Recent blog entries for ncm

skvidal: The saving grace is that (1) you don't need oil to fix nitrogen, you only need electricity; (2) You can fix nitrogen anywhere you can get electricity, even out in the desert or on the deep ocean. Fixed nitrogen can be transported as cheaply from those places as from wherever it's being made today. Wind, solar, ocean-thermal, and geothermal power are at their most practical far from populated places, and nitrogen fixing need proceed only when there's power available, e.g. when the sun's up. Fertilizer supplies won't crash, but will get more expensive.

I expect wind power to get much cheaper soon, via e.g. Makani kites. Solar thermal is already practical and cost-effective.

Let me be the first to say that yesterday's xkcd was ... trippy.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitron.

shlomif wrote: In the Perl world we constantly say that "no one knows all of Perl, not even Larry Wall". But it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your best to master as much as you can out of it, or need to.

To me it means exactly that.

By the way, Objectivism is technically not a philosophy, but a fetish. In case you didn't know.

etbe: Any expression "Baby Jesus cries when ..." is categorically funny or, at worst, inoffensive. To complain about what occurs in the ellipsis is to admit that you actually read it, thereby demolishing any standing you may have had to register any sort of opinion. Sorry, them's the rules.

Now this... In short,

he: I write Free Software. she: Cool, me too!
he: I'm into Open Source. she: [kicks testicles, storms off]

I've been trying to explain the distinction for years. We need to print up buttons to pass out at the next Con: "Free Software/Me too" and "Open Source/Kick my testicles".

Something I posted on Seth Roberts's blog:

I like this term “twisted skepticism”. It’s more palatable than “dishonest skepticism”.

Justifications for the habit of twisted skepticism, and for specific examples of it, always sound plausible, but are often revealed as rationalization when the same individuals fail to be similarly skeptical of ill-supported notions favored within their community. E.g., no astronomer can remain in good standing while expressing any skepticism that 98% of the universe’s mass/energy is composed of stuff of which no hint has ever been detected in a laboratory. Likewise, none may be skeptical of the faith that gravitation must be the entire explanation for any large-scale phenomenon, or that the Doppler effect must explain all observed red shift, without exception.

Different fields of science have different levels of dogmatism; astronomy’s may be higher than most, paleontology perhaps lower.

I have identified two systematically irrational behaviors common to scientists. First, there is commonly an established theory which is inconsistent with new data. (Perhaps no diagnostic data ever supported it; it may have originated as an honest speculation by a respected elder.) An alternative theory is simpler, accounts equally well for old data, but also predicts the new data. A rational scientist would accept that there are now two theories on possibly equal footing, but this never happens. Instead, the new theory must pass overwhelmingly more stringent tests than the old theory ever did before it may even be considered as a reasonable alternative. Until this occurs, the contradictory data is ignored or discounted.

A related systematically irrational behavior occurs when new data conclusively falsifies a commonly-held theory (or received speculation), but no one has advanced a palatable alternative. The typical response is to ignore, discount, or even actively suppress the new data.

Systematically irrational behavior by scientists has seemed odd enough that I have puzzled over it for years. The best explanation I have identified is that scientists are self-selected from among the population as those who feel a need to know, and to feel that they do know. To go from relying on one theory to considering two feels like going from knowing to only half-knowing. To discard a theory one has lived with feels like going from knowing something to knowing nothing. Both are, evidently, intolerable to most people who choose to become scientists.

The above does not suffice to explain the condition of astronomy.

Apfelschmerz: noun, the dissatisfaction that arises when one realizes one's Apple® product not only is imperfect (e.g. gets too hot), but would in any case fail to make one happy. Usually addressed (but not ultimately relieved) by purchasing another Apple® product.

I wrote my geekiest poem yet yesterday. For context, you need to read the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week (SV-POW) posting "Your Neck is Pathetic". Then,

My neck is pathetic, I know't,
Despite ev'ry effort to grow't.
With neckbones pneumatic
I could swan operatic
With an S for the shape of my throat.

It turns out that goose (or swan) and brachiosaurus neckbones are similar in being mostly air. You may think of the brachiosaurus as a very large four-legged goose.

Yay, James Andrewartha (trs80)! James reveals that poking the F7 key makes the Epiphany text cursor go away, so my cursor keys scroll pages again correctly.

Yay, Matthew Garrett (mjg59)! Matthew will shortly save the universe and make kernel and userspace power management work. I presume that will include making Epiphany not wake up 50 times/sec. I hope that means that Javascript spin loops will be throttled after a few seconds too.