tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54850144391768265092024-02-07T18:44:37.494-08:00Chubby KnowledgeChubby Knowledge is meant to be a continuation of Fat Knowledge blog (http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com) looking at our planet's and country's most important scientific, technological, and hilarious issues.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-91053233328907683712013-07-05T14:11:00.000-07:002013-07-05T14:11:26.183-07:00Growth of Obesity in the US: an Animated GIF<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzTGLe99KqH9eXowgQ8UuKipMbeWYGbklIO2POjyVGu2RJBPsss-3wHT_HzGtoL3OuqgMg0VcE0Qy2TiGp2_h8blrCul0VbtXhdpUdghV5szTMDmX06y37FsrrCwI2qiUohpeWZKqxt3I/s1600/obesity-trends-among-u-s-adults.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzTGLe99KqH9eXowgQ8UuKipMbeWYGbklIO2POjyVGu2RJBPsss-3wHT_HzGtoL3OuqgMg0VcE0Qy2TiGp2_h8blrCul0VbtXhdpUdghV5szTMDmX06y37FsrrCwI2qiUohpeWZKqxt3I/s1600/obesity-trends-among-u-s-adults.gif" /></a></div>
From the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>. Fairly self-explanatory. More than a third of adults are now obese in this country (and over half are overweight, meaning that for the first time, <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-majority-of-americans-now-answering-to-name,32172/">over half of Americans respond to the term "Lardface"</a>). Could this be in part because we are eating 60% more added oil and 40% more added sugar than <a href="http://chubbyknowledge.blogspot.com/2012/02/american-annual-food-consumption.html">we were 60 years ago</a>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-16813096835282222912013-06-20T13:23:00.001-07:002013-06-20T13:41:48.363-07:00Volume of PeopleA coworker recently texted me from a conference asking the volume of a sphere that would contain the world's population. xkcd's "What-if?" has <a href="http://what-if.xkcd.com/8/">already addressed</a> the area that would be required for everyone to stand (Rhode Island), but now we can stack people.<br />
<br />
My question for this was how comfortable the people in my sphere are. There are some <a href="http://www.census.gov/popclock/">seven billion people in the world</a>. In New York City, apartments must be at least 400 square feet, although <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/nyc-apartment-size-bloomberg-micro-apartments_n_1660396.html">new "micro-apartments" will be 300</a> SF. Let's assume each person on the planet lives in a 300 SF studio. With 8-foot ceilings and two feet of structural floor, that's 3,000 cubic feet per person. For all seven billion people, we'd need nearly 150 cubic miles of building, so our giant sphere apartment building would be 6.5 miles in diameter. Let's say 7 miles if we allow for elevators and hallways.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://futuristicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/technosphere-technopark-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://futuristicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/technosphere-technopark-01.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><i><b>Like the <a href="http://futuristicnews.com/technosphere-futuristic-building-in-dubai/">Technosphere</a>, only 100 times as wide</b></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What if the sphere was instead a future spaceship making some trip to another planet or star system? <a href="http://www.frommers.com/articles/6277.html">Cruise ship cabins</a> get as small as 85 SF while <a href="http://www.amtrak.com/media/train_tour/superliner/superlinerSLEEPER_CONTROLLER.html">Amtrak's sleeper rooms</a> are about 50 SF, and both of these can sleep two. We'll also cut the floor height to 8 feet (with 7 foot ceilings). Depending on the luxury of travel, our sphere needs to be 2.6 to 3.1 miles across now. Maybe a little more if we have life support and engines.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130316000740/memoryalpha/en/images/8/80/Borg_Sphere_studio_model.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130316000740/memoryalpha/en/images/8/80/Borg_Sphere_studio_model.jpg" height="303" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><b><i>Like a <a href="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Borg_sphere">Borg sphere scout</a>, but 6 times as wide. Slightly larger volume than a <a href="http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Borg_cube">Borg cube</a>, but definitely smaller than a <a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_Star">Death Star</a>.</i></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
What if the people didn't need to be alive? Instead, let's build a spherical hearse for our 7 billion. People are all different sizes, but on average, our caskets will be 6' by 2' by 1'. Now we're really saving room, and can fit everyone on the planet 0.57 cubic miles. Our sphere is just a hair above a mile in diameter.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.designbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/citycell-car-1_Iveoa_48.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.designbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/citycell-car-1_Iveoa_48.jpg" height="206" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>Like if <a href="http://cinemeccanica.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/your-hearseyearse/">Harold Chasen</a> got a hold of these concept cars, and also made them 500 times as wide.</i></b></div>
<br />
"No," my coworker said. "He says it's less than a kilometer." What?? I've stuffed the people about as tight as I can get them. The only way I can pack them tighter is... oh god.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://murmolka.com/img/l/i120.photobucket.com/albums/o163/aliraqi/October2008/others/482301083_abd3c6a797_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://murmolka.com/img/l/i120.photobucket.com/albums/o163/aliraqi/October2008/others/482301083_abd3c6a797_o.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i> Only not with ice.</i></b></div>
The volume of a person is <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+volume+of+a+human+being">about 66 liters</a>, or 2.33 cubic feet. If you liquefy the human race and pour them into a spherical tank, all of humanity will fit in a diameter of 0.6 miles -- like from the White House to the Washington Monument. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelysanders/dark-secrets-how-food-groceries-are-made"><span id="goog_631389030"></span><img alt="" border="0" src="http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/3/18/anigif_enhanced-buzz-22916-1370297811-12.gif" height="225" title="" width="400" /><span id="goog_631389031"></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><b><i>Now we just need to fill that sphere.</i></b></span></div>
<br />
I still don't know why my coworker needed this answer.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-70653510504719256202013-06-02T06:54:00.002-07:002015-04-26T04:51:17.402-07:00Income by Subway StationIn April, the New Yorker ran <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/idea-of-the-week-inequality-and-new-yorks-subway.html">a piece about income inequality</a> along each of the subway lines, in which they made an <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html">interactive graphic</a> portraying the median household income (from census data) at each of the subway stops on the line selected. For example, this is their graph for the F line.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/130422_business-subway-inequality-HP_g290.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/130422_business-subway-inequality-HP_g290.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
It is an interesting exercise and produces some potentially informative graphics. However, in determining household income, the New Yorker used a... I'll be polite: "unusual" technique. They simply used the income value for the census tract in which their coordinates for the subway station lay. This results in a number of problems.<br />
<br />
Census tracts must be <a href="http://www.census.gov/geo/education/pdfs/CensusTracts.pdf">between 1,200 and 8,000</a> people, and most in New York seem to be mostly in the 2,000 to 5,000 range. They vary in size as population density changes, but in New York are generally 1/16 to 1/4 square mile -- on the order of <a href="http://www.usa.com/NY061008300.html">8 blocks</a>. Many of the subway stations, like Columbus Circle or Carroll St have entrances 3 blocks apart from each other and in two different districts. This means that the New Yorker's analysis would produce different income values based simply on <i>which stairway they chose to mark the station</i>. The amazing thing is that they celebrate these statistical artifacts:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>$142,265—The largest gap in median household income between two consecutive subway stations on the same line (between Fulton Street and Chambers Street on the A and the C lines, in Lower Manhattan).</i></blockquote>
As a first correction, we should at least average all of the census tracts that actually have subway stairs in them. But what about other nearby ones? How far out should we go? Should neighboring tracts count in our average the same amount as slightly more distant ones?<br />
<br />
In my analysis (you can argue with me if you want), I created a linearly decaying income weighting function, out to 1/2 mile (2.5 avenues or 10 blocks in Manhattan). What this means is that tracts with a center on top of a given station get full weight, those 1/4 mile away get half weight, and those 1/2 mile or more have no influence. It is important to note that the weighting values in the average for the tracts are relative to the values for all other tracts for a given station. So for example, if a station is surrounded by 6 tracts, all with centers 1/4 mile away, all 6 would count equally towards the station's average income. If there's two at 1/4 mile and two at 3/4 mile, the closer ones will influence the average by three times as much as the farther ones. <br />
<br />
Thus, I get a map with the following median incomes. I have not created a line-by-line graphic like the New Yorker, but the data's all there if someone wants to be clever (see borough names below). <br />
<br />
<iframe width="400" height="400" src="http://atlas.gpsvisualizer.com/map?url=https%3A//dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/income.xlsx&c=40.7395,-73.8925&z=10&bg=THUNDERFOREST_TRANSPORT&bgo=1&az=1"></iframe>
<br />
You can also explore a <a href="http://atlas.gpsvisualizer.com/map?url=https%3A//dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/income.xlsx&c=40.7395,-73.8925&z=10&bg=THUNDERFOREST_TRANSPORT&bgo=1">full screen version</a> of the map.<br />
<br />
The first thing you'll notice is that the income along the lines is much smoother in this analysis. The Fulton-Chambers difference is now $50,000, not $142,000. The really big differences that remain are for stops actually separated by large distances. The 4 largest (I believe) are the 4/5's 86th-125th St difference of over $100,00; The 2/3's Chambers-14th of $65,000; the A/D's Columbus-125th of $65,000; and the F's York-E.B'way of almost $60,000 across the East River. The greatest change for stops that are actually near each other is on the Upper East Side, when the income drops from $158k-$133k-$91k-$43k-$29k on 77th-86th-96th-103rd-116th Streets. And poor Sutter Avenue on the L remains $12,000 less than any of its neighbors or anywhere in Brooklyn. <br />
<br />
Since this technique involved comparing the distance between every station to every census tract (using data from the <a href="http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml">American Fact Finder</a>), I broke the analysis down by borough to avoid creating a truly gigantic matrix. For <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/Manhattan.xlsx">Manhattan</a> and the <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/Bronx.xlsx">Bronx</a>, this is fine because no one walks across the East or Harlem Rivers to catch a train. In <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/Brooklyn.xlsx">Brooklyn</a> and <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8179674/Queens.xlsx">Queens</a>, there may be some loss of accuracy along the border, since for example, no Brooklyn tracts are counted in the Seneca Ave M station, but there are few stations where this could really have an impact, and the data do not seem unusual. <br />
<br />
I will not claim that this is the best way to analyze. Maybe I should have a larger or smaller decay distance than 1/2 mile. Maybe I should have used a different decay function than linear. Maybe no decay function at all and simply give every tract with centers within 1/2 mile of the station full weight. Maybe I should have even divided the map up into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram">Voronoi polygons</a> with one station in each and assign each census tract to exactly one subway stop. But at any rate, this analysis produces more realistic and informative result than the technique used by the New Yorker.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-52654527648189444732012-02-24T08:39:00.000-08:002012-02-24T08:39:05.774-08:00American Annual Food ConsumptionAccording to a <a href="http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf">report by the USDA</a>, Americans are eating a lot. The aggregate food supply in 2000 (the total produced and imported less exported) averaged to 3,800 calories per day per person. As <a href="http://chubbyknowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/science-friday-recently-had-episode.html">I've written on</a>, a substantial amount of this not actually eaten, but thrown away. The USDA estimates that 1100 calories per person per day are wasted, leaving 2,700 as actually consumed (recall the "based on a 2,000 calorie-diet" nutrition labels). This is 800 calories above the average in the '50s and 500 above that in the '70s. The composition has changed over time too.<br />
<div><br />
We are eating a lot more oil -- 60% more than in the '50s. An average household of four is eating 40 gallons of <i>added</i> oil each year, which doesn't count fats found naturally in foods such as whole meat, nuts, and dairy.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mFYzzYDA6GwWGnRtwkEmVKkqAcJxZyLV_bTTIsDhiB7fVY7r3x6HEqcuLxxynJHud3hiLJLbn2_EXrPR0BYGibheU9ldVr_4ierlpNRq6gcFZrMtCM1BCte3xssVIGcMp59U1QZrz8o/s1600/oil.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mFYzzYDA6GwWGnRtwkEmVKkqAcJxZyLV_bTTIsDhiB7fVY7r3x6HEqcuLxxynJHud3hiLJLbn2_EXrPR0BYGibheU9ldVr_4ierlpNRq6gcFZrMtCM1BCte3xssVIGcMp59U1QZrz8o/s320/oil.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Annual consumption of added oils for a family of four.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Added sugars are also on the rise: a 40% increase over five decades. Cane and beet sugars consumption dropped by a third, but were more than compensated by a 8-fold increase in corn syrup. A household consumes on average 600 lb. of added sugars each year, with 22% of it from soda. This is nearly a thousand 12-oz bottles of pop.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqFw3PphpC7ybLqXt_VftxooYtjlkT44MmI7LA446aNymK8wickcU9fuY8h3S4OxWoHPvUjOBjbgZ1PqRB-cRlKGucjUlvbGfD5LYBuqhwISSj5qhErpaln2WF75rvGcSd9-j30onjv1U/s1600/soda.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqFw3PphpC7ybLqXt_VftxooYtjlkT44MmI7LA446aNymK8wickcU9fuY8h3S4OxWoHPvUjOBjbgZ1PqRB-cRlKGucjUlvbGfD5LYBuqhwISSj5qhErpaln2WF75rvGcSd9-j30onjv1U/s640/soda.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Fruits and even vegetables are also eaten more now than in the '50s, but just by 20%. This reflects the overall trend of more everything rather than healthier foods. Meat consumption increased by 40%, which is driven largely by a more-than-tripling of chicken. Each family consumes 1 + 1/3 pig and 3/5 of a cow each year, as</div>well as over 100 chickens.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9SvtjM_SiZzl7VRjWajG0cjN4Kfvp9miO-4HdPVq2q2xyzOz8OdDQ9bd2LqyFfGXXW2ZuGDMixzNsY-oiwLXanAuY-0N0K59pp9N2MxijLrffknhtSpmVITerlSCjjUByx3DGSibFc3s/s1600/cow.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9SvtjM_SiZzl7VRjWajG0cjN4Kfvp9miO-4HdPVq2q2xyzOz8OdDQ9bd2LqyFfGXXW2ZuGDMixzNsY-oiwLXanAuY-0N0K59pp9N2MxijLrffknhtSpmVITerlSCjjUByx3DGSibFc3s/s400/cow.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdAK3bydL_N-Bm0Lndol7DPXmfZe-4DoZojv-8iJvz5N7kyeMQu1VgSwjt6eQy0LDNEPiNQRkNM37CnhJcmmgY8q5CNZkDXBl4cW5-Kn8SFD0eDPOf5TLT01CQs1zmoV3QcPiiPC3aDIs/s1600/pig.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdAK3bydL_N-Bm0Lndol7DPXmfZe-4DoZojv-8iJvz5N7kyeMQu1VgSwjt6eQy0LDNEPiNQRkNM37CnhJcmmgY8q5CNZkDXBl4cW5-Kn8SFD0eDPOf5TLT01CQs1zmoV3QcPiiPC3aDIs/s200/pig.gif" width="186" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA_4FuFsVqrchN_oV0MU93fPSgEyYE91I17YcTkSMdE0QEGBT5IhAo0eykjhczf_uf2maGrBTXDQZUl7ZQa5pr-SggKdrSirtFsrdL6Q4nNoXC1SChzZDUhQydBqT_fX0o-f88j3JQzv8/s1600/chicken.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA_4FuFsVqrchN_oV0MU93fPSgEyYE91I17YcTkSMdE0QEGBT5IhAo0eykjhczf_uf2maGrBTXDQZUl7ZQa5pr-SggKdrSirtFsrdL6Q4nNoXC1SChzZDUhQydBqT_fX0o-f88j3JQzv8/s400/chicken.gif" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">When adding the fish to the total, each household consumes 780 lb of meat each year. Assuming the same meat-vs-total-weight ratios of pork and beef, this corresponds to an equivalent of eight people.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pcdon.com/cannibal.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.pcdon.com/cannibal.gif" width="260" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As <a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/03/food-miles-is-foolish-concept.html">Fat Knowledge has mentioned several times</a>, the whole Food Miles idea is overblown. The report also shows that its cost low. It average 4% of the total cost of the food -- the same amount as advertising. The largest costs are labor (38%) and farm value (19%).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><br />
</div>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-59626202947281530892012-02-01T07:49:00.000-08:002012-04-20T07:50:01.067-07:00Green Stars<div style="text-align: left;">
Go to any planetarium show and they will probably point out how some of the stars are different colors. Betelguese (Orion's shoulder) is a deep red, while Rigel (his knee) is blueish white. That's because the stars are glowing bodies that emit a distribution of radiation that more or less follows the black body curve. Cool objects like candles glow red, brighter ones like incandescent bulbs are orange-yellow, and really hot things like a welder's torch or lightning are blue-white. In fact, the colors themselves are described by the temperature (in Kelvins) of an object that would emit light of that shade. You can see in the color below the path of the black body curve.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguVWUZ9Hpae0Okf1QhJVlsnz0dGksb7IIpIxd9KqnCNslRL01vmpwt_s-g7hUNSKcMH6-saQg_rAD3-T0SmwedQn37q5teplILBCkgDvFfiB8Jh2Bwp7QGG2HLasfC7JgXmwyit2gH_iI/s1600/533px-PlanckianLocus.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5665982857827121266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguVWUZ9Hpae0Okf1QhJVlsnz0dGksb7IIpIxd9KqnCNslRL01vmpwt_s-g7hUNSKcMH6-saQg_rAD3-T0SmwedQn37q5teplILBCkgDvFfiB8Jh2Bwp7QGG2HLasfC7JgXmwyit2gH_iI/s320/533px-PlanckianLocus.png" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center; width: 285px;" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But back to the original question? Why does it skip green? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Hotter objects emit more energy than cooler ones, and the peak frequency also increases, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law">Planck's Law</a>. So logically, at some point, the peak emission wavelength should pass through green. But as this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8GXpk8PZ-o">excellent (allegedly kid-oriented) video</a> describes, when that happens, we don't see green because of how our eyes see color. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Our eyes have three cones that detect three frequencies of light that our brain interprets as color vision. When the black bodies emit at a temperature that peaks in green, it's also sending out less (but still lots of) light at nearby frequencies (blue and red). So with all that light coming in, our brain sees the green-peaking stars as white. </div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpZWce7CBkIHEpfj7oy1UIPpRkg_0ohIJsyRhxEI4Zux72Vi7K-Y1Gbfy7xcApqCludUnD6jxuv-xO4s_q1_9CRHCGW_Tf2v1eohGxFpBmWRPbUs780q0IGkaQEwbZGFhClLe_upfCOso/s1600/cones.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5667065125013596978" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpZWce7CBkIHEpfj7oy1UIPpRkg_0ohIJsyRhxEI4Zux72Vi7K-Y1Gbfy7xcApqCludUnD6jxuv-xO4s_q1_9CRHCGW_Tf2v1eohGxFpBmWRPbUs780q0IGkaQEwbZGFhClLe_upfCOso/s320/cones.png" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 213px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center; width: 283px;" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-953801786074288852011-10-14T05:32:00.000-07:002011-10-17T05:45:50.188-07:0096% of U.S. transportation powered by petroleum<div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><u><br /></u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">With all the talk of alternative fuels, it sometimes helps to put a sense of scale on things. The growing prevalence of electric cars is one rational for basing the federal highway taxes to vehicle miles traveled rather than gas consumption (more on this in a coming post). In 20 years, some predict <a href="http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical%20Brief_EconomicModel2030_f.pdf">electric cars will make up 64% new sales</a>, but in the near term this is not the case. Even if the experts are right and there are <a href="http://www.peachygreen.com/electric-cars/experts-predict-electric-vehicle-surge-in-2011">3/4 million electric cars on the within five years</a>, there are currently more than <a href="http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html">137 million licensed passenger cars in the U.S.</a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVjCJKv2NlDMzuRqQsI6cvl351U6Xlm4K5KfBMHxOgf4YIGlTAEMyXC76I0k7Dc2Bgx_gXsn_1ZB7BsVd15DXH4mDxo5S-17ZYlRTDCNfIUuwzM7-5FBTQt_XxeHudDzSLgfuZ5w5m4JM/s1600/transport.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVjCJKv2NlDMzuRqQsI6cvl351U6Xlm4K5KfBMHxOgf4YIGlTAEMyXC76I0k7Dc2Bgx_gXsn_1ZB7BsVd15DXH4mDxo5S-17ZYlRTDCNfIUuwzM7-5FBTQt_XxeHudDzSLgfuZ5w5m4JM/s400/transport.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5663332916807008514" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 176px; " /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: left;">This double pie chart depicts what fuels transportation in America (data from The Geography of Urban Transportation, p 278). No details like passenger miles or ton equivalents, but simply trillions of BTUs (the sum of all is 27,500). Gasoline and diesel together make up more than 3/4 of the total. Jet fuel and ship fuel are much smaller but not insubstantial shares. (I'm not sure how they count international journals; another paper I saw took all the usage for domestic trips and half for international.) Our running total is up to 96.4% thus far.</div><br />Now we get to the final 3.6% that is not derived from petroleum. By far the largest chunk of this -- 2/3 of the remainder -- is another fossil fuel: natural gas. Oh, like those dual-fuel cars and delivery trucks in those articles, you think. But no, this natural gas is burned to power pumps which push more natural gas through pipelines. (It's still transportation energy, even if there's no vehicle involved.) Another quarter of the small pie is electricity used for the same purpose. Lastly, the final sixth of the little pie, or 0.29% of all transportation energy, is used in non-petroleum vehicles that actually move, like we normally think of for transportation. Of this, almost nine-tenths is electricity for subways, commuter railroads, the electrified portions of Amtrak, and a couple electric trolley buses. The rest is for natural gas buses. For perspective, this total of .29% is less than the gasoline used by recreational boats.<br /><br />What about the electric cars? Well, the table only goes down to the tenth of a trillion BTUs, and the electric cars just get lost in the rounding. The other news-maker, methanol, is similarly zero. Interestingly, this doesn't imply that biofuel is insignificant. The gasoline fraction includes Gasohol, or 10% ethanol. <a href="http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2003_210.pdf">From an FHA report</a>, it seems that 13% of all gasoline sales are from Gasohol [Table 8 ÷ (Table 2 Sum × 365)]. This means that ethanol usage accounts for three times the energy as all other non-petroleum sources for vehicles (not counting the pipelines).</div>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-8079422454925492982010-11-18T05:51:00.000-08:002010-11-18T06:21:24.103-08:00"Educational Presentations" for Big PharmPharmaceutical companies have long been notorious for giving gifts to doctors, hoping to increase prescriptions of their drugs. Some states, including Vermont, have <a href="http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/06/vermont-passes-sunshine-law-limiting-drug-company-gifts-to-doctors-conflict-of-interest-new-england-.html">put severe restrictions on this practice</a>. However, it remains perfectly legal for the companies to "employ" the doctors to give talks on the benefits of their drugs, paying them up to $200,000 a year, <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/nov/18/physicians-pharmas-payroll-educators-or-marketers/">as reported by WNYC</a>. Some of these doctors had even lost their practicing license because of convictions by some health departments, and "teaching" became their primary profession. <br /><br />But if a doctor thinks a drug is effective, there's nothing wrong with him or her letting others know what he or she likes about it, right? It's win-win because the doctor gets paid and the drug company gets an "expert" giving recommendations, rather than just a spokesperson. However, it's not just candid advice.<br /><blockquote>[A presenting doctor] shows up at a restaurant in front of a group of doctors and leads them through a PowerPoint presentation about the benefits and side effects of Geodon. All of the almost 80 slides are written by Pfizer. Pfizer and other companies say they need to make sure all the content complies with Food & Drug Administration regulations. The rule is Schloss [the doctor] can’t go off script, even if he may know a lot about the drug that isn’t mentioned on the slides.</blockquote>Some of the paid doctors even admit this. “A monkey can read the slides at this point. Well, a monkey that can read can read the slides,” said Stephen Friedes, a psychiatrist who was paid for several years to advise an antidepressant. He eventually quit for this reason, saying “there’s no freedom of speech and I have to say the party line, and it took away all the fun and all the educating aspects of it.”<blockquote></blockquote>Others defend the practice. Frank Lowe, of Columbia Medical, claims that<br /><blockquote>“When new drugs come out, the general doctor has no clue about the new product,” said Lowe. “You know, when I go out to Wichita, Kansas or Kansas City or Asheville, North Carolina, where there are no significant medical schools associated with them, I actually provide a real service in terms of education -- even if the talks are scripted.”</blockquote>Of course, if the doctor has no clue about the product, how is he or she a voice of authority? And if the talks are scripted, then why does an expert need to present them? Why can't a drug company advertising agent, or even a <a href="http://www.brendascottroyce.com/images/photos/BSRMonkeyReading.jpg">monkey who can read</a>?<br /><blockquote></blockquote>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-76294943290133669522010-11-09T16:41:00.000-08:002010-11-11T06:51:18.607-08:00Wasted Food<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/20080822_foodwaste.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 262px;" src="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/20080822_foodwaste.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201010083">Science Friday</a> recently had an episode about Americans' eating habits. For one, we don't eat enough fruit and vegetables. But also, we waste a lot of food: 27% by the estimate of one of the guests. This is similar to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6456987.stm">third of food thrown away by Britons</a>; the difference is probably largely in the methods of estimation and definitions. Since food production take no small amount of fuel, the SciFri guest estimates that 2% of all energy use in the U.S. goes to food that is thrown out. This not may seem like a lot, but there being 50 states, it is equivalent to the entire energy consumption of the "average state." Or as they say on SciFri, more energy than the output of the whole ethanol industry.</div>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-54609088070937005132010-02-22T08:42:00.000-08:002010-02-22T08:57:46.278-08:00Taxi Ride-sharing to Expand in NYCThe <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/nyregion/22taxis.html?ref=nyregion">New York Times has an article</a> abou<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/22/nyregion/22taxis_CA0/22taxis_CA0-articleInline.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 190px; height: 210px;" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/22/nyregion/22taxis_CA0/22taxis_CA0-articleInline.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>t new taxi sharing in midtown New York. Along 3 cross-town routes that are not serviced by a subway ride without a transfer, "up to four passengers will be able to share a yellow taxi ride, car-pool style. The flat fare will be $3 or $4 a head, significantly less than the regular metered rates, and riders can ask to be dropped off at most points along the route." (The current taxi fare is $3 plus $2/mile.) <br /><br />This seems like it's good for the riders (they pay less), for the environment (more people traveling in each vehicle), and the cab drivers (larger total fare). However, since it's decreasing the demand for taxicab trips, some cabbies are complaining:<blockquote> “Every additional passenger that gets into one cab, that means a second cab is left empty,” said Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the <a href="http://www.nytwa.org/" title="Group’s home page.">New York Taxi Workers Alliance</a>. “It’s horrible to implement a program like this in such hard economic times.”</blockquote>While it's arguably bad for some drivers, it is very good for passengers, so the second argument doesn't make a lot of sense (except that in general, midtown taxi riders earn more money than taxi drivers).<br /><br />What is interesting about this new plan is that the fare is not particularly higher than the $2.25 single ride on buses or subways operated by the MTA. So if there's such demand, I'd think the MTA could start running 8-to-13-passenger vans along these routes just charge the $2.25 base fare. Once you start adding more people to the vehicle, all the starting and stopping starts to add delays, but I bet most people are just going the full distance anyway so they could eliminate the midway stops.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-75551275596016144352010-02-04T11:44:00.000-08:002013-08-09T10:27:29.651-07:00Rotifers and the Pausing of Time<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6DJxLYwuKIi5sUKNzmnemCKw2B1De4XrSqoZgFgD9Kcd_y8FHXR1Ch4D2_ecaF8DJ0pBKquda-VQbXXK9XdZn24Ks_Qmc1U1jvXSJVnChuw7mwnQ_g-zlcld3ogVjow_gm9JU86-b6az/s400/rotifer2.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6DJxLYwuKIi5sUKNzmnemCKw2B1De4XrSqoZgFgD9Kcd_y8FHXR1Ch4D2_ecaF8DJ0pBKquda-VQbXXK9XdZn24Ks_Qmc1U1jvXSJVnChuw7mwnQ_g-zlcld3ogVjow_gm9JU86-b6az/s400/rotifer2.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 163px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 212px;" /></a>If you're like most people, you've never heard of rotifers (<span style="font-style: italic;">right</span>). I'm not going to go and say these little creatures determine our way of life or anything, but a mystery about them has recently been solved. They've been examined ever since the microscope was invented, and have a couple interesting traits. For one, they have little spinning arms that propel food into their mouth – see the two furry things in the picture. For another, <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201001293">as reported on Science Friday</a>, they don't have sex. <br />
<br />
How do we know there never comes a point when two rotifers love each other very much? Well, not only has it never been observed, but also in 300 years of watching rotifers through microscopes, no one has ever even seen a male. There is additional modern genetic evidence that there are only female rotifers. <br />
<br />
What's the big with not doing it? Well, the genetic exchange that occurs during <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis">meiosis</a> greatly enhances variability of individuals within a species, speeding up evolution. Eliminate sex and a species basically freezes form.<br />
<br />
Why is a static genome a problem? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis">Everyone else is evolving, including your enemies</a>. Say there's something in your blood that gives your species a resistance to certain parasite. Well, those parasites are having sex all the time, and eventually one might come about that happens to have a resistance to your blood. Since your species hasn't been having sex all this time, you have almost no genetic variation, and no one has any resistance, and you all die out and go extinct. <br />
<br />
So that's why sex is good. There are even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction#Alternation_between_sexual_and_asexual_reproduction">species of animals</a> that under favorable circumstances skip the males and just have female offspring and basically clone themselves. However, once the environment turns sour, there starts being males born who then have sex with females, increasing variability, with the evolutionary "hope" that some new individuals will happen to have a greater tolerance to dry weather, or smaller size, or whatever. These species will skip sex for several generations, but eventually do it.<br />
<br />
But bdelloid rotifers haven't done it in 35 million years. How do they get away with such genetic similarity? One possibility is that they don't have enemies. Oh, but they do. As researchers at Cornell University showed, certain species of fungus will decimate rotifer populations. As in, kill every single active rotifer. <br />
<br />
What, you ask, is an <span style="font-style: italic;">in</span>active rotifer? Well, that's what the Cornell scientists figured out. Rotifers have the ability to dehydrate themselves, completely expunging any water from their body. They go into a state of suspended animation, essentially stopping time for anywhere from a few weeks to <span style="font-style: italic;">ten years</span>. But when the rotifer comes back from its stasis field, won't the infecting fungus also reanimate? <br />
<br />
Rotifers have extremely robust DNA that is good at reassembling itself after it gets broken when the rotifer dries out. The fungus does not have the same ability and the drying period kills it. The Cornell scientists even determined how much of the fungus was killed after 2, 3, 4, and 5 weeks, and found that a month was all the rotifer needed to purge the fungus from itself.<br />
<br />
So rotifers can isolate themselves from the fungus in time. They can also do it in space. When they become dehydrated, they become little dandelion seeds (from an aerodynamics point of view anyway). That means that they are easily picked up by breezes and carried to a new, happy, fungus-free home. <br />
<br />
One thing I didn't understand is that they program mentioned there are several hundred species of rotifers. But isn't sex and genetic variation the driving force behind evolution and speciation? Any thoughts?Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-86694907516384977072010-01-27T16:08:00.000-08:002010-01-27T17:14:11.735-08:00Cane Toads<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a819d644970b-250wi"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 250px; height: 167px;" src="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a819d644970b-250wi" alt="" border="0" /></a>Cane toads, also known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarre_Foods_with_Andrew_Zimmern">Giant Neotropical Toad</a>, are five-inch long creatures with poisonous skin glands, originally from Latin America. Until 1935, they were not found in Australia. That year, they were introduced to control a beetle infestation, and have themselves become a plague. You can see this all, in stunning clarity, in <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/sundance-2010-attack-of-the-cane-toads-in-3d.html">Cane Toads: The Conquest (in 3D!)</a>. In the documentary, they cover a variety of methods the Australians are trying to control the toads. <br /><br />However, some people think that the toads are a resource. As covered in the Outback edition of Bizarre Foods, there are clubs that go out at night and cook frog legs, taking care not to put any poison in the food. A game meat processor is even hoping to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cane-toad-solution-eat-em/story-e6frg6nf-1225823755754">export the frog legs to the Chinese</a>. <br /><br />The frogs are not only a possible source of food, but also of drugs. The venom can be extracted, dried, and then smoked. The frogs can also be simply licked, although the effect is not as pronounced. The cane toads are not alone in their ability to create "<a href="http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/290/ToadSmoke-WSJ94.htm">sense of wonder and well-being</a>". Many poisonous amphibians, including several found in the US, can produce similar effects, and "a healthy toad can fetch up to $8" in California. However, one should be careful about entering this trade, as a proposed law in South Carolina would "sentence violators [of amphibian trafficking] to 60 hours of public service in a local zoo."<br /><br />And interestingly, humans are not the only species to use toads as a drug. There is <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376594">at least one story</a> about a dog repeatedly licking frogs, and then wandering about, all "disoriented and withdrawn, soporific and glassy-eyed." The toads are incredibly tough, as evidenced by cane toad that was swallowed by a dog and <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/cane-toad-a-dogs-dinner-for-40-minutes/story-e6frfkxr-1111116588171">hung out in its stomach <span style="font-style: italic;">for 40 minutes</span></a>. It now lives in the animal hospital where the dog was taken and given an injection to vomit it up.<br /><br />Indestructible, poisonous, and everywhere. Clearly the only way to get rid of the <a href="http://www.marshotelonline.com/frogs.jpg">plague of frogs</a> is to <a href="http://www.888c.com/zExo08.htm">tell Moses that we'll let his people go</a>.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-2320083291807696972010-01-24T09:01:00.001-08:002010-01-24T09:16:23.539-08:00South Korea Turns Off the Lights<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/recession-road/DarkSND.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 333px; height: 234px;" src="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/recession-road/DarkSND.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />One Wednesday a Month, offices in South Korea will shut off their lights early in the evening. No, they're not trying to <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm">look like North Korea when viewed from space.</a> Instead, they want all their office workers to go home.<br /><br />Why? Well, I've written how some countries have <a href="http://chubbyknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/07/population-control.html">high birth rates that lead to food and resource shortages</a>. South Korea has the opposite problem, with the <a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/05/113_45496.html">world's lowest birth rate.</a> At only 1.2 kids per couple, their population is actually in decline. This means that a comparatively large portion of the population are elderly, and there will be greater pressure on people of working age. And of course with less workers, the country has less manufacturing capacity. Therefore, the Ministry of Health hopes that <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/skorea-orders-lights-out-to-boost-birthrate-1877414.html">by getting people out of the office, they might go into the home and make babies</a>.<br /><br />In order to make this truly successful, I think that the government also needs to shut down all TV broadcasts on those same evenings, at least based on the Indian government's assumption that <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=43897">getting people to watch television at night will stop them from making babies</a>.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-45479561479851297752010-01-22T10:37:00.001-08:002010-01-22T10:47:38.846-08:00R2-D2 flies against the laws of physics.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010-01-20_untitled_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 201px; height: 228px;" src="http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010-01-20_untitled_1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />A professor from Southeastern Louisiana University has <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010/01/flying_r2-d2_you_are_doing_it.php">analyzed the mechanics</a> of R2-D2 flying using his thrusters. Using a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram">free-body diagram</a>, set up all the forces (not Forces) acting on the droid as it flew through the air at an apparently constant velocity. Without acceleration, the sum of the forces must be zero. So Prof. Allain used gravity, air resistance, size, and angle of thrust to estimate the only unknown quantity remaining in the equation: mass. And how many kg is R2? Check the end of the article, but here's a hint: it doesn't make a lot of sense. <br /><br />Oh my gosh! Something in Star Wars not making scientific sense? Shocking. Well, I guess it's no worse than the constantly changing lateral force applied by the floating house in <span style="font-style: italic;">Up</span> on the walkers below. (Apparently, the folks at Pixar actually calculated how many balloons would be needed to supply sufficient <span style="font-style: italic;">vertical</span> force, and after finding it took a kagillion balloons said, 'artistic license.')Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-9927172228469803602010-01-19T05:34:00.000-08:002010-01-19T06:11:51.413-08:00Data Centers in IcelandIt takes a lot of power to run the internet. Keeping all those servers going <a href="http://www.americainfra.com/news/powering-online-obsession/">took 1.5% of total US electricity</a> demand in 2006 (as much as all of Massachusetts) and just keeps rising (it doubled from 2000 to 2005). A quarter of that energy is used to keep the servers cool (which improves performance in addition to not letting the server chips melt). To help with this, some internet companies are building data centers in cold locations, such as Microsoft in Dublin, and Yahoo in Buffalo, NY. Buffalo has the additional advantage of being <a href="http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yahoo-might-move-datacenters-into-buffalo-ny/10335/">located near Niagara Falls</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_hydroelectric_power_stations">third largest hydroelectric plant</a> in the US.<br /><br />A focus on cheap, carbon-free electricity and cold climate make it no surprise that Verne Holdings and Wellcome Trust are funding <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/01/18/iceland-gets-major-data-center-project/">construction of a data center in Iceland</a>. It will be built in an old NATO base, powered by hot geothermal electricity, and cooled (in part) by the island's icy air. Iceland's currency collapse shook its economy and a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7426369.stm">2008 earthquake shook the ground</a>, delaying construction slightly. However, things are scheduled to get started by the middle of this year, and the high unemployment might mean savings for operating costs, another similarity with Yahoo's center in Buffalo.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-3016739182583685252009-12-10T06:08:00.000-08:002010-01-07T07:38:45.706-08:00Impôt de Carbone<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/flags/re-lgflag.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 160px;" src="http://www.33ff.com/flags/L_flags_embossed/France_flags.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>While England is considering a <a href="http://chubbyknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/11/personal-carbon-trading.html">personal cap-and-trade system</a>, France just passed a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8248392.stm">national carbon tax</a>. It is set at 17 euro per metric tonne, or $22.60 per normally spelled ton, which is fairly similar to the $20/t that's bandied about a lot in the US. "The tax will be introduced next year and will cover the use of oil, gas and coal," but not electricity, because 80% of Frances power comes from nuclear power plants.<br /><br />There's always talk that the tax is more efficient than trading permits, but this one still gets complicated: it will apply to households as well as enterprises, but not to the heavy industries and power firms included in the EU's emissions trading scheme. (Okay, I guess that's <span style="font-style: italic;">because</span> there's already a trading system in place that it has to operate with in parallel.)<br /><br />"Critics say it is just a ploy to boost ailing state finances," but French President Sarkozy claims that all money gathered will be re-issued in the form of income tax refunds and other reductions, so that a "typical" household will see no change in finances.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-55466840939237376212009-12-06T17:08:00.000-08:002009-12-10T06:48:52.634-08:00I'll have ham — hold the pig.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lab-meat-_puppetgov-320x304.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 231px; height: 220px;" src="http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lab-meat-_puppetgov-320x304.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/04/peta-issues-1-million-in-vitro-meat.html">Fat Knowledge has written</a> about PETA's competition to grow lab meat that doesn't use animals. Well, there has been some serious progress now. As reported in the <a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/04/peta-issues-1-million-in-vitro-meat.html">Sphere</a>, scientists in the Netherlands have used cells from a live pig to grow pork muscle tissue in a Petri dish. This fixes the usual vegetarian's ethical issue, plus a bonus on sustainability because the meat can be grown more efficiently in a lab than on an animal. Unfortunately, they don't know if it hold up to bacon or ribs, since<blockquote>the scientists had to admit to reporters that they don't know if their creation is flavorsome, because laboratory regulations forbid them from tasting anything they create.</blockquote>So who knows if it's just going to taste like spam from a lab, or if it will be a revolution in gastronomy.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-49001695723245521072009-12-01T14:49:00.000-08:002009-12-01T14:51:43.078-08:00Zero-G Water ExperimentsAboard the International Space Station, you can do some crazy things with water droplets.<br /><br /><object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vaXIKpDhGyA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vaXIKpDhGyA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-6867020738039671232009-11-24T06:14:00.000-08:002013-08-09T10:23:11.292-07:00Penetration of Solar Power without StorageI'll preface this post by saying that it's a plug for my own research, but it's also published so (at least some people think) that I'm not making it up. Since the work is published in a journal, normally I wouldn't be able to just link to it, due to access limitations, as <a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/09/science-commons.html">Fat Knowledge has lamented</a>. However, some professor at a university in Texas has made it part of his course, so I'm going to direct you there for the whole article:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://giberson.ba.ttu.edu/ENCO4364/Stodola%20Modi-2009%20En%20Pol-Pentration%20of%20solar%20power%20without%20storage.pdf">Solar Power without Storage</a><br />
The idea is that while solar panels are expensive on their own, if you need to build a storage system to use their energy at night, they become even less affordable. Clearly, solar power can't provide <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> of our electricity needs if we skip the storage, but they can still help out in the daytime. In fact, in most parts of the country, the electrical demand is already highest when the sun is out, so solar can help with these peaks. The higher daytime demand is currently met by turning on "dispatchable" power sources that are (relatively) inexpensive to build, cost a lot to run, and can be turned on and off in very little time. The ones that run less frequently cost less to build (by design) but even more to run, since they won't be generating very much. In fact, the plants that run to fill the demand during the highest 30 or so hours of the year can cost 5-10 times as much (/kWh) as your typical coal or nuclear plant. (The reason that coal and nukes don't produce all the electricity is that these "baseload" plants can take half a week to start up and shut down, and could never respond to the daily variations of demand.)<br />
<br />
My goal is to see how much solar capacity can be installed so that the panels mainly replace the dispatchable plants. Specifically, what is the maximum deployment that permits 95% of the annual output from PV to be utilized without reducing the output of the baseload plants? I used hourly solar intensity and electrical demand data from 32 regions across the country to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHpyIdFNgUYAg8RTIsXpbAIUSE_hq8lU6zJ9sDF87GJ2BdaTUXnwYkRoo40SgdyJt8D9fMlBrBkNmF8SxU-UZBIAGYwcsPVUS16v_5WhImJI0JhtOSBjtOmGi0BBgONUPD70tzpzvMG7U/s1600/map.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407739582153919778" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHpyIdFNgUYAg8RTIsXpbAIUSE_hq8lU6zJ9sDF87GJ2BdaTUXnwYkRoo40SgdyJt8D9fMlBrBkNmF8SxU-UZBIAGYwcsPVUS16v_5WhImJI0JhtOSBjtOmGi0BBgONUPD70tzpzvMG7U/s400/map.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 250px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a>This map shows the regions and their possible penetration. Note that the share is in effect a measure of the correlation between electrical use and sunlight, and not of the <span style="font-style: italic;">amount</span> of sunlight. Locations with large amounts of sunlight in times of low demand, such as noon in winter or anytime in the spring or fall, will have a lower possible deployment. In this sense, New England’s grey days in October and November help improve the matching because the clouds<br />
reduce sunlight when the electricity use is lowest.<br />
<br />
My total installed possible capacity in the 32 regions is 59 GW. These regions cumulatively consume 30% of America's electricity, so if panels are as effective in the rest of the country, the whole US could use 196 GW. This would reduce the energy currently provided by dispatchable power plants by 23% and would represent over 7% of the present total annual electrical load in the US. Although that share may not seem like a lot, it requires nearly 8 doublings from the 865MW of PV which was the installed base in the US in 2007, showing that in the near future, bringing down the cost of the panels is more important than worrying about the dark.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-22219600388330371422009-11-14T12:28:00.000-08:002009-11-14T13:37:03.049-08:00Personal Carbon TradingYesterday I saw Yael Parag from Oxford University present on a plan the UK is looking at for "personal carbon trading" (<a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/pct-more.php">Oxford description here</a>). The UK, like lots of cities and countries, has all these grand plans for 30% reduction in Greenhouse gases by 2030 and 80% by 2050, but no real plans to accomplish this, and minimal progress. This cap-and-trade type of idea might be able to accomplish the goals. Here is how I understand the plan from the talk:<br /><br />The UK is generating some amount CO2 each year. Of this, 40% is directly used by individuals in the form of non-business transportation, home heating, and home electricity. The rest is used by commerce, industry, and agriculture for similar purposes, plus manufacturing. <br /><br />The presenter mentioned, though I can't find any reference of this on the website, that the 60% would be auctioned out to all non-individual users.<br /><br />More interestingly, the 40% would be distributed evenly among all people. Each person would then have some monthly (or yearly) balance of Carbon. Whenever people buy things that <span style="font-style: italic;">actually produce</span> CO2 when used, they enter their Carbon card number, and their account is debited. An important point is that there wouldn't be that many of these transaction, since the only things counted would be<br /><ul><li>Gasoline/diesel</li><li>Monthly heating bill (gas/oil)</li><li>Monthly electric bill</li><li>Air travel</li></ul>The carbon credits could of course be bought and sold, and I bet eBay would just be the beginning. I can see entire companies emerging to manage, loan, invest, and speculate on credits.<br /><br />Although Fat Knowledge <a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/06/cap-and-trade-bill-passes-house-carbon.html">prefers taxes to permits</a> (and in general I do too), there are a few points that speak in favor of CO2 credits.<br /><ul><li>Energy is a fairly inelastic commodity: that is, the demand is not especially affected by price. In summer 2008, gas prices rose something like 75% from the previous year, but vehicle miles traveled dropped just 5-10%. <br /></li><li>People respond to social norms. Just like the <a href="http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/03/utilities-turn-their-customers-green.html">California electricity users who cut back consumption to be closer to that of their neighbors</a>, Britons may alter their behavior to use closer to what the average citizen uses, for social norm reasons as well as economic.</li><li>Caps are good for controlling things that should be, well, capped. Taxes are good for things that the government wants to discourage, but doesn't care if a specific amount are used. For instance, the high cigarette tax (in theory) reduces demand, but it doesn't limit the number sold. But if scientists say that the amount of CO2 generation shouldn't increase, it is difficult to estimate what tax level will accomplish this, whereas the cap dictates the amount and lets the demand set the price. And the amount of credits could slowly be ratcheted down to meet that level that the government/scientists believe is sustainable.<br /></li></ul>The system has the potential to work well. One concern I had was that people would chalk up all the driving they could as "business travel". But if the firms have to bid on carbon pounds, they might not want their employees using them up. And since many of the poor do not drive cars and live in smaller houses/apartments with smaller utility bills, they could earn extra income selling credits, making this a Progressive measure. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I do have a few things I wonder about.<br /><ul><li>If firms bid on credits, why is air travel counted for personal consumption? Wouldn't that count twice? Or maybe the system is set up so that the airline industry can pass on the credit use to consumers, rather than the cost of auctioned credits. <br /></li><li>Mass transit is not included (initially) to encourage use rather than cars, and because there is in general far more of these transactions a month, so it would be a pain to have to debit the carbon card every time. Would intercity buses and rail also be exempt, or would they pass on credit consumption like airlines?</li><li>For electricity, would we use the average CO2/kwh of the entire country, or the local company's portfolio? Would (in the US) hydro-happy Washington's electricity not debit much, but a lot of points would come out for a kWh in King Coal states like Kentucky and West Virginia? And if, as you can do, you pay a premium to guarantee that your electric company buys at least your amount of kWh from Wind or whatever, would that make your electricity free of credits? <br /></li><li>Should credit allowance be based on the household? Or is the individual better? How should children be counted? Should you be able to merge accounts, so one family member isn't stuck somewhere unable to buy gas while the other has a surplus? And how much would this complicate divorces? (No, those carbon credits should go to me!)</li></ul>The government still gets some revenue from the non-residential credits permit sales. But this would certainly be <span style="font-style: italic;">much more complicated</span> than a tax. And would people trust the big bad government to have so much control of people? Would it be better if the system was administered by a big bad corporation? Any thoughts?Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-51138526816917548322009-11-06T07:36:00.000-08:002009-12-10T06:47:01.529-08:00Losing Weight by Eating LessThe <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/?em">New York Times writes</a> about a study on weight loss. The results: a diet soda is better than a treadmill. Researchers worked with several groups of people and monitored calories burned and weight loss, and found that lots of exercise did not reduce weight by much. The far-more-important factor was the amount of calories consumed.<br /><blockquote>“The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in and calories out. People “are only burning 200 or 300 calories” in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson points out. “You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade.”</blockquote>There was also an interesting point made about what form the calories you burn come from, depending on the level of exertion.<br /><blockquote>While high-intensity exercise demands mostly carbohydrate calories (since carbohydrates can quickly reach the bloodstream and, from there, laboring muscles), low-intensity exercise prompts the body to burn at least some stored fat... “Heart rates of between 105 and 134” beats per minute, Carey said, represent the fat-burning zone. </blockquote>The article does go out to tell about all the other benefits exercise brings, so even if one doesn't lose weight, it's still healthy:<br /><blockquote>Most [subjects] became notably healthier, increasing their aerobic capacity, decreasing their blood pressure and resting heart rates, and, the authors write, achieving “an acute exercise-induced increase inpositive mo od,” leading the authors to conclude that, “significant and meaningful health benefits can be achieved even in the presence of lower than expected exercise-induced weight loss.”</blockquote>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-50545033180830376132009-10-28T07:57:00.000-07:002013-06-02T13:12:31.570-07:00Birth Control Pills Might Alter Mate Selection<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091007/hl_hsn/birthcontrolpillsmightaltermateselectionstudy">Yahoo News</a> runs a story about some studies which may indicate that the birth control pill influence women's choice of mate. Researchers at the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1254960916_4" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer;">University of Sheffield</span> in <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1254960916_5" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer;">England</span> predict that "offspring of pill users are more homozygous than expected, possibly related to impaired immune function and decreased perceived health and attractiveness." The idea is that women who are ovulating tend to be attracted to <a href="http://www.arthurshall.com/x_manly_men.shtml">Manly Men</a>, but women on the pill are hormonally in a state similar to perpetual pregnancy. Therefore, the claim goes, that women on the pill will be less likely to date the <a href="http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/76/762552.jpg">captain of the football team</a>, and instead hook up with <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgq1uYepqiNVAkAnDj7tmvLyWlu4TKYa_xDhB-W1JXHbPddmp_y4wM_C8SeEaR8qr0mUXbyB06Fr4tO4fE4joDwoLCq5Eq6KPKVYz6q7c60Y_SM21_wMp-Vc8BE1OmvPNEcxIEs2bEgKE/s1600/gameofthrones.jpg">president of the role-playing club</a>. It is important to note that the "impaired immune function", et cetera, of the predicted offspring are not a result of the woman actually <span style="font-style: italic;">taking</span> the pill, but because of the 'less reproductively sound' mate she chose because the pill clouded her judgment. <br />
<br />
Not everyone agrees, however. Dr. William Hurd of Case Medical Center is skeptical:<br />
<blockquote>
If you don't take into account society maybe we're all animals, but in social situations I don't think there are many women who change who they would mate with at different times of the month. It might change desires or perceptions but, gee whiz, that's a long stretch to changing who you would date, or even who you would go to dinner with.</blockquote>
Also, I may be wrong here, but I would think that many women taking the pill are doing it because they are <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> in a relationship (and therefore have chosen their "mate").Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-88425800698608700642009-10-27T07:37:00.000-07:002009-10-27T08:15:18.578-07:00Net Neutrality and Pirates<a href="http://www.blogger.com/The%20FCC%20voted%20unanimously%20Thursday%20on%20a%20proposal%20that%20would%20start%20the%20process%20for%20creating%20regulation%20that%20will%20keep%20the%20Internet%20open.%20The%20proposal%20itself%20uses%20the%20FCC%27s%20open%20Internet%20principles%20as%20a%20foundation%20and%20would%20forbid%20network%20operators%20from%20restricting%20access%20to%20lawful%20Internet%20content,%20applications,%20and%20services.%20It%20would%20also%20require%20network%20providers%20to%20allow%20customers%20to%20attach%20non-harmful%20devices%20to%20the%20network.%20%20Two%20additional%20principles%20were%20added,%20which%20would%20prevent%20network%20providers%20from%20discriminating%20against%20particular%20Internet%20content%20or%20applications,%20while%20at%20the%20same%20time%20allowing%20for%20reasonable%20network%20management.%20Internet%20access%20providers%20would%20also%20have%20to%20be%20transparent%20about%20the%20network%20management%20practices%20they%20implement.">CNN reports</a> that the <acronym size="3"><acronym title="Federal Communications Commission ">FCC</acronym></acronym> voted last week to begin studying new rules to protect an open internet. These "net neutrality" rules would limit the way internet service provides could limit access to the world's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8">series of tubes</a>. Specifically,<br /><blockquote><p> the proposal itself uses the FCC's open Internet principles as a foundation and would <span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0); font-style: italic;">forbid network operators from restricting access to lawful Internet content</span>, applications, and services. It would also <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">require network providers to allow customers to attach non-harmful devices to the network</span>.</p> <p> Two additional <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10357411-266.html?cnn=yes" target="new">principles were added</a>, which would <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">prevent network providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications</span>, while at the same time allowing for reasonable network management. Internet access providers would also have to be transparent about the network management practices they implement.</p></blockquote>What exactly is the problem the FCC is trying to address? Well, say for instance you got your internet from Time Warner Cable. Back in the day when people actually <span style="font-style: italic;">used</span> AOL to search the internet, TWC might want you to use that service rather than Google or Yahoo. So they might make it hard for you to access google.com. From what I can understand, the original 2 principles the FCC considered prohibited the <acronym title="internet service provider">ISP</acronym> from outright <span style="font-style: italic;">blocking</span> the content, and the additional principle makes it so they can't slow down access to select sites either.<br /><br />Seems like a good idea, no? Well John McCain, who is the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUS246040901420091024">nation's biggest beneficiary of Telco/ISP money</a> (by far), has introduced the ironically named Internet Freedom Act of 2009 (because it keeps the internet "free from government interference"). Nevertheless, I think net neutrality has a good chance of passing (eventually). In fact, Verizon and Google have become unlikely bedfellows and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/22/urnidgns852573C40069388000257657005628CF.DTL">issued a statement of support</a> for net neutrality. <br /><br />In the US, this issue is just taking off, and even so is taking a back seat in the public eye to health care reform. In Europe, however, it is a major issue. It is one of the main agendas of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party">Pirate Party,</a> founded recently in Sweden, and now the country's 3rd largest political party. In fact, the party received enough votes in the 2009 European Parliament elections to get 1, maybe 2, seats in Parliament.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-19386648681903876632009-10-23T06:02:00.000-07:002013-08-09T10:25:29.431-07:00Monkeys with Skills Earn More than Senior MonkeysPhysorg (among others) has <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news166721073.html">a story</a> about a test involving groups of vervet monkeys. The group was in a room with a barrel of apples that none of them knew how to open. None of them, that is except for one low ranking female who wasn't getting much attention or income. (What is monkey income you ask? Getting groomed by other monkeys.) However, once this skilled junior would open the barrel and hand out apples, she suddenly became much more popular (and groomed). This proves that in the monkey world as well, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5wmParkppw">girls like guys (or girls) who have skills</a> (although not in this case nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills). <br />
<br />
But it gets really interesting when the researchers introduce a <span style="font-style: italic;">second</span> skilled monkey to the group. Suddenly Barrel-cracker #1 no longer has a monopoly on the apple market. The <a href="http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=67704">invisible monkey hand</a> reacts to the adjusted supply and demand, and the additional apple-getter drives down the 'price' of apples, so now each of the skilled monkeys gets groomed some intermediate amount: more than a normal junior-rank monkey but more than if they were the only barrel-opener in the bunch. <br />
<br />
It's interesting that such price reduction takes place even without language, showing how ubiquitous basic economic theory is.<br />
<blockquote>
A change in price - grooming for less long if there is another monkey that supplies apples - is only possible if a negotiation process takes place. Many economists assume that such negotiations can only take place if they are concluded with a contract. However, the vervet monkeys do not have the possibility to conclude such binding contracts and yet they still succeed in agreeing to a change in price for a service.</blockquote>
Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-59958092089337118542009-10-04T15:22:00.000-07:002009-10-23T06:43:33.661-07:00<div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div>One of the most clever XKCD comics I've seen recently (not that they're not all good):<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/estimation.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 297px; height: 335px;" src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/estimation.png" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Microsoft should take a cue from the industrial </span><span style="font-family: times new roman;font-size:100%;" >economist, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Edwin_Ayres">Clarence Edwin Ayres</a>, who <a href="http://www.famousquotes.com/show/1011842/">said</a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" >A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation."</span>Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5485014439176826509.post-17509332615082827762009-10-02T14:10:00.000-07:002009-10-02T14:28:40.164-07:00Reverse Evolution?The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29evol.html?_r=1&ref=science">New York Times has an article</a> questioning if evolution can run backwards.<br /><blockquote><p>The Belgian biologist Louis Dollo was the first scientist to ponder reverse evolution. “An organism never returns to its former state,” he declared in 1905, a statement later dubbed Dollo’s law. </p><p>To see if he was right, biologists have reconstructed evolutionary history. In 2003, for example, a team of scientists studied wings on stick insects. They found that the insects’ common ancestor had wings, but some of its descendants lost them. Later, some of those flightless insects evolved wings again.</p>Yet this study did not necessarily refute Dollo’s law. The stick insects may indeed have evolved a new set of wings, but it is not clear whether this change appeared as reverse evolution at the molecular level. Did the insects go back to the exact original biochemistry for building wings, or find a new route, essentially evolving new proteins?<br /></blockquote>What follows next is a fairly high-level summary of Dr Thornton's U of Oregon research on changing protein receptors. Basically, what he found was he could change forward "ancestral" proteins by altering a limited number of receptors. However, to change backward modern proteins, additional modifications needed to be made. He deduced that during evolution, in addition to specific changes to ancestral proteins that actually account their ability to do new things, there are also "silent" changes (that evolved by chance along with the significant changes) that don't actually affect the behavior of the modern ones. However, they do prevent the modern proteins from going back to the original function (unless they too are removed). Since the ancestral proteins can go forward with or without the silent changes, but the modern proteins only work in the ancestral form without the silent changes, reverse evolution is far less likely to occur.<br /><br />In other words, if our kids start having tails, it's not because we are not going back to monkey-style tails, but rather whatever new configuration happens to be most beneficial to our survival. Sorry, Jonathan Coulton, but we're not <a href="http://www.lala.com/song/72339111964926983">De-Evolving</a>.Rebelfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16149523220443651898noreply@blogger.com0