February 2005 Archives

In light of the recent most deadly suicide bombing in Iraq, I have to wonder why there aren't more pro-Iraq vigilantes. Maybe there are private vigilante groups that hunt down terrorists, but if so I haven't heard of them. Remember when that rebel shi'ite cleric al-Sadr was running amok? There were several groups of Iraqis who self-organized to help bring him down. If suicide bombings were a daily threat in America, I'd like to think that civilians would be eager to band together to take out the murderers, if the government proved unable to. I'm sure I don't have a full understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq, but it takes significant infrastructure to pull off these bombings, so there must be plenty of people who know the whos and wheres.

Eh, who cares. The only nominated movie I saw was The Aviator, and it didn't win. Chris Rock was as amusing as could be reasonably expected, though his harangue against Bush was pretty petty and ignorant. The highlights were Al Pachino and Dustin Hoffman, who were both clearly drunk when they presented their awards... in my opinion.

Update:
Also, what was up with the hoards of empty seats? Aren't there supposed to be "seat filler" people to jump in? There were vacancies all along the floor and up in the balcony too.

Update 2:
Imagine how cool the Academy Awards would be if they were hosted by Conan O'Brien! They could have Triumph, and Arnold and Bill, and the Masturbating Bear, and In The Year 2000, and it would be hilarious. Holy crap, I can hardly contain my laughter, just thinking about it.

When I first saw this notice I thought that illegal immigrants were threatening to attack Home Depot, but apparently I had it backwards. A group called Save Our State is organizing a disruptive protest at a Home Depot in Rancho Cucamonga to condemn the store's support for illegal immigrants.

Home Depot proudly supports racist, anti-American organizations and openly aids and abets illegal aliens, a violation of federal law.

Home Depot recently announced a partnership with the National Council of La Raza. NCLR is a racist organization dedicated to promoting open borders and illegal immigration. Arthur Blank, the co-founder of the company openly funds and supports the anti-American Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. This organization actively seeks to subvert American laws on behalf of illegal aliens.

Home Depot flagrantly supports, endorses and encourages the establishment of various day labor centers on their premises throughout this nation. Over 90% of all day laborers entered this country illegally. However, in pursuit of the almighty dollar, Home Depot criminally violates federal laws prohibiting the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens.

Activists involved in La Raza (the Tan Klan) and MALDEF all run in the same racist and separatist circles, with the ultimate goal being the "reconquista" of the Southwestern United States.

Home Depot must be punished for its support of and association with racist and anti-American organizations.

Home Depot does, in fact, appear to support the employment of illegal immigrants, but I'm not a big fan of organizing boycotts, much less disruptive "civil disobedience". The factor that may redeem this protest is that the organizers don't merely disagree with Home Depot's policies, but they claim that the polices are actually illegal. I don't think these sorts of disruptions are morally acceptable in the case of simple policy disagreement, but if Home Depot is breaking the law then perhaps the protestors are justified. However, why mess with Home Depot rather than organizing a protest aimed at forcing law enforcement officials to do their jobs?

Keep in mind that I'm entirely sympathetic with the protestors, and I think illegal immigration is a major threat to the security, stability, and prosperity of America.

Oh man, this is so awesome. I remember this Saturday Night Live commercial from when I was a kid; I hadn't seen it in years, but it's still just as funny as I remember. Old Glory Robot Insurance, for when the metal ones come for you. And they will.

I've been reading the A Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin and getting curious about war horses. A thousand pound animal that can run around all day carrying a 200 pound knight and 300 pounds of steel or more is pretty impressive. Here's a group of people called New Riders of the Golden Age who claim to be the only realistic full-contact jousters in the world.

The New Riders of the Golden Age from War Horse Farm in Sarasota, Florida, have been jousting professionally since 1982 and have appeared at Renaissance Festivals, state and county fairs and other events all over the USA and Canada. Knight on Percheron steed

The use of Belgian, Percheron, Shire, and Clydesdale horses and full suits of period-designed 16th century tilting armor differentiates the New Riders of the Golden Age from groups and organizations presenting staged theatrical medieval jousts. The use of period equipment allows the New Riders to engage in an authentic full contact joust, and the great horses add an unmatchable sense of power and presence to the joust. Over twenty years of developing equipment, refining technique, and performing live at large outdoor venues have polished a unique presentation and confirmed repeatedly that audiences do appreciate the real thing.

The whole concept is fascinating to me. Horses were an integral part of human civilization for thousands years, but we've pretty much moved past them now, both in war and peace.

The "Bind, Torture, Kill" killer has been caught, and the Spork has been following the story and has the scoop before the mainstream media. Apparently the guy, Dennis Rader, was actually posting messages on the Catch BTK forum, and now the FBI has taken the site down. He was also the President of Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita. It looks like he got married in the early 70s, had a couple of kids, killed a bunch of people in the late 70s, and may have stopped killing when his kids got older. He may not have stopped entirely, but he stopped taking public responsibility for the killings at least, until recently when he started taunting the police again. Maybe he got bored when his kids moved out? Apparently Rader didn't realize that police in the 21st century are a bit more sophisticated than the cops from the 70s.

More from Fox News, with a timeline. Also, here's a cache of Kerri Rader's website, the daughter who turned him in.

I've been working like mad on my PhD while I've been looking for a job, and now I'm writing a chapter about the properties a communication simulation needs to have in order to be analogous to the real world. I don't want to give too many examples -- because I don't want to taint your suggestions -- but I'm thinking that simulations must deal with things like:

- Time. No cause and effect without time, so it's pretty fundamental. Plus, I doubt the human brain can even conceive of a world without time.

- Space. Most useful simulations will have something analogous to physical space, for objects to exist in and move through.

- Tasks. Simulations must have tasks to be completed, or they're useless.

- Objects. Something has to do the acting and moving and learning.

And then there are concepts with more specificity:

- Resources. Types of objects that are required to complete a task. Are they scarce? Are there an infinite number?

- Feedback loops. In real life, success leads to more success.

- Aging, death, birth.

- Types of knowledge. Where things are. The states of other agents. How tasks are completed.

- Indirection. John says that Jane said that Tim said that John is dead.

- Truthfulness. Some people lie, and some are just mistaken, but either way not all signals are correct.

And so forth. I've got a huge list of things to be considered, but I'd like to hear your suggestions. What properties of real life are important for a simulation of Distributed Autonomous Communicators?

I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that the recent sperm theft trial has possible implications for the abortion issue.

Phillips alleges that he and Irons, who practices internal medicine, never had intercourse during their four-month affair, although they did have oral sex three times.

His suit contends that Irons, without his knowledge, kept some of his semen and used it to impregnate herself. ...

But the judges agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss fraud and theft claims against Irons.

They agreed with Irons' lawyers that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

Most pro-choicers say that the mother has a right to an abortion because the baby is inside her and entirely dependent on her, but perhaps the "irrevocable transfer" argument is valid here as well. I suppose the objection would be that egg and sperm don't change from being "property" to being a "person" until the spatial location of the result of their combination changes, so there's no "person" to be the recipient of the "irrevocable transfer"... but what about the father? Maybe a father could argue that when the mother had sex with him she irrevocably transferred her egg into their joint possession.

Or even her entire womb! After all, there's no "I" in uterus.

There's more to compensation than just a salary. Here's a set of things I like to find out from companies that offer me jobs.

- Does the company do results/profit sharing? Is there another kind of bonus structure? How are bonuses calculated and when are they handed out? As a new hire, have I missed the bonus cycle for this year?

- Do you offer a signing bonus? (Particularly important if I've missed the regular bonus cycle for the year.)

- Will you automatically re-evaluate my salary once I complete my degree? How much will it be bumped up?

- What types of benefits do you offer, and what is the employee contribution?

- How much vacation do I get? Sick leave? What about holidays? What about taking unpaid leave?

- Does the company pay tuition for employees that are still in school?

- How flexible is the company with hours? Can I work overtime some days to take another day off?

- Will I need to get a security clearance? Will a polygraph be required? How often?

- Does the company pay overtime? How many hours will I be expected to work each week for my base salary?

- Does the company offer training or classes to further my education? Will the company pay for me to earn certifications?

- Will I be expected to travel for business? How often? Where?

- Who will I be reporting to? Who will manage me, and who will handle my HR issues?

- What is my commitment to the position? Will I be able to apply for transfers within the company? After how long? What are my opportunities for advancement?

On Sunday my pastor noted that, "Some people will believe anything, as long as it's not written in the Bible."

Why is that? There are three main reasons that I can think of, though you may come up with more.

First, Christians are often not very good representatives of what the Bible teaches. All sorts of evils have been done because "God told me to", so many unbelievers are wary of putting their faith in a document that's been clearly misused and misconstrued over the ages.

Second, most people don't know a lot about what the Bible says. Even many Christians know very little of what God has written, or only know Bible soundbites ("Love your neighbor as yourself", "Thou shalt not X"). This plays into the first reason: Christians often don't follow God's commands because they don't know God's commands; unbelievers only know a very little of what the Bible says, but they know a great deal about the silly, hypocritical things Christians do. I can't even count the number of times I've had unbelievers tell me that they don't want to be a Christian because of something they think they know about the Bible, but that in fact is completely false.

Third, most people don't like the message of the Bible. This dislike is natural -- all people are evil in their hearts and love themselves more than God -- and it often leads to both disobedience and ignorance of the Bible. Why study something that clashes so uncomfortably with the enjoyable lifestyle you crave? Why obey in hard circumstances when it is (apparently) so easy to get away with doing wrong? Much better to just forget about it and secretly hope that ignorance will be a suitable excuse when -- and if -- God ever gets around to judging people.

And the consequence of these three factors is that the Bible has been largely discredited in our culture. When telling someone about God, saying "because it's written in the Bible" carries very little weight. People reject the idea of faith and belief and instead clamor for proof, which is impossible to produce, because God is not a tangible thing that can be boxed in by theorems and logic. Further, the actions of Christians often don't demonstrate a God that is worthy of faith.

Nevertheless, Christians shouldn't forget that when Jesus confronted Satan directly, his most powerful weapon were three simple words: "it is written".

Every human being has a selfish personal agenda that they're attempting to advance through their professional life. In scientific fields, the system is supposed to work in such a way that the scientist reaps the most personal benefit if he follows a certain set of rules and always acts honestly and without philisophical bias. Unfortunately -- as in all human systems -- that lofty ideal is rarely met, and in some cases reality falls far short indeed. As an example, take the case of professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, who apparently lied about the age of skulls he discovered in Northern Europe.

Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle.

"The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement. ...

Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years.

Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.

These weren't just mistakes, they were purposeful lies, and these lies led to a whole host of subsidiary mistakes when other researchers relied on his results. Professor Protsch thought he could beat the system and advance his career without playing by the rules, and he succeeded for decades, only getting caught by chance. Anyone who thinks this example is singular within the academic community is sadly delusional.

Why? Because there isn't much acclaim to be gained by going back over the work of others and seriously checking it for errors. No one wants to be seen as a backstabber, especially in tight-knit, incestuous scientific circles. Plus, it's hard to find lies, even when they're there, because even the liars have a lot of specialized knowledge that makes it difficult for others to replicate their work. See also, the downfall of Michael Bellesiles.

Update:
Raina points to another potential fraud from last year regarding Bernard Kettlewell and his peppered moths. Such examples likely abound, just waiting to be discovered.

The big cat loose in Moorpark is obviously neither a lion nor a tiger, but a liger -- pretty much my favorite animal.

You are pretty much the coolest animal, a Liger.

Which Napoleon Dynamite character are you?
brought to you by DeoDuce

Xrlq pointed me to a thread at Hugo Schwyzer's blog about Bible versions and submission as commanded in Ephesians 5. The comment thread is very interesting, but they get stuck because the only options they consider are that the passage is misconstrued and that it doesn't really mean that wives should submit to their husbands, or that the passage is nonsense and demonstrates that the Bible is stupid and sexist. However, as I wrote regarding marriage and submission previously, the reason secularists and politically correct Christians don't understand the passage is because they don't see how it can be both "sexist" and good at the same time.

First, Xrlq argues that it's absurd for the Bible to say that a wife should worship her husband just as the church worships Christ. That would be absurd, so it's good the Bible doesn't say that. It only says that a wife is supposed to submit her husband as the church submits to Christ. That submission is based on the wife's reverence for Christ, not based on the magnificence of the husband. Further, the husband is commanded to live his wife just as Christ loved the church, not because the wife is super-fantastic, but because of the husband's reverence for Christ. Our worship of God dictates our relationships to our fellow human beings.

Second, the real controversy seems to be based on the belief that the one who submits is somehow "less" than the one in authority. As I quoted in my previous post, that's just not the case. Jesus himself taught on the matter of authority and said:

Luke 22:24-27

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

Jesus came to earth to submit to evil men and be killed, not to rule as a king. Anyone who worries about being in charge and having earthly authority reveals that they care more for worldly things than spiritual. Humility should guide both husbands and wives in everything. Each should love the other, and each should submit to the other, but special instruction is given here to each partner to teach them what manner of behavior is pleasing to God. Anyone who knows both men and women can attest that we are different, so it should be no surprise that God treats us differently in marriage.

Finally, perhaps more husbands should strive to be worthy of submission, and perhaps more wives should strive to be worth dying for.

Hey kids, I see via Glenn at Unite Later that my humble blog is being used in a high school psychology class to illustrate the psyche of religious fanatics (among other things, though the erratic format of the blog makes it a bit hard to follow). The fellow there -- who may or may not be the same people as "chopperpilot" and/or "adam" and/or "ScienceNotFiction" who have been posting on my about page and elsewhere -- brands me as a "lady" and a hypocrite for not joining the Army, though he doesn't appear to believe his own service has been worthwhile. It sounds as if he might be an interesting subject for study himself. As for me, I agree that my role in the War on Terror does not require as much bravery as those fighting on the front lines, but someone has to create the weaponry and technology that makes victory possible. I believe that my work over the past few years has contributed to saving both soldier and civilian lives.

They also seem to spend a lot of time debating blog ethics, but they apparently have no problem taking comments from my site and reposting them without attribution. Here's a tip: that's unethical. Fortunately I'm a generous person and not filled with anger and self-loathing, so it's easy for me to gently correct such mistakes rather than hurl invectives. However, it did give me a great deal of pleasure to go through my blog and delete all their featherweight comments.

Anyway, I hope that while he and his classmates are visiting this site they take the opportunity to learn about rationality, truth, morality, and the correct use of ellipses and other popular forms of punctuation. I also recommend they check out Dictionary.com and my earlier post on strategies for winning arguments.

We played Trivial Pursuit again tonight and I won both times. In the first game we played the 90s edition, and as soon as it became my turn I swept the board and got all six pie pieces without allowing anyone else to go. After that we decided to play a different version, because that one really was pretty easy. We played the 20th Anniversary edition next, and I again managed to win, but only by a single slice of pie. I'm good at all the subjects except sports, but I managed to get an easy one tonight for the single question I had to answer in that category. Go me!

I guess this isn't properly "science", but what the heck? Steven Milloy has put up a Kyoto cost counter on his page that displays a running total of how much the Kyoto Treaty has cost the world so far, for the optimistic 0.07 degrees Celcius it's supposed to prevent the world from warming by over the next 45 years.

[Y]es, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.

So, how do we arrive at these incredible numbers?

Firstly, the now widely acknowledged "saving" (amount of warming avoided) potential for complete implementation of Kyoto is ~0.07 °C by the year 2050. Since skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (Kevin Trenberth, for example) alike have signed off on the figure we see no need to dispute it. Further, even though the US and Australia have sense enough to stay clear of energy rationing schemes like this we are prepared to cut The Protocol a great deal of slack and pretend that figure is achievable by the EU and fellow travelers. Thus our potentially "saved" temperature figure is simply 0.07 °C/45 (the amount per year assuming a linear progression) further divided down to an accumulation per second. Granted, this is not likely a very accurate nor realistic representation but hey, we don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within ±0.7 °C anyway.

And since America smartly refused to participate, these costs are being paid by some of the poorest people in the world. Yippie. Of course, as Mr. Milloy points out farther down, America is wasting plenty of billions of dollars on other global warming nonsense.

(HT: DeoDuce.)

You've gotta give Matt Drudge some credit for frequently linking to stories that criticise himself, such as this defense of Chris Rock as Oscar host. The mainstream media would do well to emulate this practice and give even a tiny nod to their critics.

Update:
DeoDuce doesn't think Chris Rock is worth defending, but I think perhaps she misses the point of some of his crude humor. I've been known to make an off-color remark or two occasionally for the sake of satire. Anyway, I couldn't care less about who hosts the Oscars or what kind of humor he has, I just think it's neat that Drudge links to his critics.

A reader pointed me to this article about robot toddler that learns to walk like a human child. This achievement is an excellent example of how artificial intelligence techniques can be used to reap efficiency gains that cannot be easily engineered by human hands.

The machines use what the researchers called a "passive-dynamic design" that closely mimics the way humans walk. Earlier robots required powerful machines to stroll, with each leg, knee and ankle requiring motorized assistance. The effort requires a lot of energy.

The passive dynamic design uses gravity, along with muscle-like springs and motors. The energy required is just a fraction of that needed by other walking robots, said Andy Ruina, a Cornell University researcher.

Ruina said the walking robots move like humans, falling and catching themselves as they move forward. This essentially is the same movement people use, a motion toddlers must master to walk.

"We let the machines take care of a lot of the motion," he said. In contrast, most walking robots, such as Asimo, developed by the Honda Motor Co. (HMC), require a motor to power every motion.

Could a control system for this kind of movement be designed by hand? Probably, but it would be incredibly hard, particularly if it were to be as adaptable as this learning model.

"It can learn to walk in 20 minutes," Tedrake said. "Once it learns to walk, then it adapts its gait to new terrain."

He said the sensors take measurements at the rate of 200 times a second and constantly send new instructions to the motors that control the tilt and motion. The sensors also direct actuators that control the tension on springs in the robot ankles. This helps the machine push forward with each stride.

"Every time it takes a step, it changes the parameters a little bit, based on its experience," Tedrake said. "It will walk on any surface and adjust the way it walks."

In effect, the robot changes its stride just as humans do when moving from sand to grass to pavement.

He said the machine even has learned to walk on a treadmill, making adjustments as the surface tilts or speeds up. The robot can start on its own and even walk backward.

I have a little experience with robotics, and these results are pretty impressive. Artificial intelligence is very well suited for developing control systems like these walkers, and there's more promise in this direction than towards the kind of AI you see in science fiction books and movies.

So Bill Cosby won't be charged for drugging and fondling a woman in his mansion last year. I wasn't aware of the alleged drugging until I read this article, and in my opinion that makes the accusation much more serious. Setting the specifics of this case aside, I'm curious about what women think about unwanted fondling in general. It's obviously inappropriate and wrong in the extreme for a man to grab or touch a woman without her consent, but do you women think a criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit are the appropriate responses? Is it sufficient to just slap the creep across the face or kick him in the nuts? Obviously the context and details are important, but would a single instance of unwanted fondling drive most women to get the police involved? My expectation is that that sort of thing happens pretty frequently at clubs and bars and what-not.

With all the stories coming out detailing UN incompetence and malevolence, it's impossible to believe that all the allegations are merely the product of "disgruntled former employees". "U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children." " UN inspectors 'spent their days drinking'." The UN couldn't even contribute meaningfully to tsunami relief! And these are the people the Left wants to entrust world security to? These are the people we need permission from to protect ourselves? We should never pay that corrupt bureaucracy another penny.

It seems absurd to pay money to imprison criminal illegal aliens, but what else can we do with them? If we deport them they'll just come back and commit more crimes. I think part of the problem is that we treat illegal immigration like a law enforcement problem rather than a national security problem. Mexico could do a lot to close up its borders and stem the flow of criminals and miscreants if they were properly motivated by economic sanctions and the threat of military force. As it is, they make fools of us by refusing to extradite their citizens that come here, murder our people, and then flee back to Mexico.

Ratified in 1980, the treaty allows Mexico not to surrender suspected murderers wanted in the U.S. unless U.S. prosecutors waive the death penalty. In 2001, following a Mexican Supreme Court decision that declared life imprisonment unconstitutional, Mexico stopped returning suspects unless U.S. prosecutors waived life sentences, too.

There are hundreds of murderers living free and clear in Mexico. An additional problem is that many state laws in the United States prevent prosecutors from prosecuting crimes that have already been punished in Mexico. So when we ask for extradition, Mexico can decide to prosecute the crime themselves and then hand out incredibly weak sentences. If the criminal then returns to America, many states can't even touch him because of misconceived "double jeopardy" laws.

The core issue here is the same one raised by terrorist attacks: The federal government has a duty to defend Americans against killers who enter our country and murder our people. It doesn't matter whether the killer is from al Qaeda or a drug gang. The duty is the same.

Mayors and governors can run schools and build highways. But only the president can make a foreign government hand over a fugitive who has killed an American. President Bush needs to confront President Fox: Is Mexico with us, or against us, in seeking justice for killers?

Not to even mention that blame shared by the American employers who give jobs to illegal aliens, or the obvious threat from Islamofacist terrorists crossing in from Mexico.

Updated Below

There isn't a lot of data about why women have abortions, but much of the vehement opposition to abortion restrictions focuses on the argument that some abortions are necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. That is true. But what percentage of abortions are performed for health reasons? The Georgia Right to Life website quotes a report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute with the following statistics.

In recognition of this public opposition, abortion providers rarely provide data on the reasons women have abortions. But little has changed since the breakdown shown below provided in 1987 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an affliate of Planned Parenthood. Abortions of healthy babies by healthy mothers account for over 90% of the estimated 1.3 million abortions done yearly.

Too expensive (21%)
Not ready (21%)
Big change (16%)
Relationships (12%)
Enough children (11%)
Not mature (8%)
Other reasons (4%)
Mother's health (3%)
Baby's health (3%)
Rape/incest (1%)

According to the women who received abortions and answered this survey, only 7% of abortions are performed for the reasons with the most popular support.

Polls, however, continue to find little support for the majority of these abortions. Two National polls, Zo