Thursday, March 5, 2009
Coming Soon: Bionic Eyes
EYEBORG-- The Two Week Trial from eyeborg on Vimeo.
(Via Kurzweil AI News.)
I'd definitely prefer a camera in my eye glasses as a first step. I'll leave the early adopting of bionics to more adventurous souls.
My Column On Friday Will Be About Salvia
Here's a picture of me preparing to smoke Salvia divinorum (click image to enlarge it):
Ingesting this uniquely potent (though, at least for now, legal) hallucinogenic herb was part of the research for my column this week. Read all about it in the print and online editions of the Daily Iowan on Friday and then check out all the bonus content I'll be posting here on the Podium that same day.
Ingesting this uniquely potent (though, at least for now, legal) hallucinogenic herb was part of the research for my column this week. Read all about it in the print and online editions of the Daily Iowan on Friday and then check out all the bonus content I'll be posting here on the Podium that same day.
Google Crowd-sources Development Of Money-saving Best-practices Guide
From Google's corporate blog:
This is a powerful tool that was obviously not available to those suffering from the Great Depression. Hopefully it turns out to be really useful.
At Google, we put a lot of stock in both the wisdom of crowds — the idea that lots of people responding to a given question can collectively find the best answer — and the value of community. We believe that people working together can help one another through even the most difficult times.
As we all navigate today's choppy economic waters, we'd like to put these beliefs into practice. That's why we created Tip Jar (www.google.com/tipjar), an experiment powered by Google Moderator that we hope will help you discover the most effective ways to save money.
Continue reading.
This is a powerful tool that was obviously not available to those suffering from the Great Depression. Hopefully it turns out to be really useful.
Can Nanotechnology Solve The Climate, Energy, And Economic Crises Simultaneously?
Eric Drexler writes on his blog Metamodern:
The solution Drexler envisions becoming possible in the not-too-distant future is as follows:
(I also high recommend reading Drexler's post on the problem of CO2 emissions leading to ocean acidification.)
The take-away from this should be that research and development spending in the area of molecular manufacturing looks like a promising course of action to solve the problem of rapidly growing atmospheric CO2 levels (which, according to the best available climate models, will have devastating effects).
Drexler's proposal, if it is indeed workable, is the only one I'm aware of that provides an alternative to planet-wide CO2 emissions regulation that quickly brings the total amount of the gas being released down to sustainable levels. So let's look into this further and attempt it if feasible. If we can pull CO2 out of the air with solar stations covering 250-km square of planet (less than 0.0000005 percent of its total surface area--I think, but I'd welcome corrections to any stupid mistakes I may have made in my math) at a rate sufficient to be able to control atmospheric CO2 levels, then the best climate change solution would be to build those solar stations as fast as we can. Of course would also want to emit as little carbon as possible in manufacturing and installing the stations, but it's important to note that it's okay to emit CO2 in the course of implementing this plan as long as the solar stations are able to function for long enough to yield a substantial net CO2 reduction over their life expectancy.
Reiterating what Drexler has to say about the relevance of molecular manufacturing (I highly recommend following this link to learn about this amazing concept) to this discussion:
If we can accomplish what Drexler is calling for, we will be able to transform our unwanted carbon emissions into any carbon-based manufactured goods that we would care to make--hence heralding the dawn of the diamond age. Perhaps we will eventually learn that Drexler's idea is fatally flawed in some unforeseen way, but spending the money necessary to find out if it's realistic project still seems like a good investment given the immensity of the possible payoff.
And here's one more optimistic thought: Nanotech engineers tinkering with the new technology which will hopefully be available in the coming years and decades may well be the engine that will drive us out of our current recession/emerging depression. Remember that technology is a primary enabler of economic growth--and how quickly computer hobbyists in 1975 were able to launch themselves to billionaire status. Silicon Valley may yet be able to do for manufacturing what it already has for information processing, storage, and transfer. And that would change the world in ways we can scarcely imagine today.
The greenhouse gas problem is far more intractable than most people think, and although there is a solution in sight, we will need a technological revolution to implement it.
Continue reading.
The solution Drexler envisions becoming possible in the not-too-distant future is as follows:
The way to remove CO2 quickly is to pump it, but this is a project too large to undertake with today’s manufacturing infrastructure. However, as I note in the Edge essay,
If we were good at making things, we could make efficient devices able to collect, compress, and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and we could make solar arrays large enough to generate enough power to do this on a scale that matters. A solar array area, that if aggregated, would fit in a corner of Texas, could generate 3 terawatts. In the course of 10 years, 3 terawatts would provide enough energy remove all the excess carbon the human race has added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began. So far as carbon emissions are concerned, this would fix the problem.
A few specifics:* Nanosystems provides a physical analysis of a class of selective, thermodynamically efficient molecular pumps. Devices like these provide one option for satisfying the first condition I mentioned.
* Excess atmospheric CO2 is expected to be about 1 trillion tons in the time frame of interest, and the amount of energy required to collect and compress this to liquid density is about 1021 Joules.
* This is equivalent to 3 terawatts of electric power for 10 years, comparable to the total world electric generating capacity today.
* Solar arrays with an aggregate area equivalent to a 250-km square would provide ample power (assuming cells of mediocre photovoltaic efficiency, but placed in sunny locations).
* Advanced molecular manufacturing capabilities will make it practical to produce the necessary hardware to solve the greenhouse gas problem by removing the excess greenhouse gases, reversing net emissions.
Regarding molecular manufacturing, as I note in the Edge essay:The U.S. National Academies has issued a report on molecular manufacturing, and it calls for funding experimental research. A roadmap prepared by Battelle with several U.S. National Laboratories has studied paths forward, and suggests research directions. This knowledge will spread, and will change the game.
(I also high recommend reading Drexler's post on the problem of CO2 emissions leading to ocean acidification.)
The take-away from this should be that research and development spending in the area of molecular manufacturing looks like a promising course of action to solve the problem of rapidly growing atmospheric CO2 levels (which, according to the best available climate models, will have devastating effects).
Drexler's proposal, if it is indeed workable, is the only one I'm aware of that provides an alternative to planet-wide CO2 emissions regulation that quickly brings the total amount of the gas being released down to sustainable levels. So let's look into this further and attempt it if feasible. If we can pull CO2 out of the air with solar stations covering 250-km square of planet (less than 0.0000005 percent of its total surface area--I think, but I'd welcome corrections to any stupid mistakes I may have made in my math) at a rate sufficient to be able to control atmospheric CO2 levels, then the best climate change solution would be to build those solar stations as fast as we can. Of course would also want to emit as little carbon as possible in manufacturing and installing the stations, but it's important to note that it's okay to emit CO2 in the course of implementing this plan as long as the solar stations are able to function for long enough to yield a substantial net CO2 reduction over their life expectancy.
Reiterating what Drexler has to say about the relevance of molecular manufacturing (I highly recommend following this link to learn about this amazing concept) to this discussion:
The U.S. National Academies has issued a report on molecular manufacturing, and it calls for funding experimental research. A roadmap prepared by Battelle with several U.S. National Laboratories has studied paths forward, and suggests research directions. This knowledge will spread, and will change the game.
If we can accomplish what Drexler is calling for, we will be able to transform our unwanted carbon emissions into any carbon-based manufactured goods that we would care to make--hence heralding the dawn of the diamond age. Perhaps we will eventually learn that Drexler's idea is fatally flawed in some unforeseen way, but spending the money necessary to find out if it's realistic project still seems like a good investment given the immensity of the possible payoff.
And here's one more optimistic thought: Nanotech engineers tinkering with the new technology which will hopefully be available in the coming years and decades may well be the engine that will drive us out of our current recession/emerging depression. Remember that technology is a primary enabler of economic growth--and how quickly computer hobbyists in 1975 were able to launch themselves to billionaire status. Silicon Valley may yet be able to do for manufacturing what it already has for information processing, storage, and transfer. And that would change the world in ways we can scarcely imagine today.
Consider Pollution As A Property Rights Issue
From the Switchboard:
This is an excellent, succinct explanation of the problem of atmospheric pollution as an externality in energy production that leads to a market failure. Through dumping their waste chemicals into the atmosphere, polluting governments, corporations, and individuals dispose of their trash for free. But they do so by dumping it on everyone else's front lawns. Because our planet's atmosphere cannot be meaningfully partitioned, it is a paradigm case of a public good. And it's subject to one hell of a tragedy of the commons problem. We all need it, but no single entity has any incentive to refrain from poisoning it just a little bit--because even if you act virtuously, your neighbors are likely to cheat. Thus, everyone's little bits and up into a dangerous total.
The most rational response to this situation is to treat the atmosphere as thought it is owned equally by all the people (and perhaps, though I don't care to get into this here, even all the life) on the planet. There then has to be a rule set about maintaining a healthy atmosphere that is enforced virtually everywhere on the planet. I don't like this idea any more than most libertarian-leaning people do, but I don't see any other currently available solution.
Note that all this holds true regardless of one's views on the issue of human-caused climate change and the scope of the potential damage it will cause. Disagreeing about the credibility of climate scientists' existing models and predictions doesn't get one out of the need to protect the quality of the atmosphere as a public good. If one is skeptical of the mainstream consensus that climate change represents a serious threat to our currently existing human civilization, then one is obligated to respond with one's own data and lay out an appropriate regulatory structure based on that information.
In the post immediately following this one, I will discuss a potential alternate solution that would not require regulation of CO2 emissions--but unfortunately relies on as-yet purely theoretical technology.
Do people in the fiberglass or printing industries expect to get raw materials and parts for free? Do they expect their employees to work for free? I doubt it. But based on some public testimony at a workshop hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (the "District") last Friday, some of them expect to continue to use our air as a public sewer, for free.
Continue reading.
This is an excellent, succinct explanation of the problem of atmospheric pollution as an externality in energy production that leads to a market failure. Through dumping their waste chemicals into the atmosphere, polluting governments, corporations, and individuals dispose of their trash for free. But they do so by dumping it on everyone else's front lawns. Because our planet's atmosphere cannot be meaningfully partitioned, it is a paradigm case of a public good. And it's subject to one hell of a tragedy of the commons problem. We all need it, but no single entity has any incentive to refrain from poisoning it just a little bit--because even if you act virtuously, your neighbors are likely to cheat. Thus, everyone's little bits and up into a dangerous total.
The most rational response to this situation is to treat the atmosphere as thought it is owned equally by all the people (and perhaps, though I don't care to get into this here, even all the life) on the planet. There then has to be a rule set about maintaining a healthy atmosphere that is enforced virtually everywhere on the planet. I don't like this idea any more than most libertarian-leaning people do, but I don't see any other currently available solution.
Note that all this holds true regardless of one's views on the issue of human-caused climate change and the scope of the potential damage it will cause. Disagreeing about the credibility of climate scientists' existing models and predictions doesn't get one out of the need to protect the quality of the atmosphere as a public good. If one is skeptical of the mainstream consensus that climate change represents a serious threat to our currently existing human civilization, then one is obligated to respond with one's own data and lay out an appropriate regulatory structure based on that information.
In the post immediately following this one, I will discuss a potential alternate solution that would not require regulation of CO2 emissions--but unfortunately relies on as-yet purely theoretical technology.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
"100 Years Of Failure And Futility"
Reason reports:
The United Nations is currently celebrating the 100th anniversary of the “international war on drugs.” Yes, it was in 1909 that 13 countries joined together in the “International Opium Commission” to halt the Chinese opium trade. And how did that go? According to the Associated Press, although strongman Mao Zedong managed (or so his government claims) to make significant inroads in the 1950s, nowadays “Government statistics put the number of known addicts in China at 1.2 million, including 700,000 heroin users, more than two-thirds of them under the age of 35.”
Strangely, after a century's worth of attempts to forcefully stamp out two perfectly legitimate and useful human urges—to make a decent living, and to pleasurably alter our consciousness—drug warriors are no closer to victory. The chief of the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, even confesses to feeling “somewhat frustrated” that his impossible job is so darn impossible.
Continue reading.
Only "Several Dozen Thousands Of Soldiers"
Jon Stewart continues to adapt well to mocking the Obama administration:
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Idea Of Resilient Communities Going Mainstream?
From John Robb's Global Guerrillas blog:
The legendary investor Jim Rogers (via CNBC), known for sniffing out global trends worthy of investment, lets loose:"I think it's astonishing, they're [the big bankrupt banks and their government enablers] ruining the US economy, they're ruining the US government, they're ruining the US central bank and they're ruining the US dollar... You are watching something in front of our eyes, very historically, which is basically the destruction of New York as a financial center and the destruction of America as the world's most powerful country. The idea that you have too much debt, too much borrowing and too much consumption and you're going to solve that problem with more debt, more consumption and more borrowing? These people are nuts. Power is shifting now from the money shifters, the guys who trade paper and money, to people who produce real goods. What you should do is become a farmer, or start a farming network."
He's getting to the nut of the idea behind resilient communities.
Obama Marks His Territory
From ABC News (via TPM):
Here's what the emblems will look like:
Seems like a waste of money to me. But it makes sense politically. Obama is basically covering the country with permanent signs advertising for his reelection campaign in 2012.
(I got the inspiration for this post's title from the UI Advocates for Liberty blog.)
President Obama announced today that his administration will begin stamping an emblem on projects funded by the economic stimulus package so that people can easily recognize the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
All projects will be stamped with the ARRA logo (short for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and lists the recovery.gov website on the emblem.
Here's what the emblems will look like:
Seems like a waste of money to me. But it makes sense politically. Obama is basically covering the country with permanent signs advertising for his reelection campaign in 2012.
(I got the inspiration for this post's title from the UI Advocates for Liberty blog.)
The Best Reusable Shopping Bag Of All Time?
Behold the ultimate in green shopping--the leather "paper" bag:
(Via swissmiss.)
I'm seriously considering buying one of these. They provide the same ideal size and shape as a paper bag while being much stronger and more reusable. If maintained properly, I'd bet a leather bag would outlast a fabric one.
(Via swissmiss.)
I'm seriously considering buying one of these. They provide the same ideal size and shape as a paper bag while being much stronger and more reusable. If maintained properly, I'd bet a leather bag would outlast a fabric one.
"My Stalker Just Grunted On My Twitter"
Posting this video involves too much irony for me to resist--via (even more ironically) @jiconoclast on Twitter:
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)
Monday, March 2, 2009
Media Companies Consider Suing Bloggers
Brian Stelter reports in New York Times:
Scraping is unquestionably inappropriate and lawsuits stemming from it may often be justifiable. However, it would be an enormous mistake for the courts to stop bloggers from publishing brief excerpts and links to original stories that appear elsewhere. Such behavior clearly falls under the fair use exception to copyright law. Also, stopping people from doing that would cripple the Internet as a news distribution medium.
And, yes, I'm fully aware of the irony involved in me excerpting and linking to an article discussing whether doing so may be illegal. However, I'm always careful not to take too much original content. Really, I tease to stories as much as I excerpt from them. It would be ridiculously irrational for any content creator to be upset by this blog.
When the popular New York business blog Silicon Alley Insider quoted a quarter of Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column in mid-February, the editor added a caveat at the end: “We thank Dow Jones in advance for allowing us to bring it to you.”
...
Generally, the excerpts have been considered legal, and for years they have been welcomed by major media companies, which were happy to receive links and pass-along traffic from the swarm of Web sites that regurgitate their news and information.
But some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work — a practice sometimes called scraping — are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content.
Continue reading.
Scraping is unquestionably inappropriate and lawsuits stemming from it may often be justifiable. However, it would be an enormous mistake for the courts to stop bloggers from publishing brief excerpts and links to original stories that appear elsewhere. Such behavior clearly falls under the fair use exception to copyright law. Also, stopping people from doing that would cripple the Internet as a news distribution medium.
And, yes, I'm fully aware of the irony involved in me excerpting and linking to an article discussing whether doing so may be illegal. However, I'm always careful not to take too much original content. Really, I tease to stories as much as I excerpt from them. It would be ridiculously irrational for any content creator to be upset by this blog.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Rush Limbaugh Is Rahm Emanuel's Best Friend
CNN reports:
Limbaugh has to be a Democratic plant. He just has to be.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday that Rush Limbaugh is the face of the GOP.
"He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure," Emanuel said on CBS's Face the Nation.
"He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty," Emanuel said. "But that's their philosophy that's enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."
Limbaugh has to be a Democratic plant. He just has to be.
Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown
[Ed. note: The embedded video for this diavlog isn't working well. Just click on the link below if it doesn't play.]
(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18066)
Topics covered:
Jonah to liberaltarians: Stimulus package! WTF?... Will the real left-wing establishment please stand up?... Is liberaltarianism a philosophy or a strategy?... Will’s insidious hyper-liberal agenda... Social conservatives’ excellence in do-gooding, baby-making... Why most political debates are meaningless...
(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18066)
Topics covered:
Jonah to liberaltarians: Stimulus package! WTF?... Will the real left-wing establishment please stand up?... Is liberaltarianism a philosophy or a strategy?... Will’s insidious hyper-liberal agenda... Social conservatives’ excellence in do-gooding, baby-making... Why most political debates are meaningless...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)