• A Presidential Debate on Science

    Science Debate 2008 is a small group of people who, in 2007, began working to “restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue”.

    Enlisting the help of over 38,000 people they gathered a total of 3,400 pressing science questions from nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities.

    Narrowed down to just 14, the questions were then fielded to the presidential candidates and their answers compiled as the top 14 science questions facing America.

  • Collective Noun for Geeks

    In expected atypical style, my colleagues and I had a discussion on ideas for the collective noun for (software) developers. The obvious candidates rolled in:

    A
    …geek
    …thread
    …hash
    …(dis)array … of developers.

    However, after dwelling on the issue for too long we decided the most appropriate was an embarrassment of developers, or the more generic, an awkwardness of geeks.

    After the fact, I stumbled upon Good Math, Bad Math’s musings on the same problem and came to a conclusion: there can’t be just one collective noun.  We must decompose the problem into its constituent parts and have a collective noun for each type of geek.

    A hurd of GNU geeks
    An n of maths geeks
    A gravity of physics geeks
    A convention of comic book geeks

    The list goes on… as does the embarrassment. Sorry.

  • Science’s 10 Most Beautiful Experiments

    Interested in finding “the most beautiful physics experiment of all time”, Robert P. Crease (a member of the philosophy department at the State University of New York and the historian at Brookhaven National Laboratory) asked physicist to nominate their favourites.

    The New York Times duly compiled the results, but rather than visiting their un-scannable list, here are the results with links to the appropriate Wikipedia page:

    1. Young’s double-slit experiment applied to the interference of single electrons
    2. Galileo’s experiment on falling objects
    3. Millikan’s oil-drop experiment
    4. Newton’s decomposition of sunlight with a prism
    5. Young’s light-interference experiment
    6. Cavendish’s torsion-bar experiment
    7. Eratosthenes’ measurement of the Earth’s circumference
    8. Galileo’s experiments with rolling balls down inclined planes
    9. Rutherford’s discovery of the nucleus
    10. Foucault’s pendulum
  • The Beauty of Programming

    I don’t really know how to explain my fascination with programming, but I’ll try.  To someone who does it, it’s the most interesting thing in the world.  It’s a game much more involved than chess, a game where you can make up your own rules and where the end result is what you make of it.

    And yet, to the outside, it looks like the most boring thing on Earth.

    Part of the initial excitement in programming is easy to explain: just the fact that when you tell the computer to do something, it will do it.  Unerringly.  Forever.  Without a complaint.

    And that’s interesting in itself.

    But blind obedience on its own, while initially fascinating, obviously does not make for a very likeable companion.  In fact, that part gets pretty boring fairly quickly.  What makes programming so engaging is that, while you can make the computer do what you want, you have to figure out how.

    I’m personally convinced that computer science has a lot in common with physics.  Both are about how the world works at a rather fundamental level.  The difference, of course, is that while in physics you’re supposed to figure out how the world is made up, in computer science you create the world.  Within the confines of the computer, you’re the creator.  You get to ultimately control everything that happens.  If you’re good enough, you can be God.  On a small scale.

    […] The only thing that limits what you can do are the capabilities of the machine—and, more and more often these days, your own abilities.

    It’s an exercise in creativity.

    Linus Torvalds in Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary

  • The Asexual Couple

    As part of The Guardian’s First Person series, Paul Cox, 24, explains how he and his wife found love and happiness as an asexual couple, despite not being physically attracted to each other.

    In a fascinating post touching on many topics in her area of expertise, Dr Petra Boynton—a psychologist specialising in sex and relationships health—comments on the interview and its after-effects.

    Asexuality has long been documented within sex research but has only become a public issue recently with the rise in our sexualised culture (so people are shocked that some of the population don’t have or want sex) and the increase in asexual awareness groups. We’re seeing a treatment of asexuals within the popular press that echoes the way the media has previously dealt with gays and bisexuals. So asexuals are seen as folk who’re just going through a phase, who’ve not met the right person yet, or who just haven’t made up their minds what they want. And we’re very keen to ‘fix’ those who say they don’t want sex in much the same way we want to curb those who say they want it a lot. So it’s nice to see a general interview with a couple that lets them tell you how they see things – although disappointingly this story has led to numerous discussions on TV and radio, mostly with people saying ‘but how can they not want sex? There must be something wrong with them!’

    via Mind Hacks

  • Great Diagrams in Anthropology, Linguistics and Social Theory

    The Flickr group Great Diagrams in Anthropology, Linguistics and Social Theory is fairly self-explanatory: I’m looking forward to seeing the group grow.

    via Neuroanthropology and Mind Hacks

  • Randy Pausch Lectures

    By now I’m sure everyone has watched, listened to, or at the very least heard of, Randy Pausch’s lecture Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams which he gave at Carnegie Mellon University a year ago today (the lecture is more commonly referred to as The Last Lecture).

    Since then I’ve watched two more speeches by Pausch which I highly recommend everyone watches: Time Management and his 2008 commencement speech at CMU.

    For everything else Pausch, Dr. Gabriel Robins’ website should be your first port of call.

  • Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Earth

    Bad Astronomy compiles a list of ten things you don’t know about the Earth. You probably (hopefully?) know a few of these already.

    1. The Earth is smoother than a billiard ball
    2. The Earth is an oblate spheroid
    3. The Earth isn’t an oblate spheroid
    4. The Earth is not exactly aligned with its geoid
    5. Jumping into a hole through the Earth is like orbiting it
    6. The Earth’s interior is hot due to impacts, shrinkage, sinkage, and radioactive decay
    7. The Earth has at least five natural moons; but not really
    8. The Earth is getting more massive
    9. Mt. Everest isn’t the biggest mountain
    10. Destroying the Earth is hard

    Amazingly I did know about the bloggers’ favourite, number 5, thanks to an uploaded clip from an old History Channel programme on gravity. So there.

    via Kottke

  • Drugs for Optimising Morality

    This month’s British Journal of Psychiatry has an interesting essay on ‘moral pharmacology’. Mind Hacks picks up the story:

    [Sean Spence] argues that while most attention has been focused on ‘smart drugs’ and cognitive enhancement, medication is already being subtly used to improve ethical behaviour and we should prepare for a revolution in ‘moral pharmacology’.

    […]

    Recent considerations of the ethics of cognitive enhancement have specifically excluded consideration of social cognitions (such as empathy, revenge or deception), on the grounds that they are less amenable to quantification. Nevertheless, it would be regrettable if this limitation entirely precluded consideration of what must be an important question for humanity: can pharmacology help us enhance human morality? Might drugs not only make us smarter but also assist us in becoming more ‘humane’?

  • Books to Understand the Current Economic Climate

    The Washington Post recently asked a host of ‘smart people’ for recommendations on what book will help us make sense of the current economic climate.

    Those asked include Peter Orszag (Director, Congressional Budget Office); Greg Mankiw (professor of economics at Harvard University); and John Allen Paulos (author and mathematics professor at Temple University). However, my favourite reply came from Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, chairman of HDNet, and the founder of Broadcast.com (sold to Yahoo in ’99 for $6 billion):

    “I don’t think there is such a book. In my humble opinion, people who actually believe they can understand all the issues are the ones that got us to where we are today. In reality, there are so many variables and so little data, it’s all a guess. I don’t think a book exists that can explain it. Is there a book out there called ‘No One Has a Clue What Is Going On and the Whole World Is Guessing’?”

    via Paul Kedrosky