Nanotechnology: I'm Pulling for You!

Well, the verdict is in: either we're destined to become a super-race living in a post-singularity society, or we're doomed, all in the next 94 years.

Experts: Technology Could Save or Destroy Civilization This Century

I was tempted to launch into a diatribe about how the smartest people all gathered in one room can only talk about the obvious, but then I realized that there was probably a lot more that was said, but was left out of the article.

There are truly some amazing things that are happening right now.

• From the same conference: New Power Suit Amplifies Human Strength
• Propulsion with no moving parts: Microwave engine gets a boost
• Chatbots march ever closer to passing the elusive Turing Test: King of the chatbots Nanotechnology continues its soon to be exponential growth: Improbable "Buckyegg" Hatched
  
• Quitting smoking is about to get a whole lot easier: Anti-nicotine vaccine could help smokers: researchers
• Etc, etc, etc!

A century? I think we'll have a pretty good clue in the next 20 years. By then, the Internet will have evolved into something that permeates our lives, oppressive regimes will have fallen to the irrepressible effects of free speech, some major diseases will no longer be giant causes of death, and computers will be able to match the human brain in computation ability, and we'll have our answer to Global Warming, either by technology, or by finding out it was a sham.

OR the Internet will be crippled by Microsoft's innability to fix its security problems, China and North Korea will continue to be able to block free speech at their borders and keep their populations ignorant, we'll find out that Cancer and AIDS are really friggin hard to kill, the end of Moore's Law will be shown to be a brick wall, and the seas will start to rise to uncontainable levels.

I can't wait!

Clinton VS Wallace Followup

From joshvogel's livejournal blog:

Bush's response to not acting on bin Laden

So, to summarize, we have a former President who sounds like he knows what he's talking about but is possibly factually incorrect, and a current President who makes no attempt to rebut the claims, choosing instead to spin his response into an answer about why he needs the power to wiretap our phones.

Clinton VS Wallace

This interview has gained some traction, and is sparking some intense political bashing.

Wallace-Clinton Fox News Sunday interview transcript:
Fox News Sunday, Interview With President Bill Clinton, 9/22/06

Here's a video, although it's chopped up a bit from the transcript:
Video: Clinton vs. Wallace on “Fox News Sunday”
It looks like you can watch the whole thing on Fox's site as well, but good luck finding it on their home page.

Wallace on the interview, with video:
Video: Fox News hypes 'heated' Clinton interview: 'You'll see the good, the bad and the ugly'

Thinkprogress on whether Wallace ever asked other administration officials about Clarke or the USS Cole:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They Demoted Richard Clarke
Chris Wallace Has Never Asked A Bush Administration Official About The USS Cole

A link from Michelle Malkin's site claiming the opposite:
Patterico’s Pontifications » Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled Bush Officials About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/11

I can't wait until the future, when the AI inside Google will automatically do fact checking and cross-referencing for you. We can't be that far away; after all, Dvorak thinks we should already have computers that do perfect translation. I mean, how hard can it be?

Updated
This may be what Clinton was expecting (from 9/18/06):
John Stewart interviews former President Bill Clinton

Here's what I think about the Wallace interview:
-Wallace didn't think he was going to spark such an emotional reaction, and that he thought it was a legitimate question.
-The question was biased. "Why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?" should have been, "Critic xyz claims you could have done more to capture Bin Laden, do you feel this is true?"
-Wallace was unprepared: he didn't know his facts, and he forgot or underestimated the former president's spinaptitude and intelligence.
-It's unfortunate that news interviews don't throw out more hardball questions. Unfortunately, if Clinton had expected that kind of question, he wouldn't have shown.

Global Warming and Exxon PR Tactics

Back when I was writing Global Warming Pt III, I noticed that I had trouble finding scientists who supported claims that the evidence on global warming is inconclusive but that were also independent. Nearly everyone I found is involved with some an organization with a sciency name and funding from Exxon.

It seemed fishy at the time, but I tried not to think about it too much - I mean, really, are all of these guys corrupt just because Exxon supports their work?

Now, in a book excerpt, George Monbiot is claiming that the tactics Exxon uses are in fact as shady as they sound: The denial industry. From the summary:

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade.

The tactic is this: set up/fund a wide variety of scientific sounding organizations (TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), and let these organizations do the obfuscation for you. Monbiot claims that these organizations do not invent junk science, but they loudly publicize contradictory studies, sometimes even long after they've been disproved.

This reminds me of a movie that was out recently, Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the main character, a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, explains that to win any argument, all he has to do is cast doubt on his adversary's evidence.

That similarity is more than just a coincidence from the movies: the most damning part about all of this is that the tactics Exxon is using, and even some of the organizations they are paying, were invented by Philip Morris during the smoking debates of the last century.

It's unfortunate that this is the tactic Exxon is using, because it casts them as a bad guy with something to hide. If there was truly strong evidence that global warming wasn't happening/caused by CO2, wouldn't it be better for Exxon to stand up for it and act as champion?

That's where this excerpt reveals a little of its bias: there's a strong implication that the junk science is the only anti-global warming science, and that the only scientists who don't support the global warming conclusions are paid by Exxon. It's unfortunate that this article doesn't attempt to disentangle the junk science groups and the real scientists, because global warming skeptics shrug off these claims. After all, just because Exxon is paying them doesn't mean the science is wrong. And even if there are some groups out there using junk science, there are still thousands of independent scientists publishing sound papers skeptical of global warming.

Right?

Here's a video clip from the BBC with diagrams of what's happening, for my reader who can't read: VIDEO: BBC Reveals ‘Direct Link’ Between Tobacco Companies And Global Warming Deniers

Ethical Stem Cells III

The quest for ethical stem cells continues. After the last flap, which I described in Ethical Stem Cells Pt II, now it's been announced that you can take stem cells from embryos that look dead - that is, have stopped growing for 24 or 48 hours.

The work is described here: Stem cells made from 'dead' human embryo

"Regardless of how you feel about personhood for embryos, if the embryo is dead, then the issue of personhood is resolved," [Dr. Donald W] Landry said.

Problem solved. Closed the book on that one.

Right?

Wait, how do you know the embryos are dead? How do you know that the embryos weren't killed by something in the lab environment, and that if they were implanted into a womb, they wouldn't start dividing again? And then there's the question of whether there's something wrong with the cells - the original embryo did, after all, die.

The Recent UN Speeches

I'm curious about the recent speeches at the UN General Assembly in New York. I'm tired of all this "Chavez claims Bush is the Devil" and Bush vs Ahmadinejad BS.

I think a good place to start would be the speeches that they actually gave:
Chavez: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060919-4.html
Ahmadinejad: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060920-irna02.htm

After reading these, Ahmadinejad seems like a smart guy with an evil agenda, and Chavez seems like a militant revolutionary trying to stir up trouble.

I was curious about Luis Posada Carriles, mentioned by Chavez: ttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/

Both Chavez and Ahmadinejad think that the UN should be remade so the US doesn't have as much influence.
http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/09/nugget-of-truth-in-chavezs.html
Interesting that if veto power were revoked, maybe there'd be some sanctions against Iran (and North Korea?)

Then again, there's controversy as to whether sanctions actually work. http://www.ima.org.uk/conflict/papers/Hovi.pdf#search=%22do%20sanctions%20work%3F%22

It's interesting that Ahmadinejad keeps appealing to the UN to step up its efforts, and curb US imperialism. He doesn't present any solutions, mention Hezbollah, mention the continuing Taliban resistance or how anyone can solve the civil war in Iraq, but he shifts the responsibility to the UN to sort things out. Sounds like a liberal to me.

He does mention Israel and Palestine a bit - but I'm still not sure what the whole conflict is about. Even after reading this:
http://www.ima.org.uk/conflict/papers/Hovi.pdf#search=%22do%20sanctions%20work%3F%22
Hmmm, this helps a little:
http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm
Except, this mentions that the UN was instrumental in creating Israel. Wasn't Ahmadinejad asking for more UN intervention?

I normally don't listen to this stuff, but this video is pretty clear: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005959.htm

At this point in the evening, I think http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ is much more interesting.

3 Format Bliss

As I noted in a previous post, I am confused about the new hi-def DVD formats.

Maybe I no longer need to be?

Three's company: Warner patents all-in-one hybrid disc

Big Brother

Citizens of Middlesbrough, England, have a new Big Brother to welcome into their lives.

Reportedly, police have begun installing loudspeakers on their existing public security cameras, and alerting wrong-doers when they are being watched. So far, the police have broken up fights at bars, stopped illegal bicyclists, and embarrassed litterers, all without stepping on the scene. They have yet to recieve a request to take the loudspeakers down.

On the one hand, I suppose this is eerily like George Orwell's nightmare, laid out in 1984. While the police are so far only watching public places, and the news article doesn't mention any arrests, this could easily degenerate. Right now, the police are watching the cameras manually. But what happens when AI starts to pick up steam, and computers can watch all of the cameras for suspicious activity? And what happens when police no longer limit themselves to breaking up fights and catching obvious criminals, but begin to track political behavior, or log locations of specific individuals?

On the other hand, if the system is restricted to exactly where it is today, this could be a wonderful development. Police presence everywhere crime occurs! Problems in a certain neighborhood, but not enough manpower to constantly police it? Put up a camera and loudspeaker. Boom - crime evaporates.

Or does it? When will the public learn which infractions the police will enforce, and which they won't? Or what the identification limits of the cameras are? Or to only commit crime where cameras aren't around? I will tell you the answer in 10 years.

Alternate 9/11 History

My friend sent me this Newsweek link, An Alternate 9/11 History

This article, I was surprised to learn, is actually offensive to me. I don't know who this columnist is - I doubt I've read him before - but his "opinion" is pure fantasy. I challenge this guy to name one president that has so clearly seen the issues, so effortlessly won over opponents, and so clearly done the right thing. He mentions Lincoln - does he remember that Lincoln's actions split the nation in two, and eventually caused his death? He mentions FDR - but forgets that this "bipartisan" president also tried to pack the Supreme Court, delayed entering WWII (while the Holocaust was occurring), and imprisoned Japanese Americans.

I'm not claiming that Bush has made the right decisions, or that Bush is a good president. However, this guy's article plays off the clear distinction, given a 20/20 view of the past, between an ideal president and Bush. If it sounds too easy -- it is.

Iran's President

I never know for sure where Iran is coming from.

On the one hand, the President was widely reputed in American papers to have stolen the election. He's a reported hardliner. He doesn't say anything when his people shout "Death to America." His country supplies bombs to Hezbollah.

On the other hand, he seems like a nice guy in this Time Magazine interview, and although he supports some radically anti-American views (and used the world Zionist), he doesn't seem like the crazy, warmongering Muslim the western media would have us believe.

Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today. We need logic.

So, again, I'm torn. I'm torn between believing that Muslims will lie through their teeth to get the upper hand, where they can kill us, and believing that, really, this would all just go away if we would stop being world police.

Victory in the New DVD Format Wars?

There's been a lot of speculation on tar Interweb about the coming video format wars: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray.

I'm not an expert on this nerdiness, but my understanding is this: HD-DVD has the advantage of being a cheap to manufacture upgrade to existing DVDs, while Blu-Ray has more storage capacity. I would think cheaper would be better, but with Sony putting their PS3 behind the Blu-Ray, it's going to be a tough call.

Until now? Toshiba develops Hybrid DVD and HD-DVD

The resulting disc conforms to DVD standards and can be played on DVD players as well as standard HD-DVD player too with a firmware upgrade.

But wait... doesn't Blu-Ray also have the ability to play DVDs? Blu-Ray.com

JVC was showcasing their BD/DVD hybrid media (33.5GB), which was developed to ease the transition from DVD to Blu-ray by creating a disc that will play in both BD players and DVD players. The hybrid disc is basically a single-layer BD-ROM (25GB) and a dual-layer DVD-ROM (8.5GB) in the same disc, which can be read in both players as the Blu-ray layer is transparent to the red laser used in a conventional DVD player.

Now I'm just confused again.

Ethical Stem Cell Lines Pt II

Last week in my post Ethical Stem Cell Lines I pointed out that the researchers who did the study actually ended up destroying all of the embryos.

Apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed. Scientists defend "ethical" stem cell experiment

"You made our job a lot tougher," said [Sen. Arlen] Specter

From what I can glean from the media's retarded coverage of this (well this article is a little better: 'Ethical' stem-cell paper under attack), the researchers merely showed that the concept of creating stem cells without destroying the embryo was possible. Knowing already that you can take a cell from an embryo without killing it, as is done regularly in "preimplantation genetic diagnosis" (where the embryo is screened for genetic diseases), the researchers took two "so as not to be wasteful", which does kill the embryo.

The researchers seem genuinely baffled:

"This technique has been used throughout the world for years and years," retorted Lanza. "Everything I said is absolutely correct and accurate."

"It is not fair. It is not right," Lanza said.

I can't tell, without reading the paper, who is to blame for distorting this. Nature magazine claims responsibility for some of the exaggeration, but the researchers themselves put the misleading claim in their paper:

"What we have done, for the first time, is to actually create human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo itself."

Again: D'oh!

Telepathy is Real

There have been some amazing discoveries by science recently. The earth is warming, ethical stem cells have been created, a supernova was witnessed happening, and a giant canyon in the Atlantic was mapped.

Now, we finally have the answer to another burning question: Telephone telepathy

Rupert Sheldrake ... said on Tuesday he had conducted experiments that proved that such precognition existed for telephone calls and even e-mails.

I guess that settles it.

The Unfortunate Consequences of Censorship

I subscribed to some International related news feeds, in the hopes that I would get some non-US perspective about the news. A couple of the feeds deal with Asian news. I found this link today:

Mao Zedong: the God of China

Unfortunately (for my personal goal to increase my own awareness), it appears this was not written by someone Chinese:

Numerous Mao-backed movements, like the "Great Leap Forward," a disastrous attempt at speedy industrialization, and the Cultural Revolution, led to tens of millions of deaths and the persecution of innocent people.

China has recently scrubbed Mao from its textbooks, and indeed much of history, choosing instead to focus on

economics, technology, social customs and globalization.

(from New Chinese textbooks erase history)

I guess we can only hope that in another generation, people will again start to wonder about their history, and stop vilifying the West for their problems.