that thematic spirit as well as in the spirit of our most recent fin de seicle, they've cranked out a special Millennium Issue. Current editor J. M. T. Thompson solicited proposals from all the clever young lads and lasses holding Royal Society University Research Fellowships to fill these issues, and according to his overview of the issue:

They were encouraged to be more speculative, and perhaps more provocative, than they would normally be in a review article, and to write for a general scientific audience. ... As far as possible, authors were asked to make the articles well illustrated with diagrams and photographs, while keeping detailed mathematics to a minimum.
From what I've read so far they've done a corking good job of this, with the result being called "Science into the Next Millennium: Young Scientists Give Their Visions of the Future." It contains 46 articles by authors with an average age of 34 years. The articles are spread over three issues:
  • Issue I - devoted to Astronomy and Earth Sciences and containing 13 papers covering cosmology, stars and the Solar System, the Earth's interior, the Earth's surface and climate (Vol. 358, No. 1763)
  • Issue II - devoted to Mathematics, Physics and Engineering and containing 19 papers covering mathematics, quantum and gravitational physics, electronics, mechanics of solids and fluids, advanced computing, telecommunications (Vol. 358, No. 1765)
  • Issue III - devoted to Chemistry and Biological Physics and containing 14 papers covering reaction dynamics, experiments and calculations, new processes and materials, physical techniques in biology, developmental biology, modelling biological systems (not yet available to me)
Thompson indicates that selected papers from these issues will form the basis for three popular scientific books to be published by Cambridge University Press. The papers in Issue I include:

    Cosmology
  • "Big Bang riddles and their revelations" - J. Magueijo and K. Baskerville
  • "The origin of matter and structure in the universe" - J. Garcia-Bellido
  • "Dark matter" - B. Moore
    Stars and the Solar System
  • "Astrophysical masers" - M. D. Gray
  • "The Solar System in the next millennium" - A. J. Coates
  • "Unveiling the face of the Moon: new views and future prospects" - S. K. Dunkin and D. J. Heather
    Earth's Interior
  • "The Earth's deep interior: advances in theory and experiment" - L. Vocadlo and D. Dobson
  • "Three-dimensional seismic imaging of a dynamic Earth" - L. Lonergan and N. White
  • "Understanding the fundamental physics governing the evolution and dynamics of the Earth's crust and ice sheets" - P. R. Sammonds
    Earth's Surface and Climate
  • "Ice surfaces: macroscopic effects of microscopic structure" - J. S. Wettlaufer
  • "The motion of geophysical vortices" - N. R. McDonald
  • "Data assimilation: a powerful tool for atmospheric chemistry" - D. J. Lary
  • "Earth's future climate" - M. A, Saunders
I'll probably enter the rest of the titles when I get my hands on the third issue and I'm not headed for the couch to watch a "Futurama" rerun, er, previously viewed episode.
posted by Steven Baum 7/9/2000 05:20:23 PM | link

SAINT McHAPPY
Last night I had the pleasure of viewing a couple of films that came in under the radar - if they indeed came in at all to this one-horse, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, sheep-shagging town - upon their original theatrical releases. (We're down to two different theatres in town, one at the local mall that shows Disney and like films, and the other a supermegaplex that shows 8 screens apiece of each week's 4 biggest grossing B-movies.) The first was
Happiness, a 1998 release written and directed by Todd Solondz, and the second Boondock Saints, written and directed by Todd Duffy.

Neither of these is for the young, with the first dealing with frank sexual themes and the second including plenty of stark violence, and both featuring ample amounts of the bluntest sort of monosyllabic dialog. Both are, however, very funny in way well described by Solondz in an interview:

... sometimes you have one half of the audience telling me how funny it is or dead on and so forth, and the other half being angry at the first half: "How can you laugh? This is so sad. It's so sorrowful and painful and horrific and so-forth." For me it's always both and I think one's orientation, so to speak, is very much what's going to determine your response to these films.
It's definitely one of those "laugh with the sinners or cry with the saints" things, so if you suspect you're in the latter category don't bother with either one and, if not, take a chance and grab one or both for an evening of chuckles of the sort you're not going to find in "Police Academy XII."

While searching for reviews of "Saints" a minute ago I discovered the reason why at least it never made it into town:

Troy Duffy, prior to making this film, is reported to have worked as a bartender in West Hollywood. However, in walk the infamous Wienstein brothers of Miramax Films. Troy offered up a script of his and they loved it. So, the story goes on from here.

Hold on, now for the kicker. It is rumored that not only did they buy his script and let him direct but apparently he was allowed to produce the soundtrack as well. On top of this, the Wienstein brothers bought the bar and Duffy is now co-owner. What a deal!

Oops! I suppose I shouldn't make it sound too good. Unfortunately, the deal was just about wrapped up and then tragedy struck. Just two weeks before the film's scheduled release, the Columbine murders took place. Hence, Miramax freaked out and pulled the film from release.

The same critic also correctly points to Trainspotting, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (all of which I've seen and enjoyed) as obvious influences, with the latter two prominently mentioned on the video's cardboard sleeve. Duffy's not as smooth (or glib as others might put it) as Tarantino yet, but he does combine some interesting elements into something worth a couple of bucks for a look-see, e.g. Willem Dafoe as a gay FBI agent sent to track down a pair of multilingual, Irish, fraternal twins played by Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus who've pulled a Death Wish and are attempting to wipe out the Russian mob, the Italian mob, and all other evil nasties in Boston. Throw in Billy Connelly in one of the most reverse typecasted roles I've seen in years as well as some interesting switchbacks in the tale's timeline, and the stew becomes palatable (keeping the previous warnings in mind).

The other Todd's film is, on the other hand, a merciless satire of the dysfunctional lives of suburbanites, which one critic sort of likes despite his contention that "every suburban satire is little more than a footnote to David Lynch's challenging and imperfect 1986 masterpiece Blue Velvet." The cast is nearly as well-known as those in the first Todd's film, although the most reknowned - Lara Flynn Boyle and Ben Gazzara - have lesser roles than Dafoe. The bulk of the acting is done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jane Adams and Dylan Baker as, respectively, a repressed computer nerd who makes obscene phone calls, the youngest and least successful of three dysfunctional sisters, and a pedophile psychiatrist. Jon Lovitz makes a brief appearance at the beginning in a riotous version of the classic "we have to talk" scene.

Neither film is great or possibly even very good, but I found both easily as entertaining as the films I've seen on the big (although shrinking quickly) screen in the last five years (with the one exception I can recalled being Dogma). And while I'm at it, I might as well mention David Mamet's The Spanish Prisoner as another especially memorable recent rental.
posted by Steven Baum 7/9/2000 08:40:01 AM | link


Comments?
Archive

LISTS

Books
Software

uPORTALS

cider
crime lit
drive-in
fake lit
hurricanes
os
scripting
sherlock
texas music
top 100
weirdsounds
wodehouse

LEISURE

abebooks
alibris
amazon
bibliofind
bookfinder
hamilton
powells

all music guide
best used cds
cd bargains
second spin
raven's links

ampol
arts & letters
atlantic
art history
attrition
bibliomania
bitch
bizarre
bizarro
bloom country
bob 'n' ed
bob the angry flower
callahan
chile pepper
classical music
cnnsi
crackbaby
cult films
culture jamming
discover
disinformation
dismal scientist
electric sheep
espn
exquisite corpse
feed
fine cooking
fishbowl
fluble
fried society
fry and laurie
hotel fred
hotendotey
hypocrisy network
jerkcity
last cereal
leisure town
logos
london times
mappa mundi
miscmedia
mp3lit
mr. chuck show
mr. serpent
national geographic
new scientist
no depression
not bored
obscure store
onion
on-line books
parking lot is full
pearly gates
phrase and fable
probe
red meat
rough guides
salon
Simpleton
sluggy freelance
spacemoose
spike
straight dope
strenua inertia
suck
superosity
tawdry town
too much coffee man
toon inn
verbivore
vidal index
yes minister
you damn kid





Powered by Blogger