Blaine's Blog

Personas Fail

2009-08-28T15:43:00.000-07:00

MIT has a not-so-nifty new web program called "Personas" that can create a data portrait of a person based on information about that person on the web. Or, in their words:

"Personas is a component of the Metropath(ologies) exhibit, currently on display until Sept 09 at the MIT Museum by the Sociable Media Group from the MIT Media Lab (Please contact us if you want to show it next!). It uses sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity. In short, Personas shows you how the Internet sees you."

Below is the Personas result for my online data. I, of course, added the descriptive text in the upper-right of the image:


Click to see full size.

Anyone who knows me will immediately recognize this as laughably, incredibly, incredibly, incredibly (I can't say this enough) inaccurate. Indeed, if I simply attempted to make a Personas chart based on the opposite of myself, it would look similar to the above. Let's break it down:

• Online:
Potentially the only accurate thing about this graph, although it's still questionable. I don't have a very large online presence - this blog, and a number of message boards I participate in, but that's it. No Facebook or Myspace, so that immediately puts me behind most people. B

• Fame:
If this category is about how famous I am, then it's a fail - I'm not famous enough to warrant a mention, let alone 1/7th of my Personas graph. If it's about how interested I am in celebrities, then it's an epic fail - there are few things I care about less than celebrities, the famous, etc. D-

• Sports:
This is one of them. The last time I played anything that could remotely be classified as a sport was maybe about 6 years ago. The last time I commented about a sport online was probably... never. This is probably the first time. Every pro sport in existence could cease to exist tomorrow and my life would not be an ounce different for it. F

• Genealogy:
Another category that means even less to me than fame! I can name my family members almost two generations upward - I know my mother and father's names, and three out of four of my grandparents' names (for my maternal grandfather, my guess is "James Higdon"). I don't particularly care to know more than this, and I can't imagine that my life would be different if I knew. F

• Education:
Whether this is accurate or not depends on what is meant by "Education". I dropped out of high school, refused to finish college, and actively try to convince people to do the same. Usually "education" in these contexts refers to the formal education that I so vehemently disbelieve in. I am, however, very "pro-learning", and I am for "education" when considering the actual meaning of the word. And since I write about it on occasion, I can't fault Personas for including this word on my chart. B

• Movies:
What? District 9 was pretty good, as was The Dark Knight... but don't ask me anything about any movies before, in between, or after them, because I have no idea. F

• Social:
Unlike "Education", above, this is a category I both hate and don't write about. The fact that I refuse to take part in social networks should be enough to dismiss this category out-of-hand. F- (yes, I had to make up a grade for this one)

Final score: D-

Yes, that means Personas is even less accurate than Bill O'Reilly. MIT, you've got some work to do.

Ideology, apparently, is everything

2009-08-26T12:50:00.000-07:00

This post was prompted by a conservative friend of mine calling factcheck.org "liberal". Of course, Media Matters has their own problems with factcheck.org.

I’ve never been a fan of this recent “ideology trumps facts” political philosophy we find ourselves in today, but as a person who Cares About Things, somehow I’ve become mixed up in it. It's impossible to talk about politics now without sounding like an ideologue to the person who happens to be on the other side of whatever issue you're discussing. Forget what works best, or where the facts are - "what works best" is *always* what Your Side believes, and if you disagree with what you hear from any particular source, then that source must be biased!

I used to be a “Conservative” because I respect authority, rule of law, individual rights, balanced budgets, and I’m more practical than ideological. Now, even though my philosophy hasn’t changed, I’m a “Liberal” because I respect authority (scientists on global warming), rule of law (oppose “enhanced interrogation techniques”), individual rights (oppose the Patriot Act and “conservative” social policies), balanced budgets (opposed the Iraq War), and I’m more practical than ideological (progressive taxation). Even negative stereotypes of conservatism apply to me as well (fear of change, rigid routines, etc.). I still consider myself fairly moderate / conservative, but I've been forced to call myself "liberal" or "moderate liberal" because I happen to agree with scientists on global warming, or because I happen to agree with economists on progressive taxation.

For example, studies show again and again that Abstinence-only education is not an effective means of reducing teen pregnancy. That is all that I need to know in order to form an opinion on it. But now that I'm opposed to Abstinence-only education, I'm a "liberal", who apparently wants to encourage promiscuity and doesn't care about teenage sex, and hey, maybe I even hate morality as a whole and/or eat babies. NO! I just want to reduce teen pregnancy in the most effective way! Why must everything break down to "us versus them", and why must ideology trump common sense?

All I want is for what's best for the country and humanity. Whichever party offers the most practical solutions is the one I will support. Conservatism and liberalism have nothing to do with it, but unfortunately, politics is obsessed with these labels, and it is hindering our ability to work together to solve problems.

Modern "Conservatives" aren't conservative

2007-10-05T13:56:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me are probably already aware of my opinion that modern day "Conservatives" aren't at all conservative. Either that, or the definition of "conservative" has changed abruptly since before the turn of the century. I used to consider myself approximately as liberal as I am conservative on various issues, and I still do when it comes to my own mindset and philosophies (among them: if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but I disagree with today's conservatives on almost every issue.

Anyway, I have several reasons as to why I don't consider the Republican party platform to be conservative at all, but David Brooks has argued them much more adeptly than I could accomplish, so I will link you all to his editorial on the subject:

The Republican Collapse (David Brooks, New York Times).

Somewhat questionable tactics on the part of the Chris Dodd campaign

2007-09-28T19:20:00.000-07:00

Update (9/30/07): This blog entry originally had another email shown that claimed I had attempted to donate but the donation had not gone through. "Tim" from the Dodd Squad has left a comment on this post stating that the second email I received was not sent to everyone on the Chris Dodd campaign email list, and was simply sent to me in error. I have removed that email from this post.

Update (11/01/07): Slate has picked up on this...

I have donated money to Chris Dodd in the past, as I have to presidential candidates from both parties (Disclosure: more Democrats than Republicans), so I receive emails from the Chris Dodd campaign (and others) from time to time.

Below is a screenshot of one of the emails I (and presumably everyone on their email list) have received from the Chris Dodd campaign (I have blacked out my own email address). It's kind of shady.


Click to see larger screenshot.

The extremely informal "Hey," opener makes this email seem almost as though it were written only to the recipient from Chris Dodd himself. The request for "$23" (as opposed to $20 or $25) is meant to give the impression that he really is only $23 short of the goal, whereas a request for $25 would have been more readily recognized as a regular donations solicitation email.

Perhaps there's a better explanation than mine for the way this email was phrased, but it does seem pretty shady.

Rush Limbaugh edits a transcript so that he can accuse Media Matters of editing a transcript

2007-09-28T18:57:00.000-07:00

This one is pretty funny, folks... except for the sad fact that those who are predisposed to believe either side of this fiasco will exit it with their beliefs yet stronger than they were entering...

You may or may not have heard about the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy. According to Media Matters for America, on his radio show, Rush called service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers". (link)

Rush came back and accused Media Matters of quoting him out of context, and that he was actually referring to a man who had falsely claimed he had been in the military and had witnessed atrocities committed by U.S. service members in Iraq. He said his "phony soldiers" comment was directed towards this individual and others who were quite literally phony soldiers, and it was not a comment on the anti-war movement as a whole. NewsBusters has a video where Rush provides what he claims to be the entire audio transcript, with his comments in context. (link)

But wait! Things are about to get hilarious, folks. The transcript and recording that Rush provided to prove that Media Matters had edited his transcript had actually been cut and pasted itself! Media Matters provides the full transcript, including about a minute and a half of audio that had been cut from the transcript Rush provided. (link and link)

Go back and listen to the clip in the NewsBusters posting from earlier. You can actually hear where the edits occur.

Of course, there are die-hards out there that will stick with Rush on this one. I don't know what defense they intend to use - did Media Matters somehow insert the extra dialog between Rush and a caller into the audio? Maybe they hired some extremely talented voice-impersonators to create the content from the middle of that clip.

What is sad is there are those who will continue to support and believe Rush even after they have seen this evidence and realize that he must have edited his transcript and presented it as the whole thing. Why is this? I suppose there are those who don't realize that you are allowed to be a conservative and still recognize that Rush Limbaugh is dishonest. Just because Rush is a dishonest jerk doesn't mean there's anything wrong with conservatism itself.

Fox News isn't gonna' like this...

2007-08-27T18:01:00.000-07:00

It looks like evidence of homosexual civil unions in medieval Europe has been found. So much for the historical precedent of the "nuclear family"...

Livescience: Gay Civil Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe

Justice John Roberts is officially a fucking asshole

2007-06-27T20:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the language, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Update: Here's more.

The move is a success

2007-06-20T20:14:00.000-07:00

I have relocated my old blog (from Deadjournal) here... all the posts from the old blog are reproduced below. Sorry, Deadjournal, but Blogspot just had the features I wanted.

Psychic believers owned

2007-03-27T12:59:00.000-07:00

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html

Government meddling with science via injected politics, etc.

2007-02-08T18:06:00.000-08:00

By now we all know that the government has been improperly censoring and meddling with science, blah blah blah. Well, here's a rather concise timeline on each individual occurrence of such interference. Pretty good reading, you know, if you care about reality.

Hannity wows me again... not in a good way

2007-02-08T13:35:00.000-08:00

I don't intend for this blog to be a bash-fest for pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but they just continue to make outrageous statements. Hannity yesterday has sunk to a new low in bigotry. Either that, or it's an existing low I didn't even know about. Anyway, he characterizes this quote by Imam Husham Al-Hussainy as "shocking":

We thank you, God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus, and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us, God, to liberate and fill this Earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Amen.

Sounds pretty run of the mill to me. I suppose peace is a shocking and controversial thing for Sean Hannity.

Bill O'Reilly lists what he believes the "American Left" wants

2007-01-25T11:25:00.000-08:00

In Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo last night, he listed what "the American Left wants right now". Seeing as I'm somewhere around center-left on the political spectrum, I'm in a good position to sort lists like these into "center", "left", and "far-left"... so let's grade O'Reilly's list:

• A rapid withdrawal from Iraq, leaving that country to pretty much fend for itself.
Incorrect. The far-left may want this, but the "American Left" (which is the same as "the center" in many other places of the world, such as many areas of Europe and South America), wants a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with a simultaneous transfer of responsibility to the Iraqi government and military. There is no desire to abandon Iraq. D

• Discussions, but no confrontation, with Iran. — An article in The L.A. Times this week played down any danger from Iran.
Correct answer, however, incorrect reasoning. The reason the left wants no confrontation from Iran is because it is so dangerous; if we can barely handle Iraq and Afghanistan, how could we possibly handle Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and (possibly) Syria all at once? Iran is no push-over, and the left believes jumping into a war with Iran while our hands are already tied would be a grave mistake. D

• Free medical care for low-income Americans, run by the government.
Correct. A better answer would have been funded by the government (and tax-payers), not necessarily run by the government. B+

• No improved security at the southern border — the left wants to maintain the chaotic status quo; the far left wants to maintain open borders.
Incorrect. This is an exaggeration. There may be fringe elements of the far-left that want open borders, but no one wants to maintain the status quo. The far-left wants more (and simpler) legal paths to citizenship, and the left wants this in addition to tighter border security. F

• A big tax hike on affluent Americans and government regulation of corporate salaries for fat cats.
Partial Credit. The left believes that the rich should be taxed more heavily than the poor, but they don't all necessarily believe the government should regulate corporate salaries. The left would rather have employers be expected to provide health insurance and retirement plans for their employees. B

• Suspension of NSA listening programs that target suspected terrorists.
Incorrect. The left supports these programs, and as far as I know, the far-left does as well. What the left does not support is the NSA Wiretapping program that started up after September 11th, 2001, in which the NSA conducts wiretap eavesdropping without acquiring the necessary warrants beforehand. F

• Civilian trials for captured terrorists.
Partial Credit. The left wants civilian or military trials for captured terrorists - the key is that they want trials, period. B

• The closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Correct. Next time, please explain your answer (abusive interrogation methods, suspected terrorists held indefinitely without charge, etc.). A-

• Gay marriage, unfettered abortion, medical euthanasia, fetal stem cell research and a host of other social changes.
Partial Credit. The left wants equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage rights.
If "unfettered abortion" means abortion rights to anyone who needs an abortion, then you are correct. If it means abortion beyond the point at which a fetus becomes viable, then this is incorrect.
"Medical Euthanasia" is unexplained here, but if you mean the right to terminate life when a patient is terminally ill and suffering, then this is correct.
No one supports "fetal stem cell research", not even the far-left as far as I know, and no scientist has ever proposed this. The left does support embryonic stem cell research, though.C

There are nine statements here, although the last is more like four statements (or five if you count "...and a host of other social changes", but this phrase is meaningless). Averaging the scores on these 12 gives O'Reilly a final score of C-.

Not a good score for a moderate, but it's an expected score for a right-wing asshole.

Penny Arcade raises $800,000 for charity + I gloat a little

2006-12-18T11:24:00.000-08:00

Check out these pictures from the Child's Play charity event...

Child's Play photos

Also, check out the signatures on this bad boy, specifically the signature directly under the word "Navy".

8-)

Sylvia Browne is evil and all of that

2006-12-06T14:40:00.000-08:00

I'd like to update this blog with an entry on how cruel Sylvia Browne is, but I simply don't have the time right now. I'll just have you read these two links. Maybe I'll come back and update this entry when I have more time.

http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_opal.shtml

http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_ryankatcher.shtml

EDIT (23, Jan, 2007): http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/01/22/sylvia-brown-is-a-big-giant-evil-fraud/

Holy crap there's a lot of sex on the internet

2006-11-20T15:46:00.000-08:00

The ACLU brought a suit against the Attorney General challenging an attempt to bring back the Child Online Protection Act. This is old news. But now the ACLU has some statistics compiled in an analysis by statistician Philip B. Stark... and the result doesn't look good. That is, unless you are anyone on the planet except for me.

Professor Stark found that 1% of all pages on the internet have adult content. 1%. OF PAGES ON THE INTERNET! Why doesn't this number seem remarkably huge to anyone else? My jaw literally dropped when I saw the result of the study, especially after being primed with the headline "Study finds Web isn't teeming with sex". I'd contend that the study found precisely the opposite of that, thanks.

Professor Stark also found that "only" 6% of all queries returned a sexually explicit web site. I'm still not sure if I've given myself enough time to let the enormity of that number sink in. 6% of all queries.

I'm not questioning the methods or motives of any party involved here - the ACLU, Professor Stark, or Attorney General Gonzales - but I am questioning the media on this one. Professor Stark is not the one saying that 1% and 6% are small numbers. But then again, maybe I'm just the weird one. Before I saw this study, if you had told me that 1% of all pages on the internet have adult content, my response would be a prolonged "hoooooooooly crap!" As ubiquitous as porn is on the internet, I would have never guessed the situation was that bad.

I guess by now I'm rambling. I'll just sum it up this way: The ACLU and media seem to believe Professor Stark's findings don't bode well for the Child Online Protection Act. Maybe the rest of the world agrees with them - maybe the Justice Department is sweating bullets right now. But as far as I'm concerned, these numbers are irrelevant to the case at best, and damning for the ACLU at worst.

Jiang Yu is a jackass

2006-11-16T16:21:00.000-08:00

"We manage the Internet according to our laws and regulations. This is the usual practice for all the countries in the world."
- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu on Chinese internet regulation.

Wow. Implying that the way China regulates the internet is comparable to the international norm is nothing short of offensive to those of us who advocate free speech and internet freedom. Jiang Yu just slapped me in the face, and if I were a less decent man, I'd be inclined to slap her back. Sure she was speaking on behalf of China, but that doesn't make her morally unaccountable for her words.

If you're going to censor information from your citizens, at least have the decency not to insult the international community while you're at it.

For those who read my blog, I'd like to introduce you to a couple characters who I am sure you will immediately identify with. Meet Jingjing and Chacha, China's cartoon mascots for the internet police:


The faces of evil

Their names are a play on the Chinese "Jing Cha", meaning "police". Get it? Cute!!!

These loveable characters exist to remind Chinese citizens that even on the internet, the police are watching, and not everything you say or do on the internet is legal. Good thing these guys are around to educate the public, otherwise there may have been even more than 50 cyberdissidents imprisoned, 32 journalists imprisoned, and 2 journalists killed. Thanks Jingjing and Chacha! Thank you for being there to educate Chinese internet users on China's internet laws, which are, according to Jiang Yu, the international norm, afterall.

The U.S. has its share of problems with free speech and internet freedom, but by no means has it any problems like your country does, Jiang Yu. Don't tell me that it does. I'm relieved that I can only carry enough rage for one country, because today, China and Jiang Yu have insulted the entire world.

The Case Against Faith

2006-11-06T21:20:00.000-08:00

Author Sam Harris has written a pretty good article on the immorality of religion, called The Case Against Faith, that I want you all to read. It's the same stuff that I've been saying for about eight years, but he puts it much more succinctly than I could.

Astrology is harmful to society

2006-10-19T15:21:00.000-07:00

There's an article on BadAstronomy.com that I just found today that sums quite succinctly sums up all the problems with astrology. I recommend reading it. As for why I think you should read it, I'll answer that question with a quote from the article:

So what's the harm? Sure, astrology doesn't work, but it's all in fun, right?

Wrong.

For one thing, it's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on astrology every year in the United States alone. That's real money, folks, wasted on something that doesn't work.

For another, astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.

For a third, and this one irritates me personally, astrology takes away from the real grandeur of the Universe. We live in an amazing place, this Universe of ours, and it's quite fantastic enough without needing people to make up things about it. Astrology dims the beauty of nature, cheapens it.

Also, their blog is pretty good.

Attending business school is a bad business decision

2006-10-18T14:41:00.000-07:00

BusinessWeek.com just compiled a chart comparing tuition costs versus expected graduate salaries for a bunch of schools, and estimating how long it would take before your salary pays for your schooling. Of course, I've known school is a sham for years, but it's surprising to me that this information is a surprise to anyone.

To recent Harvard grads: I wish you luck on your endeavors from now until the year 2020... when you will finally start making money.

I haven't blogged in awhile

2006-09-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

Sorry about being absent from my blog for so long. For those of you who wonder where I've been... I've been busy working on this.

Those who protest Pluto's demotion are ignoring science

2006-09-03T19:08:00.000-07:00

If you didn't already know, Pluto is no longer considered a planet, something I've been calling for for about four years.

A group calling themselves "Friends of Pluto" has been protesting the decision, using slogans like "Protest for Pluto" and "Size Doesn't Matter". That's right... "Size Doesn't Matter". There's your proof that these protesters don't know anything about what's going on and why Pluto has been reclassified.

Whether an object is classified as a planet or not has nothing to do with size. Under the new definition (and in fact, the only definition, as "Planet" had no definition until recently), there can be planets smaller than Pluto and dwarf planets larger than Pluto. Heck, there can be dwarf planets larger than Jupiter. Size really doesn't matter when it comes to defining planets, and the use of this term by these protesters shows that they believe Pluto was reclassified due to its size - proving that they didn't bother researching the decision at all. They are ignoring the science behind the decision and simply appealing to traditonalist sentimentalism. Unfortunately for them, traditonalist sentimentalism does not dictate how things are classified in science.

Before August 24th, 2006, the word "Planet" had no definition. We didn't need one - it was obvious what was a planet and what wasn't. However, after discovering hundreds of Pluto-like objects in the same orbit as Pluto (the Kuiper Belt), we've been forced to come up with a way to determine which of these objects are planets and which are not. Here is the definition of a planet:
1.) It must orbit a star;
2.) It must have sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium shape;
3.) It must not be massive enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion of deuterium in its core;
4.) It has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

All eight planets in our solar system meet all four requirements; Pluto, Ceres, and Eris (and certainly several other Kuiper Objects) meet the first three, which makes them "dwarf planets". By the way, nowhere in that definition does size matter, except in point number 2, which is a requirement that objects much smaller than Pluto (like Ceres) can easily meet.

Here are some of the arguments I've seen against the decision to reclassify Pluto, most of which are very easily refuted:

1.) "(Pluto Discoverer) Clyde Tombaugh was an American hero. For that reason alone, Pluto's status as a full-fledged planet should be kept." -- Herb Beebe, longtime colleague of Clyde Tombaugh.
Clyde Tombaugh may or may not have been an American hero, but that has nothing to do with whether Pluto is or is not a Planet. Once of Science's greatest strengths is that it is self-correcting... as we learn more about nature, we must often revise and reinterpret our understanding of it. Statements like this do science a disservice.

2.) "It's been a planet my entire life. I learned that in the third grade. Might be the only thing I remember from the third grade... Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?" -- John Gibson, Fox News commentator.
For the record, Gibson also said "Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly. The headline was all I needed to see to know I'm rejecting this attempt at revisionist history." So at least he is admitting that he's ignorant.

3.) Textbooks will have to be rewritten!
This is true, but not a valid argument for three reasons:
1.) If the IAU were to define "planet" in such a way that it included Pluto, it'd also include scores of other Kuiper Objects. Textbooks would have to be rewritten anyway to account for the 40+ new planets.
2.) Textbooks are being updated continuously anyway, because we are continuously learning new things about nature... fancy that!
3.) Science would never change if one were to accept this argument as valid - we'd remain at our present level of knowledge forever.

4.) Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have not fully cleared their orbital zones either. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," -- Alan Stern, lead scientist on NASA's New Horizons mission.
Finally, a scientific argument. An inaccurate one, but at least one based on science. This argument stems from ambiguity in the phrase "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" - if Pluto hasn't cleared its neighborhood, then neither has Neptune, right?
Wrong. And Stern should know this, considering the term was based on his work. Stern calls an überplanet "a planetary body in orbit about a star that is dynamically important enough to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals in a Hubble time" and an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so. Sounds a lot like "planet" and "dwarf planet" to me. He goes on to say "From a dynamical standpoint, our solar system clearly contains 8 überplanets".

Eventually, if a body is prominent enough in its orbital zone, its gravity will cause all other significant objects in this zone to:
A.) Combine with the body;
B.) Disturbed to another orbit; or
C.) Enter an orbit governed by the body's gravity.

Comparing all other Kuiper Objects that share Pluto's orbit to Pluto itself, one can easily conclude that Pluto's gravity is not controlling that orbital zone, just as Ceres does not control its zone (and as a side note, this whole Pluto controversy is simply a rerun of when Ceres was demoted from "planet", after it was discovered - here comes a shocker - that there are actually tons of Ceres-like bodies floating around out there. Except at least Ceres is by far the largest object in the asteroid belt - whereas Pluto isn't even the largest Kuiper Object). However, the entire Kuiper Belt depends on Neptune's gravity. Indeed, Neptune has "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit", because all Kuiper Objects fit point C on the definition above (just as Jupiter's gravity governs Ceres and the asteroid belt... again, this debate has happened before).

But wait, you say... what's a "significant object?" How do you determine if an object is significant enough to be required to fit within one of those three points given above as a definition of "clearings its neighborhood / orbital zone?" Good question. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise every dust particle floating around out there has to be accounted for.

For the eight planets, plus Pluto, Ceres, and Eris, let's take a look at the ratio between the mass of the body and the total mass of the other non-resonating and non-satellite bodies in the same orbital zone (a ratio called the planetary discriminant). To illustrate the point I'm going to make, these are ranked by highest planetary discriminant to lowest:

1.) Earth: 1.7×10⁶
2.) Venus: 1.35×10⁶
3.) Jupiter: 6.25×10⁵
4.) Saturn: 1.9×10⁵
5.) Mars: 1.8×10⁵
6.) Mercury: 9.1×10⁴
7.) Uranus: 2.9×10⁴
8.) Neptune: 2.4×10⁴
9.) Ceres: 0.33
10.) Eris: 0.10
11.) Pluto: 0.077

It's not difficult to see that there is a substantial difference in the extent to which the neighborhood has been cleared between Pluto and the eight planets. Neptune is 24,000 more massive than all other mass in its orbital zone combined... Pluto is 0.077 times the mass of all other mass in its orbital zone combined.

Anyway, there you have it.

(September 14, 2006: Since 2003 UB₃₁₃ got a name, "Eris", I have updated this entry with it.)

Pluto's demotion

2006-08-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have known me for the past four or so years, you'll know how happy I am about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/24/pluto.ap/index.html

Being quasi-famous

2006-06-20T02:14:00.000-07:00

I'm famous enough that people talk about me in languages I don't understand (or haven't even heard of), but not famous enough to stop caring about what people are saying about me. This is a conundrum.

Can anyone speak Tokelauan?

According to GameFAQs, game testers aren't involved in game development

2006-06-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

GameFAQs.com, for a site with such a wealth of game information, has shown that they know nothing at all about game development. This, in and of itself, isn't such a bad thing - most people don't know anything about game development. However, when you allow ignorant, gut-feeling guesses mandate your policy, then we have a problem. Here's what GameFAQs has to say about game testers:

What kinds of credits does GameFAQs not accept?

People listed as testers, marketing, sales, manual, or in the "Thanks To..." section. In other words, anyone not involved in the creation of the game. While these people are definitely important to the overall process (and we may add them in the future), we're mainly looking at tracking the development/design teams.

GameFAQs gives the rest of us developers far too much credit. They apparently come from a world in which the Quality Assurance department (AKA: "Testers") is not a part of the development team. I appreciate the compliment, but in all honesty, GameFAQs assumes we developers are accomplishing the impossible: creating these commercial titles without the support of a fulltime (hell, overtime), dedicated, Quality Assurance team watching our backs. We aren't Gods, GameFAQs; game designers are people, too. Without the QA team (that's Quality Assurance), our games are heaps of filth. Really, a waste of the disc space.

I am confused and somewhat appalled by this policy. I was a tester for a few months while in designer-limbo between projects, and let me make this clear: I would not go back. QA is grueling, difficult, but extremely important work. Testers don't just sit around and "play videogames". GameFAQs seems to think the testers simply run through the game a few times and then tell the designer "yep, looks good!" or "you got a bug here, fix that up and you're good to go!" Wrong. They write reports, answer questions, and spend 12 hours a day finding and reporting everything that can possibly happen in your game. Whenever I see a bug report like "Navigate to such and such screen, then repeatedly hit X for five minutes. Result: The game freezes" I am reminded again of my appreciation and gratitute to the QA team. And near the end of the project, the testers run the show. Everything that's wrong with the game, and everything that needs to be done, is written in reports by the testers and assigned to the rest of the development team. If I have any questions about how the game behaves, the testers are who I go to. And if they don't know the answer to my question, I can trust them to find it faster than anyone else can.

You can remove the Design team from a game, and the gameplay will be bland and unfun. You can remove the Art team from a game, and your game's characters and environments will be stale and dysfunctional. You can remove the Software team from a game, and your game will be unstable, or it won't run.
If you remove QA from the game, the gameplay will be bland and unfun, the characters and environments will be stale and dysfunctional, and the game will be unstable or may not run at all.

Edge Online wrote a rather enlightening article on games testing called "A Bug's Life". I highly recommend the staff at GameFAQs to read it.

Bush designates the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands the world's biggest marine nature reserve

2006-06-15T20:27:00.000-07:00

What is this? The most environment-unfriendly U.S. president in recent memory has declared the islands of northwestern Hawai'i, an area approximately the size of the state of California, a national monument. The more cynical side of me suspects that this is a political maneuver, an attempt to swing some moderate votes to the Republican side, since these islands were very unlikely to be disturbed to begin with (from the Times article linked above):

The human population is just a few dozen, while the cost of fuel has limited fishing in recent years to a mere eight licensed vessels. The isolation has kept these islands undisturbed for about 14 million seabirds.

Still, all politics aside, whether the president's intentions were genuine or not, we can still be happy about the event itself.

Insight owners get the shaft

2006-06-15T10:01:00.000-07:00

The IRS, as of June 1st, 2006, has acknowledged that several of Honda's vehicles qualify for the Alternative Motor Vehicle Tax Credit. Take a look at their page on it... isn't there something missing?

They say:

The Internal Revenue Service has acknowledged the certification by American Honda Motor Company, Inc. that several of its vehicles meet the requirements of the Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit as a qualified hybrid motor vehicle. The tax credit for hybrid vehicles applies to vehicles purchased on or after Jan. 1, 2006, and could be as much as $3,400 for those who purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles.

But what they mean is this:

The tax credit for hybrid vehicles applies to vehicles purchased on or after Jan. 1, 2006, and could be as much as $3,400 for those who purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles... except the second-most fuel-efficient vehicle, the Insight CVT, which will get a reduced $2,900, and the most fuel-efficient vehicle, the Insight MT, which will get no credit at all.

Presumably, this tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles exists to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. I bought my Insight MT because it is the most fuel-efficient vehicle. $3,400 isn't too much compared to the taxes I'm paying each year, but if someone offered me $3,400, I'd take it. It's not like I'm about to switch to a Civic Hybrid and cut my fuel-efficiency by 20 miles per gallon for $3,400, but it'd be nice if this tax credit, designed to reward the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles, actually rewarded the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Videogames - The Brain Workout

2006-06-14T17:29:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on videogames that was surprisingly well-informed. It's called The Brain Workout, and is written by Brian C. Anderson. Mr. Anderson echoes the sorts of things we've all been saying for years, but it's refreshing to hear it coming from such a mainstream source as The Wallstreet Journal. I have repoduced the article below:

A few weeks ago, Sony and Nintendo both revealed their newest video-game systems to great fanfare, complete with slicker graphics and motion sensors. But not everyone was pleased. An increasingly noisy chorus of critics charge that the video-game industry--whose receipts now top the Hollywood box office--threatens to transform American kids into drooling zombies or out-and-out sociopaths. "We're trying to keep children away from R-rated violent movies that last 90 minutes," grumbles conservative media critic Brent Bozell, "but in too many basements and kids' bedrooms in America, children are role-playing murderers for hours on end, ad infinitum."

Raunchy, blood-soaked video games, unleashing "a silent epidemic of media desensitization," are "stealing the innocence of our children," agrees Hillary Clinton. That's why she and fellow senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh have introduced legislation to regulate the video-game industry, codifying its voluntary rating system and making it a federal crime for retailers to sell or rent inappropriate games to minors. Even the latest edition of Dr. Spock's famous guide to childrearing deems gaming a "colossal waste of time" at best, anger-stoking at worst.

The hysteria isn't surprising. New media have always met with suspicion: As The Economist editorialized a while back, a "neophobic" tendency dates from antiquity, with Plato's argument in the "Phaedrus" that the relatively newfangled medium of writing corrupted the memory-building powers of oral culture. Of course sometimes the new is bad. Yet the critics of video games are not only conjuring up a threat where none exists; they're ignoring the positive moral lessons and cognitive benefits that many of today's sophisticated games offer.

Most video games aren't violent or racy. A recent survey from the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank, found that more than 80% of the top-selling titles for the past five years came with the video-game industry's "Everyone" or "Teen" ratings, meaning that parents can assume reasonably inoffensive game content. About 15% of 2005's games received "Mature" or "Adults Only" ratings--surprisingly few, given that 65% of gamers are 18- to 34-year-olds.

The industry's self-imposed rating system is informative, featuring not only the rating but also a description of what might be offensive in the game. A T-rated game for example, might warn: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language and Suggestive Themes." The content reports are accurate, at least in my experience as the father of two young video-playing boys. And with many titles selling for $50 or $60 a pop, how many children can get a hold of games without mom's or dad's consent in the first place?

But even if your 13-year-old is spending a lot of time offing enemies thrown at him by Tom Clancy's new Ghost Recon, there's no hard evidence that he'll want to try homicide in real life. The most comprehensive study yet on the social effects of such kill-or-be-killed games, conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan, found that prolonged playing of Asheron's Call 2--a gory online multiplayer fantasy--didn't make study participants more belligerent. Some observers speculate that playing violent video games may be cathartic, channeling pre-existing violent impulses into virtual reality, where they can do no harm. It's worth noting that the emergence of video games as a major youth enthusiasm has occurred at the same time as a striking drop in juvenile violence. Maybe Sen. Clinton should be encouraging more gaming instead of calling for a federal crackdown on it.

The truth is, critics are often ignorant of the moral universe of video games--violent games included. Yes, the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto series, in which the gamer plays a criminal on the make in the big city, is pretty amoral. But most violent games put the player in a familiar hero's role, notes Judge Richard Posner in a 2001 Seventh Circuit appeals-court decision overturning an Indianapolis anti-video-game ordinance. "Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the 'undead,' fighting against overwhelming odds--these are the age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young," Mr. Posner observes.

Nonviolent games like The Sims franchise, an open-ended computer simulation of suburban life likened by visionary creator Will Wright to a "digital dollhouse," teach players bourgeois virtues. Blogger Glenn Reynolds, who devotes a chapter to gaming in his recent book on technology and society, "An Army of Davids," overheard his young daughter chatting with a friend about The Sims (a favorite among female gamers). "You have to have a job to buy food and things, and if you don't go to work, you get fired," she said matter-of-factly. "And if you spend all your money buying stuff, you have to make more." Thanks to The Sims, Mr. Reynolds says, his daughter now knows how to budget and how to read an income statement. In SimWorld, he notes, "narcissism, hedonism and impulsiveness are punished" and "traditional middle-class virtues, like thrift and planning, generally pay off."

Video games can also exercise the brain in remarkable ways. I recently spent (too) many late-night hours working my way through X-Men: Legends II: The Rise of Apocalypse, a game I ostensibly bought for my kids. Figuring out how to deploy a particular grouping of heroes (each of whom has special powers and weaknesses); using trial and error and hunches to learn the game's rules and solve its puzzles; weighing short-term and long-term goals--the experience was mentally exhausting and, when my team finally beat the Apocalypse, exhilarating.

Technology writer Steven Johnson likens the intellectual process at work in video gaming to "the basic procedure of the scientific method." True, I might have better used my time reading Phillip Roth's new novel, but as mind-aerobics this exercise surely beat watching the tube. As for my kids navigating the game, wouldn't it be comparable with their playing chess for hours?
A growing number of innovators recognize the intellectual benefits of gaming and seek to use video games for educational or therapeutic ends. The Serious Games Initiative, USA Today recently reported, got its start in 2002, when the U.S. Army released America's Army, a free online game that allows players to "live" the Army. More than five million people have registered to play. Venture capital and philanthropic dollars are now pouring into Serious Games projects in health care, mathematics and government and corporate training. One encouraging early result is Free Dive, a game that distracts children suffering from chronic pain or undergoing painful operations in real life with a calming underwater virtual reality.

With the next generation of high-powered consoles on the market or soon to appear, gamers will have even richer, more complex virtual environments, many of them nonlinear, to explore. Working through these worlds alone, with friends or--in the ever more popular "massively multiplayer online role-playing games," or MMOs--with thousands of strangers is far from a "colossal waste of time." Video games are popular culture at its best. Critics would do better to drop the hysterical laments and pick up a joystick.

Anyway, I just figured I'd post before I forgot to do it. And now to get back to working on my game.

Conservative bias in analyses of liberal bias in the media

2006-06-13T22:01:00.000-07:00

There's a website that I like to read every now and then called "Oh, That Liberal Media!" which purports to "[Answer] the question 'What Liberal Media?', by highlighting liberal bias, agendas, distortions and erroneous reporting in the mainstream media." Sounds like a pretty noble task. Some of their articles are pretty good, but some of them show conservative bias in their selection of "liberal" items from the media. Here is one example, an analysis on an article taken from the Seattle Times called "Free spirits frolic at Fremont festivities". Their analysis is called "Don't look, Ethel! It's a Free Spirit!", and is written by Brian Crouch. I have reproduced his article below:

Imagine your child tells you that on the way home from school, a bunch of naked men rode by her on bicycles. You call the police, and they shrug. You call the newspaper, defender of truth, and their headline next morning reads:

"Free Spirits Frolic"

Now stop imagining... it's just Seattle!

Police and the Fremont Arts Council, organizer of the event, said the parade was mostly peaceful, with no arrests. Maque daVis, the council's "ex-president for life," said 500 to 600 people participated. Scores of children lining the parade route seemed unabashed by the nudity.

And scores of parents seemed unabashed by their negligence.

"Daddy, there's a man on the corner naked!"
"He's just what the Seattle Times would call a 'free spirit,' honey. Go back outside."

I remember a time when people who exposed themselves in front of little kids were called "perverts," or "freaks," or "pedophiles," or "prisoner in cell number 2."

Seattle 8-year-old Joseph Smith, who's been to five solstice parades now, said the bicyclists are his favorite part because their skin colors are so cool. But his sister Rachel, 11, likes the music best.

Oh. It's just a family tradition.

Now, you might be surprised, but the reporter and this Seattle crowd, that cheers and applauds (literally) indecent exposure and pedophiliac exhibitionism, are not likely to vote to re-elect the president.

Directly behind the statue came a large painted poster depicting President Bush and his cabinet. "Feel free to give up your freedom to be free," cried a member of that contingent, inviting the crowd to reach into a bucket of slop and throw handfuls at the cartoon.

Julie Lopez gleefully complied, flinging a handful of mushed vegetables. "That was a physical release of frustration," she said, as she wiped off her hand.

Earlier in the article:

Seattle welcomed summer yesterday with its 16th annual Solstice Parade, a joyous, 75-minute celebration of all things wild and pagan.

Flinging mush in symbolic hatred of the country's leaders while your child looks at naked men: a wild, pagan, joyous celebration.
Thank you, Seattle Times.

UPDATE: In the same paper, here's what a staff columnist has to say about a kid who shedded his graduation ceremony robe on stage:

Not only was it unnecessary to call police, but whoever did tried to paint Satterwhite as a perverted flasher out to infect the minds of children. The caller said [he] "opened his gown and exposed himself to the entire audience of 1,200 to 1,500 people for about 5 seconds," says the police report.... Why people do this, I have no idea. But who cares? Most children I know— such as my own— wouldn't be traumatized by a streaker. They'd dismiss them— or they'd want to strip naked themselves.

And that doesn't bother him. This is the kind of parent who sends his kid for a sleepover at a pop singer's house.

Though the author of this article doesn't state it, it is apparent that he believes there is something inherently wrong or harmful about public nudity. Not only that, but his failure to note his own opinion on the matter implies that he expects his audience to feel the same way. This belief that nudity is inherently wrong is a conservative belief that is definitely right of center, but is equally as acceptable as the liberal idea that public nudity is healthy and enlightening.

There is nothing wrong with holding a right-wing or left-wing belief as long as one recognizes his beliefs indeed are left or right of center. This author presents a moderate article as "liberally biased" only because his own biases tilt his own perception; anything to the left of his own beliefs is "liberal". This, I am afraid, will not due, especially when one is trying to expose liberal bias in the media.

His emphasis on the phrase "a joyous, 75-minute celebration of all things wild and pagan" further illustrates his own conservative bias, as does his use of the term "pedophiliac exhibitionism" to describe the scene. There is nothing wrong or liberal about "wild and pagan" celebrations, nor is all public nudity "pedophiliac". Again, because he neglects to mention his own biases, he apparently expects his readers to feel the same way. And if he expects his readership to be as conservative as he is, then the purpose of his article is not to expose any sort of liberal bias (for the target audience for that should be everyone, regardless of ideology), it is instead a form of conservative masturbation.

Exposing liberal bias in the media does not require a conservative bias (check out FactCheck.org for some great non-partisan fact checking), and Mr. Crouch has done his conservative friends a disservice by presenting an article with no liberal bias, and peppering his commentary with his own conservative biases.

First Blood

2006-06-13T20:46:00.000-07:00

I have decided to make my first entry on this site contain the debts list. Below is a list of people who owe me money, and the amount they owe (now featuring full names). If you object to having your full name on here, either pay me back or sue me for defamation. I won't be using code names anymore, kids, so get used to having your names displayed in my blog.

EDIT: No more!

Now that we have that out of the way, allow me to tell you a little about myself. I loan people money way too often, according to most everyone I've talked to. My philosophy is, however, if someone is in a bind and I have the capacity to help them, then I'll do it. It's a simple as that. I only loan people money if they seriously need it (hospital bills, lost their job, car exploded, etc.). I won't loan money for anything that is nonessential.

The fact that I have had to loan so much money to people is a testament to how poor our economy is right now, and how unfair life is in general. I make more money than the average American household, which is sad and pathetic, because I don't make all that much money. I know a few people who bust their asses working two jobs and still cannot afford to pay their bills and eat. Bill O'Reilly says Americans "have a very high standard of living" because "[e]ven the poor have color televisions and pretty much everything they need". I say Bill O'Reilly is an asshole.