Baseball: What are the odds?

Here's an article about the probability of winning in baseball. It was cited in the "Numbers Guy" column of today's Wall Street Journal. Interesting reading, for sure.

An expensive lie detector

A scientist at the Medical College of South Carolina says that an MRI is a good lie detector. He estimates that it's 90% accurate compared to 80% for a lie detector. That may be an improvement, but the cost for an MRI seems to out weigh the increased accuracy.

Proteins compute!

"Theoretical physicists in the UK have shown that it should be possible to use clusters of proteins to perform complex logic operations."

It always seemed logical (no pun) that nature's building blocks could perform computations. Now, physicists have shown that proteins may actually be able to perform rudimentary logic operations. If that's true, then of course we may then be able to say that the proteins are a universal computer. It's a stretch now, but why wouldn't nature evolve to that? Seems logical.

Total virtual reality, like, cool man

This would be funny if I didn't think it was such a neat idea. I love first person shooter games, mostly Quake 3, and if I could actually run, albeit contained to the sphere, shoot, twist and react like I do in the game, boy, that'd be just neat.

Richard Feynman: More on his life

Stephen Wolfram has a lovely article about the late Richard Feynman. Feynman was one of the greatest physicist of the twentieth century, a noble laureate, and an incredibly genuine human being. The article is well worth reading.

"It was probably 1982. I'd been at Feynman's house, and our conversation had turned to some kind of unpleasant situation that was going on. I was about to leave. And Feynman stops me and says: "You know, you and I are very lucky. Because whatever else is going on, we've always got our physics."

Feynman loved doing physics. I think what he loved most was the process of it. Of calculating. Of figuring things out.

It didn't seem to matter to him so much if what came out was big and important. Or esoteric and weird. What mattered to him was the process of finding it. And he was often quite competitive about it."

Read the whole article.

Biomimicry: Imitating nature in engineering

"[N]ature can accomplish feats that engineers have only been able to dream of until now. But as scientists peer deeper into the cellular and molecular workings of nature, engineers are starting to find information they can apply to everything from advanced optics to robotics—even a mussel-inspired glue that could one day be used to repair shattered bones. The result is a new field called biomimicry, or biologically inspired design."


Nature has spent so much time developing biological machines that it's about time we start to copy what nature has perfected.

Michael Crichton coming to DC

Michael Crichton is coming to Washington, DC, in November. I hear that he's a good speaker and with his new book out entitled State of Fear, this should be an excellent talk. His book is about how current science exaggerates the fears and that we, the public, have to be careful how much we trust the current predictions.

Frankly, I've never give much credence to predictions. Not that it can't be done, but when it comes to issues like global warming, I think we need more data relative to the age of the earth. I think it was Niels Bohr who said: "Prediction is hard, especially about the future."

Convergence: A math magazine

Convergence is a mathematics magazine that I ran across while looking at the Mathematics Association of America website. It has good articles that focus on the history of mathematics and discoveries from not so long ago. It requires that you get a login id, but there's no charge. I visit it often and usually find something of interest each time.

Digital Camers: Create panoramas, easy!

This site tells you how to create panoramic pictures with your digital camera and gives you software for doing so.

The results are stunning! Enjoy.
(Hat tip: Ilachina)

Camera Privacy: You can get it

Researchers at Georgia Tech (my alma mater) have found a way to keep a digital camera from snapping a picture. Actually, the camera takes its picture but the result is not what the photographer wants. Instead, a powerful light shines in the camera so that the photo does not turn out except for a bright light and a dark background. Thus, the subject is spared of having his/her picture when he/she does not want one taken.

The picture on the left is without the neutralizer and the one on the right is with the neutralizer working. Big difference, eh?



I am delighted that there are ways (at least one) to keep people from taking a picture. We all deserve to be able to keep some parts of our lives private. With the proliferation of cellular phone cameras this was getting out of hand. It's great that there's some way to keep the pictures away.

Top Questions We Don't Know: Can you answer these?

Scice Magazine lists their top questions that we don't know the answers to. Maybe someone here can help them out? Good luck!!

> What Is the Universe Made Of?
> What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
> Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
> To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
> Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
> How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
> What Controls Organ Regeneration?
> How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
> How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
> How Does Earth's Interior Work?
> Are We Alone in the Universe?
> How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
> What Determines Species Diversity?
> What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
> How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
> How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
> How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
> How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
> What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
> Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
> Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
> Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?
> How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
> What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
> Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

Movement without touch

Scientist can move a drop of water about a millimeter with a laser. This is an advance that while limited at a large scale, could be tremendous for nano-technology.

Math and Art

Pictures based on mathematics! Just gorgeous. I don't have time to look through this site as I would like, but I hope you do. These are just beautiful.

Saturn: Images to see

I found this site while looking at Science Daily News

The site has great narrative about the Cassini mission to Saturn and some beautiful pictures of the rings and moons around Saturn.

Here's one example, but look for more:

Wings changing shapes

Rick Lind, a University of Florida professor, shows his prototype airborne vehicle. What's so neat about it is that the wings change shape, like the wings of a bird, to help his vehicle maneuver and turn. Current unmanned airborne vehicles can't do that and are limited in their mobility.

For reconnaissance over a battle field, the UV can fly high, straight and send back images to headquarters. For urban areas, though, where you want to see in between buildings or other hard to reach places, this new vehicle could be what you need.

Fascinating, inventive, and neat.

Science and Policy: A look at Equality

The September issue of Commentary magazine has as its lead article: The Inequality Taboo by Charles Murray. For those who don't remember, Charles Murray co-authored The Bell Curve about the qualities of groups of people based on race or gender, for example. He had been quiet for a long time about these issues and this is his first time speaking out on these issues since his book.

The entire article is worth reading and it's available as I linked to it above. Here's a taste of how he explains group features and whether we should focus so much on these as the government makes policy:

"Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? Or suppose that the pill, taken by all blacks, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as whites—including all the ways in which blacks now surpass whites. How many blacks would want all blacks to take it? To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy."

Why did he write this article? Here's part of his answer:

"When the outcomes that these policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, with one group falling short, the fault for the discrepancy has been assigned to society. It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also wrong."

Read this article; you'll be very happy you did.

What you know is wrong!

That's the conclusion of the a new article in New Scientist magazine. Many studies are completely wrong because:

"small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false."

So, if you thought you could trust what's in a study, think again.

Of course, this problem is only compounded by the fact that once a study is done, people accept it. Plus, there's no time or especially money to reproduce a study so whatever conclusions the original scientists come to, they stick for a long time.

Chimps to humans: What's the difference?

Scientists completed the mapping of Chimpanzee DNA. There's not much difference to humans, either:

"All told, the two sequences differ by 4 percent. But three-quarters of the differences seem to be in non-functional parts of the genome, suggesting that a mere 1 percent variation makes all the difference."

But, 1% makes a difference. Plus, who knows about the that other 3%. What's more, who can say how that difference effects and interacts with the other parts of the genome. Nonetheless this is a step forward.