An anti-climate change pundit displaying her ignorance

The Australian’s War on Science 68: getting your science from a chain email
[Via Deltoid]

Jane Fraser, columnist in The Australian , writes a column based on “facts” she got from a chain email:

Back to Plimer. He says he knows how disheartening it is to realise all your savings on carbon emissions have been eaten up by natural disasters. You’ve suffered the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up ’til midnight to finish your kids’ “The Green Revolution” science project, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet, selling your speedboat, holidaying at home instead of abroad, replacing all those light globes that cost you 50c with ones that set you back $10 . . .

Well, he says, it took just four days to flush all these good works down the drain. In those four days the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland spewed enough volcanic ash to negate every single effort you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions.

This is not true. Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology) states:

The eruption in Iceland emitted a fairly small amount of CO2. In fact most recent estimates show that the flights that were grounded by the eruption would have emitted about twice as much CO2 as the volcano itself.

[More]

The fact that she is more scared of cyclists than cars or buses should give you a hint. I wonder if she is embarrassed at all for writing a column with such inane facts in it?

She writes an entire column based on an email she received – one whose ‘facts’ could easily have been debunked by a simple Google search. Like the fact that the author of the email she quotes did not write the email. I bet he loves having his name attached to such absolute nonsense.

She agrees with most of what the email says, even though the facts in the email are wrong. So why check out to see if the facts are right. Why publish a column full of false information without even trying to find out the truth? Confirmation bias at it best is the reason.

Well, she obviously does not want to enrich the world by providing facts about the world around us. She just naively writes about something that she gets horribly wrong. As one of the commenters wrote:

I’m looking forward to Fraser’s next column, in which she relates how she easily made a million dollars simply by helping out the relatives of a dead Nigerian government minister transfer some funds…

She’s just waiting for the money to come it.

 

A mudbug gets a big city makeover

by izik

Are crawfish really lobster?
[Via Deep Sea News]

The New York media is all aflame over a shocking discovery at local institution Zabar’s. Zabar’s, an Upper West Side gourmet grocery store is justly famed for its amazing coffee, cheese, and baked goods (the chocolate babka is especially glorious). But for the last 15 years, the lobster salad has been made with freshwater crawfish – it contained no actual lobster at all.

[More]

I’d be a little upset if I was told the lobster salad I ate had crawfish instead. But, interestingly, in  biological terms, the restaurant is probably correct.

It turns out that crawfish are more closely related to clawed lobsters than the non-clawed lobsters found in the Caribbean or in California.

While the restaurant has a kind of point, it is also pretty disingenuous.  If someone had asked what kind of lobster was in the salad, how would they have responded – freshwater lobster?

Demolishing the Tragedy of the Commons using new technology

Does the Internet Make Us More Altruistic?
[Via Big Think]

Over the past week, Jonathan’s Card became one of the more fascinating online social experiments ever conducted in full public view. The basic premise was simple – a single individual (Jonathan Stark) posted the details of his Starbucks loyalty card online, loaded it up with $30, and then encouraged people across the country to use the money on the card as needed and then “pay it forward” to other Starbucks users after using this card. The balance of the card fluctuated widely – usually between $0 and $50 – before Starbucks finally shut it down Friday night after a user claimed to have hacked the card. While the basic premise of Jonathan’s Card was simple, the bigger idea is actually more complex: Does the Internet make us more altruistic?

[More]

What a cool experiment! People could buy coffee off of the card and then add money to it to allow others to use it.

Sure, some people just abused it and took all the money but others simply added some more back. It appears that the experiment would have kept going indefinitely except for worries about hacking.

Remember the scene from It’s a wonderful Life when there is a run on the bank? Jimmy Stewart has only a handful of money, not enough to pay everyone off but asks them to take only what they can. The first guy asks for everything he is owed and takes it.

But the next only takes the minimum they need and so do many of the rest, so that by the end of the day, there is still a little money left.

In the Tragedy of the Commons, those that abuse the commons are not held to any public measure of retribution while those that support the commons are not given an public support.

But a system like this almost looks self-supporting. The overall public exposure of both sides, especially being able to show the good one did, might actually support such a card in perpetuity.

Compare this with Panera’s “Pay what you want” system. Just suggested prices. Sure, some people paid nothing but some people actually paid much more than the regular price. It was quite a success.

Maybe we will see some more of these experiments?

“Salad is what food eats”

How to Win an Argument With a Vegetarian
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]

–Guest post by Patrick Riley, AoE Culture Correspondent

What better topic at a conference full of carnivores than how to deal with people who think you’re completely off base, if not criminally insane? And who better to give the talk than the young woman so versed in statistics that she wrote a convincingly scathing critique of the vegetarian Bible known as The China Study?

[More]

An interesting discussion of paleo-diets and such – the quote comes from the article. One point to remember when discussing vegetarian diets is that our digestive tract no longer looks like many of our herbivorous neighbors, even other primates. We have a much smaller colon making it harder to get as much nourishment from fiber as they do.

Eating more grains and legumes is probably a good thing but we must also remember that we evolved to eat more than that, meaning we also lost some abilities to take full advantage of a totally vegetarian diet.

Moderation is probably a good idea.

Assange and Wikileaks win

by Anonymous9000

UK gov asks MI5 asked to crack encrypted Blackberry messages to help police nail rioters
[Via Boing Boing]

Phone hacking, indeed. Britain’s intelligence agency has been asked by the government to decrypt mobile messages, particularly those sent via BlackBerry Messenger, to aid police in prosecuting looters.

The move represents a change as officially MI5 is tasked with ensuring the national security of the United Kingdom from terrorist threats, weapons of mass destruction, and espionage, with the police taking the lead on maintaining public order.

(Guardian)

[More]

One of Assange’s claimed purposes for Wikileaks was to force even democratic governments to respond by taking more and more draconian and totalitarian actions– increasing secrecy or invading the privacy of others.

So, now we see a Western democracy asking the state-run intelligence agency to hack into the emails of private citizens. Isn’t this a little too much government intrusion?

Well, how about when they use the technology to arrest a man for planning a water fight?

Don’t they realize the smart ones are already encrypting their messages in ways too difficult to crack or are using analog measures that the governmen does not even see?

The use of government spooks to get into people’s encrypted accounts will not end well.

More analysis of Google-Motorola deal and the strategic mistakes that drove it

by gillyberlin

Google’s Strategic Mistakes Drove Motorola Buy
[Via HarvardBusiness.org]

Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility has set the technology and investing worlds aflutter, with much of the commentary positioning it as a play by Google for Motorola’s strong IP portfolio. But a single point of focus is incorrect and misses a bigger point: The MMI purchase is the result of Google’s miscalculations about the way value is captured in mobile computing. These strategic missteps placed Google in a position of weakness and forced it into a costly and desperate move.

To understand why that’s the situation Google is in, first we should look at the company’s mobile Android software in the context of Google’s product portfolio. There’s a great consistency with Google’s products: they are services “in the cloud.” All except for one: Android. It’s a peculiar Google product for two reasons.

1) Android is not an end-user application or service. It’s system software; the customer for Android is not the end-user but a system builder or integrator. Typically a phone or device vendor needs to license Android and then build a product which must then be accepted by another intermediary — usually a mobile operator — before sale to the end-user. System software is “plumbing” which, like Windows, enables applications that “run on top” of it. It’s a platform.

2) Android is one of many enablers for other Google services. Google offers the same services on other system software. For example, Gmail and Google Search and Google Maps work very well on iPhones (or Windows). So Google’s own platform is not the only venue through which Google’s money makers can reach the market. Although Google services can run on any platform, mobile platforms are not as open as traditional computer platforms. This means that a platform owner (e.g. Apple or Microsoft) can “turn off” Google services on a whim. By distributing its own platform, Google can thus ensure that its services will have unhindered access to users. In other words, they gain distribution. By being a plumber, Google can ensure that its services will flow freely.

[More]

Goggle is having to move outside its core business – providing services in the cloud and making money off of ad revenues – in order to try and stabilize Android.

Sure, getting lots of patents will be helpful for its position but, as the article states, Google also has a need for a handest made without the fragmentation and vendor modifications that harm Google’s business.

I agree with this author that Google will use Mototrola’s handset business to take back control of its Android destiny, having full power to create handsets that serve Google’s needs rather than handset vendors.

Just as Apple has demonstrated with its iPhone or Microsoft with its deal with Nokia, it is critical to have control ofver the hardware and the software in order to succeed in the market.

But this opens real problems for Google. As stated in the article:

The company is thus no longer just a plumber but also a house builder and real estate developer. It can now build showcases that demonstrate the value of its services. The challenge then is how it will sell plumbing to contractors while it also competes with them by building houses. Android’s big bet has yet to pay off and Google just doubled down.

And this is where IP issues enter. Android has many problems in the IP arena, some that might be devatating. Handset makers are alrready having to pay Microsoft a few to use android. Why not just license the OS from Microsoft where they will not have to deal with the IP issues?

I think that, in the long run, Microsoft might be the big winner here. In a few years, we might see the iPhone made by a single vendor, an Android phone made by a single vendor and Windows Phones made by multiple vendors.

 

Smartphones: dealing with information in realtime

by rwkvisual

Pew: Half of US customers use phones to get info in realtime
[Via The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)]

Have you ever been out and about with your cell phone, needed some information, and looked it up right there on the spot? You’re not alone: The Pew Internet Research Project has released a report that says more than half of US cell phone owners have used their devices to get information they needed in real-time, right where they happen to be. That’s a huge change in the way we used to deal with information — remember when you had to print out maps or call ahead before you went somewhere, or just forget what the name of that ’80s movie actually was? Nowadays, connected phones are so ubiquitous that all of that information is literally and conveniently a touch away.

In fact, I’m surprised that number isn’t higher. And looking up information isn’t the only thing smartphone owners do with their phones: 92 percent text and take pictures, 80 percent send photos to others, and 76 percent send emails. Social networking in general is popular as well, with 59 percent of owners using those sites, and 15 percent going to Twitter specifically.

We’ve heard before that people are actively doing these kinds of things with their smartphones, but the trend is definitely continuing.

[More]

Science fiction stories used to have people walking around with hand held computers and access to Galactic libraries. Well, we have that right now. No need to print out stuff before hand, just access it when you need it. Having an argument about who one the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1962? Use the smartphone.

Want to know where the nearest hamburger can be bought? Use the smartphone. Traffic backed up and need an alternate route? Use the smartphone.

And just what would smart phones look and act like if Apple had not introduced the iPhone? Here is what Android did look like before Apple. Then they were copying RIM/Blackberry.

That would have been the future for every smartphone — a hard keyboard and small screen. Bulky form factor and push buttons. Not very easy to use at all and very expensive.

Apple put supercomputers in the hands of billions. Google and the others would only have put a smarter phone in the hands of thousands.

That is why Apple has the value it does. And Google has the value it does.