NIH

My grant should be funded instead....I don't think a study is needed to figure this out:

The federal government has spent nearly half a million dollars to fund a study to find out why some men would prefer not to wear condoms during sex.

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a branch of the National Institutes of Health, has awarded a $423,500 grant to researchers at The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction.

This sounds hillarious at face value, there may be something else in the grant, and the media spin is affecting my view. Still, this makes me laugh a bit.

Conciseness

WARNING: Science writing post ahead.

Royce Murray does it again with an excellent editorial. He is discussing how long articles are now, and states:

A length guideline of seven journal pages was established in 1995. For a number of years it held back the long tide but now seems to be forgotten by many. In 1983, 1989, 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2008, the average length of papers published in our research section was 3.8, 6.4, 6.7, 7.1, 7.0, and 8.0 pages, respectively. I consider an average seven-page length already long, and an average of eight pages is alarming.

Dr. Murray, your point is well taken. I have eight papers published in Analytical Chemistry. Five of those have been in 2008 - 2009, with an average length of 7.4 +/- 1.5 pages. Although I am (slightly) below the average, I am alarmed by the length. I also dislike reading long articles. They often have multiple stories, and I forget the point by the end.

What makes it difficult to keep papers short? Dr. Murray addresses this, but for me it's figures. I strive to keep the body of the paper under 4000 words (~4 printed journal pages), however figures get complicated. I have multiple panels, and they are large.

I will also try to keep blog posts shorter in the future.

Is Barack Obama stalking me?

Just an obervation, but read on:

Michael Heien lived in Springfield, IL until he was 7, Obama:

Standing outside the Historic Old State Capitol building where Abraham Lincoln gave a famous speech condemning slavery and calling for the United States to unite, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a 45-year-old with two years of federal legislative experience under his belt, today announced that he will claim the mantle of Lincoln and as president heal a divided nation.

Michael Heien then lived in Arnold, MO (where he attended Fox High School), Obama:

ARNOLD, Mo. (AP) - The White House says President Barack Obama's town hall meeting on his 100th day in office will be in Arnold on Wednesday.The event is scheduled for 10:20 a.m. CST at Fox Senior High School in the suburban St. Louis
city. The White House says the event is open to the public, but a ticket is needed. Doors open at 8 a.m.

I went to graduate school in Chapel Hill, NC, Obama:

CHAPEL HILL -- Sources tell Eyewitness News Senator Barack Obama landed at RDU around 11:30 this morning unannounced.

He was then whisked away by the secret service to the Edwards home in Chapel Hill. Obama advisors say he wanted a private setting to avoid a media circus.

Chopper 11 captured the only glimpse of what could possibly result in a coveted endorsement from John Edwards.

I know live in State College, PA, Obama:

As a result of a massive registration push by a student group, Sen. Barack
Obama, D-Ill., will be speaking at 11:30 a.m. Sunday on the Old Main lawn,
sources close to the campaign confirmed.

As part of his six-day "Road to Change" bus tour across Pennsylvania, the presidential hopeful will be stopping in State College, said Greg Stewart, co-chair of Obama's Pennsylvania field team.

Coincidence??? You decide.

No word on when/if he will visit Kirksville, MO, Bradington, FL, or Alegre, Brazil....

Points

Since my last point post (October 24, 2007) I said the following:

At www.timindy.com/blogtool I have finally cracked into the upper-half in the points standings. Check it:

...

I finally left the basement, and I am not turning back. It will be tough to catch up with Muncher and RK, but I got 400 points today, compared to Munchers 0. So if current trends continue...

Well, a year and a half later, here we are. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Below are the current point totals:

Michael = 7,250
MuncherW = 7,073
Avo&Ava Bergkamp = 6,975
Steve C. = 4,700
Brando = 4,325
RK = 4,191
Scantabulous = 3,150
Janice&Dave = 2,800
Karen K = 2,450
Randy = 2,150
Liz and Jay = 1,925
Reedspeed = 1,750
G & G Richmond = 1,650
Great G&G Bergkamp = 1,401
kjbcrev = 1,175
Mary = 975
Peter and Annelies = 900
Jurgen en Geert = 650
Harry = 500
Pastor John = 500
"Counterproductive" = 500
Jenny = 400
Barb = 300
JoshB = 200
CaroleW = 200
Curt and Sara = 100

I made up 4, 295 points on Muncher. My lead is tenuous, I know how cruel the point system can be.

In addition, Brando points now exist, and I took the lead thanks to a recent point posting.

Michael L. Heien - 24
Cyberninja - 20
AUA - 17
Capitanbelgium - 14
Stu - 12
JiveTurkey9000 - 12
Muncher - 8
Hammer - 5
Mindy - 5
Moif - 5
Matt - 2

Brando points are on a different scale, using myself as a metric, 1 Brando point is worth about 300 timindy points. I don't know of an open market to exchange them, though.

Star Trek: Spock

Spock. Where do I start? This is a tough one to write. Here are my main problems. Spock was my favorite character, so if they mess with him too much (in order to make him appeal to more people) I feel cheated. I think they crossed that line in the film. I liked young Spock, the actor did an excellent job capturing his manerisms.

Brando pointed out that Spock had that very sarcastic “Live long and prosper” delivered to the high council. Spock (in TOS) has always seemed sarcastic; it’s one of the things I liked about his character. The “pure logic” and “detachment” he has allowed him to deliver lines which we would think are sarcastic, even when the sarcasm was not intended (at times it was intended).
Maybe I’m overanalyzing, but the delivery was too on the nose (i.e., if you didn’t know he was being sarcastic, you should be hospitalized). I think that is part of the “dumbing down” of his character (and the film).

This is related to my biggest complaint: he’s too emotional. Sorry, he was. One of the purposes of art is to explore the human condition. Science fiction can do this in a way no other genre can; it uses (fictional) alien cultures to highlight something about our (real) attributes. These fictional cultures often exaggerate a certain attribute present in a real society (e.g. honor); they may also hold some ideal we would find disgusting (e.g. eugenics). This is done to question and answer what is it that makes us human? By making Spock more emotional (human) we are robbed of this ability. He is supposed to be the detached, logical side of Kirk, while McCoy is a hothead.

Spock would NEVER make out with some chick before transporting off (unless he was under the influence of some alien spore). He turned down Nurse Chapel more times than I can count. Once in TOS Uhura came on to Spock, and he had no idea. Not the romantic type. I find it odd that when his planet is destroyed, he starts making out with her? She wanted to comfort him; I understand her motivation, but what about him? His logic would preclude him from showing emotion; in fact, he would have been embarrassed. This was observed in Vulcans throughout the film. They were too emotional, and apparently racist.

They made Spock more emotional to make him more accessible, likeable, and the hero in the film. Lame. Since when has Star Trek been about being likeable to the masses?

Star Trek: Continued

Believe it or not, I LOVED the movie. I know I complain about it, but if i didnt like the film, my review would read: Worst. Trek. Ever.

The best thing about the film: the characters. When I heard McCoy for the first time, I loved him. They found a way to make him more crotchety; and he was not a parody, nor was he an impression. I thought: this is Bones. He had the good lines, too.

Kirk was top notch. He is a hero from a different era. Even in the 60s, the swagger and bravado was already on the way out. Kirk had it. Way to avoid Shatner’s signature delivery.

Uhura: they gave her an attitude, talked up her linguistic abilities (but she is clueless when reading Klingon in Star Trek VI?, but I digress). I liked the character. Exit question: did her character have depth?

Scotty was hilarious; funny and apparently an engineering genius. He even said “I’m givin’ her all I’ve got” (or words to that effect). He likes sandwiches, not scotch now :(.

Spock will get his own post…

I felt some chemistry when the characters were together. Star Trek is about the characters, after all. Good job here! Live long and prosper.

Star ?

Update: College Humor does a good job here...

Star Trek week continues here at Lower Decks! Minor spoilers below.... Cory raised an interesting point in one comment, I had posted on it earlier, but now I feel compelled to expand upon it a bit.

The movie “looked” like Star Wars a bit, that may be a good thing. Star Trek design in TOS had some funny weapons. But the movie looked too much like Star Wars in two certain sequences.

1. When they jumped into warp for the first time…Sulu messed up, the rest of the fleet left, and the enterprise was standing still. I swear, if you listen closely, you can hear Chewbacca howl in the background, and then someone says “They told me they fixed it!”

2. When Luke was lost on Hoth Kirk was marooned on Delta Vega, they had those monsters chasing him, and the bigger one ate the smaller one. That reminded me of the similar scene in The Phantom Menace. So now we’re ripping off the (second?) worst Star Wars film? He was then rescued by Obi Won Old Spock, (ice monsters frighten easily, but they will soon return, in bigger numbers). Old spock told him to go to Degoba, and seek Yoda get back on the Enterprise and kick Spock’s butt.

Those are the most significant parts…at least they didn’t have the scrolling text in the beginning…

Star Trek: WTF?

Consider this your warning: spoilers ahead! Stop reading; plot details will be discussed below.

I know I may be focusing on my knowledge of the minutiae here, but seriously? An exploding star is "threatening the entire galaxy" (what does that even mean?) and here is what we are going to do: let's get some cranky old Vulcan, stick him in our fastest spaceship with some black hole creating stuff, and have him go ALONE to inject this red matter into the supernova. In the words of Spock, highly illogical. No sane person would agree to this. They would send more people. And don't you think more than one race in the galaxy would want to fix this "galaxy-destroying explosion?" Yea me too.

In addition, since when has travelling through a black hole resulted in time travel in the Star Trek universe? Yea, that's right, since never.

This writing is so lazy, it could have spewed from the powerbook of the laziest Hollywood hack.

There are 11 Star Trek movies; of these 4 use time travel (4, 7, 8, and the new one). That's a lot. It's also lazy.

Kirk (maybe a writer) realized this. He said something like:

Going back in time, changing history, isn't that cheating?

Thank you Kirk, for having the courage to speak truth to power. It was also hillarious.

Old Spock sucked. Every scene he was in was horrible; he sucked the life out of them. I think the weight of his personality made him a legendary character, unapproachable and inaccessible. And why didn't he help Kirk out? Planets were in jeopardy, but he didn't want to help out so young Spock and Kirk could be friends? Seriously? Their friendship is worth jeopardizing billions of lives. Lazy writing.

In defense of canon

See my earlier posts on the new Star Trek films here and here. I wanted to write a response so something Leonard Nimoy recently said in this article.

But changing the "canon" -- events and characters that shape "Star Trek" lore -- could leave legions of old "Trekkies" thinking Abrams had done something "highly illogical," as Spock might have once said. Old Spock Leonard Nimoy begs to differ.

"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae," Nimoy told Reuters. "Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

Thank you for your arm chair, psychoanalysis, Mr. Nimoy. You got me pegged. We get bitter, cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like us or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment or our knowledge of the minutiae as a way to explain our frustrations.


Here is why canon matters. To start, let's define it. There are many definitions, I'm going with this one.

can⋅on [kan-uh n] –noun

a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy

Canon is basically a set of rules. I am sure someone out there has written volumes on this, but rules can enhance your enjoyment of certain activities. Every sport, card game, etc, has rules. As a participant in any of these, you have to work within the rules to win. Poker would not be much fun, if halfway through your hand, the casino told you they have a royal fizbin, thus winning your $$$. That may not be a good example, here is another one. Poetry is is a form of art, which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to its meaning. What do you think of my haiku:

Nimoy is lame
He was once good
They should have left him dead after the wrath of Khan

What's that? That's a horrible haiku? Why? Because it doesn't follow the 5-7-5 pattern? Well, maybe you should not get so fixated on your knowledge of the minutiae. The same thing is true in a lot of other art forms. Poetry should have to work within some scheme (perhaps rhyming perhaps iambic pentameter) otherwise it is simply prose, even if it's about gay cowboys eating pudding.

Should we mention music too? There is a reason very few people listen to modern composers; not because they cannot appreciate music, but because a lot of it is, well, not easy to listen to. Compare George Crumb to any little known composer from the 1700s and I bet you would appreciate the latter more. Perhaps the work of Richard Tuttle is what you like?

My point is, art requires certain boundaries, not to limit, but to enhance people enjoyment of it. This is not universal, but one of the main things we expect when reading a work of fiction is that the universe is understandable; it takes place in a universe with it's own set of rules which must be obeyed. It's one of the reasons I (and others) like Tolkien; he created a universe which is "complete." If you start to mess with things like, oh, an entire species characteristics (hey, who knew Vulcans now wear emotion on their sleeves) it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Your feedback will be appreciated.

Star Trek: Filmography

Warning: minor spoilers ahead, related to aesthetics, no plot spoliers.

As a loyal Trekker, let me start out by saying, I think the people who make Star Trek owe me. I will pose the following question: did the film look and feel like Star Trek? By that question, I do not mean "Did it have cheesy special effects, and sets made of cardboard?" What I am asking is "Did the film look like it belonged in the Star Trek universe?"

It did, for the most part. The sets and ship designs were obviously updated. The bridge also looked "white," and a little too sterile for my tastes (it looked like that set from the third Matrix movie). Engineering section looked good; a little more industrial than typical Star Trek engineering section (i.e., Enterprise), but I guess that's what happens when you get actual $$$ to make a film. The Romulan ship looked stupid. I know it was supposed to be some sort of mining ship, but come on! Who designs a ship like that?

Biggest problem: ILM did the special effects. Did anyone notice how engaging the Warp drive looks a lot like jumping into hyperspace? But, apparently, "traveling through warp ain't like dustin' crops, boy." In addition, the phasers shots (the energy beams, not the guns) looked a lot like "blasters shots" (from Star Wars). I will say, "Bat'leths are no match with a good phaser at your side."

That wasn't my only problem: the music was awful. Sure, it was good, but it did not remind me of Star Trek (some may read this as see that as a positive). I didn't want dramatic musical stings, or that "fight music" from Star Trek, but the composer could have done a better job capturing the spirit of the original music.

Star Trek: Initial Impressions

I saw the new Star Trek film tonight. I have a series of posts on the film lined up, so get ready for Trek Week here at Lower Decks!

Some of these posts will have spoilers, so be careful when reading them. I will have warnings.

Needless to say; the film was good. I was enertained; a lot of stuff was put in for fans or the original series. The best thing to come out of the movie: young blood. There were plenty of people out to see the film who have never seen a Star Trek film before (as evidenced by the guy behind me who said "Use the Force, Spock," although it may have been irony). Anyway, they walked away happy, and perhaps more Star Trek is in the works.

Cory, in case your keeping score:

Star Wars Prequels: -3 (-2 points for The Phantom Menace, -2 points for Attack of the Clones, and +1 points for Revenge of the Sith, mostly just for seeing Anakin get cut up).

Star Trek Prequels: 1

Nuts

Sometimes, environmentalists go too far... Here is one of those times. Domino now sells "Carbon Free" Sugar. Seriously? Carbon free sugar? I think I remember learning the chemical formula for sugar in the third grade; C6H12O6. Its a carbohydrate. That carbo from carbon, and hydrate from hydrate.

I know what they "meant." That the growing and harvesting process does not release more carbon into the atmosphere. But here are my problems with it: shouldn't carbon free mean carbon free? In addition, I think most of these "carbon offset" vendors are scam artists, with no regulation and don't really do any good; they really don't offset your carbon, just your guilt.

Atheists: wicked smart

Anytime someone professes the intelligence of one group over another, you can be sure of one thing: they are dumb.

This study claims people with high IQs are less likely to believe in God. I recently heard this (from atheists). I think the line of thought goes something like this...I value intelligence, and I am self-selecting into an intelligent group, everyone else is stupid. I am not 100% sure that is how it goes, but I probably have the idea right.

I would like to point out, yes, atheists are really, really, wicked smart. According to this study, 21% of atheists believe in God (8% are "absolutely certain"). Yes, you read that right. As a group atheists are that smart.

I point them to the dictionary definition of atheist:

–noun, a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There is a level of nuance there I don't think I will ever grasp.

Earth in the Balance

I don't want to alarm you, but I will. As a scientist, my job is to make observations, and interpret them. I have been tracking the amount of sunlight (minutes of daylight) reaching me in State College, PA since the beginning of the year. I have plotted the results below.

I have also noticed the days have been getting longer. Nice, huh? We all enjoy the sunlight. But the rate of change in the amount of sunlight has been increasing. I cannot stress this enough. You won't enjoy the increase later on, let me explain. With my data I constructed a sophisticated computer model to predict the amount of sunlight we will be getting later on this year. The graph is below:

Before my next birthday, we will have 24 hours of daylight. This will wreak havoc on our ecosystem, causing destruction not seen since, well, ever. The planet will be scorched, human civilization will end. State College is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of sunlight! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I think some type of subterranean dwelling will allow human kind to survive, so you better get to work on yours. The government doesn't want you to knwo this...when I contacted several obervatories with my predictions, they laughed...They know the truth, though...

By the way, you're welcome.

Stamps

This is a rehash of an earlier post, but I felt the need to post it again, and come clean.

As you may know, the price of a first-class stamp will increase from $0.42 to $0.44 (on may 11th). This makes we want to post two things:

1. The question to Life, the Universe, and Everything no longer is: "How much does a first-class stamp cost?" It will be, "How much did a first-class stamp cost on September 30, 2008?"

2. When the price rose to $0.41 in February 2007, the USPS introduced the "Forever Stamp." This thing can be used no matter how much they jack up the prices. In fact, even in a post-apocalyptic future, Kevin Costner (The Postman) will accept a "Forever Stamp," and deliver your letter. When the stamp was first introduced, I invested heavily, and purchased $7, 999.92 worth of the forever stamp. Many people laughed, but today I am laughing all the way to the bank. On May 11, 2009, that same investment will be worth $8, 585.28, a annulized return of 3.41%.

You may say "that's not so good." But over the same time period, the S and P has not done as well...Here is the graph over the same period.



So, had I invested in, oh, say a index mutual fund that mirrored the S&P 500, my same $7, 999.92 would now be worth $4320.65 (a 46% loss). So, guess what I really invested in? Those stamps are looking pretty good...