In My Humble Opinion Gingrich is quite possibly a psychopath.

Yeah – science fiction has become science fact for many. Rest your weary imagination kiddies as someone has come along and debunked the entire thing: HERE.  These are some of the more memorable quotes from the article:

1. Nemesis has gotten swept up with the Planet X hypothesis, which holds that an as-yet-undetected planet will wreak havoc on Earth — and both those hypotheses have fed into worries about a 2012 apocalypse supposedly foretold by the ancient Maya calendar.
2. Last year, researchers reported that if the Nemesis companion existed, it wouldn’t orbit in a nice, precise 27 million-year cycle. That study, published in the Royal Astronomical Society Letters, was portrayed as the “final nail in the coffin” for the Nemesis hypothesis. But the researchers still couldn’t explain why extinctions seemed to peak every 27 million years.
3. “There is a tendency for people to find patterns in nature that do not exist,” Bailer-Jones said in areport from the Max Planck Institute. “Unfortunately, in certain situations traditional statistics plays to that particular weakness.”

Don’t worry – with any luck the Zombie Apocalypse will start soon. Whew.

The article, “Gestural interfaces: a step backwards in usability?” illuminated that recent implementation of Gestural-driven UIs have ignored well-tested and proven standards of interaction design. It seems that Specialists at the NielsenNorman Group are rather disgusted by iPad design standards (or the lack thereof) and the present fad in site navigation, referencing (picking on) USA Today’s new section navigation. This is where I offer a philosophical point a la Caravaggio. When specialists begin screaming about widespread change disrupting the “norm” – the cited change is most likely necessary and illuminative of a new paradigm about to gain market traction. Ergo, I believe the development path is heading in a correct direction, counter to the negative waxing of the NielsenNorman people.

Physical interaction as an additional sensory attribute by which a digital interface can be navigated is here to stay. By Interaction I also mean interpretation (by user AND by machine) of a physical dimension, such as a micro-expression, which is necessary to close the inter-activity loop of the user to the application. Currently several disciplines are heading on a crash course in Human Computer Dialogue with Interpretation logically being a paramount focus. Studies on emotive robots, mind-control computer mouse (mice), and embedded responsive biotechnology are moving ahead steadily.

If we were to draw an evolution time-scale line from today outwards into the future, we would be remiss if we did not mark right now as the true genesis point of technology beginning its path towards sentience. Stated another way, we currently have the baseline advances supported by evermore powerful computing required of a machine to understand human communicative nuances to the degree necessary to hold a meaningful discussion. Alan Turing would be proud.

Ref: Nielsen, J., iPad Usability: First Findings From User Testing, Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, April 26, 2010
Ref: Norman, D. A., Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural, Interactions, 17, No. 3 (May – June)
Picture Attribution: http://www.feelix-growing.org/

1. Members have a profile
2. Profile has information
3. Profile has pictures
4. You can get friends and look at their profiles.
5. You can send messages to friends.
6. You can poke people (not as fun as it sounds boys)
7. You can post random crap on your wall – a wall being what people can see about you. Sort of a mini blogs with limited text count
8. People can post on your wall.
9. You can use Facebook apps other people make at your own risk. Most suck.
10. Oh – you can search for people who probably don’t want you to find them.
11. Integrated Chat system

That is about it. A 120 billion dollar idea? You betcha! Why? There are something like 300 million user accounts and that my friends is quite a bit of gravy. So why bring up dets.me? Fw reasons:

1. The system is being built out – literally adding new stuff daily. Kind of neat to watch that happen.
2. It has everything Facebook and Twitter have, plus it integrates with them.
3. It has everything craiglist has.
4. You can find a job on it.
5. It has a massive game library.
6. Every user gets their own REAL BLOG.
7. Integrated Chat system
8. Event Postings.
9. Document Sharing.

I could go on but you get the picture. So if you have any interest in looking at a social network in the making and being part of it from the ground up take a look – I find it fascinating. Best part – if you make suggestions about the site they actually listen. Weird I know.

Paleontologist Manning of the University of Manchester has discovered a giant footprint likely left by a Tyrannosaur 65 million years ago. The print, which measures about 2.5 feet (74 centimeters) in length, was found in rocks within Montana’s Hell Creek Formation — a well-known site for Tyrannosaurus rex fossils. Dr. Phil Manning heads an extensive research and teaching program at the University of Manchester, is a Research Fellow at the University of Manchester Museum and Council Member of the Palaeontological Association (London). He has built up an international reputation for his work on dinosaur trackways. Phil has extensive field experience of Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaur sites in North and South America and the British Isles. His research interests are broad.

The projects on which he is currently the lead researcher, include:
· Dromaeosaur limb mechanics and the functional morphology of pedal digit II. This work has been part-funded by the BBC. Co-workers on this project include: The Natural History Museum (London), Pennicott & Payne Ltd. (London) and The Peabody Museum (Yale University, New Haven, USA).
· Pathology of dinosaur bone: reviewing the pathologies from a Tenontosaurus tilletti specimen (Cloverly Formation, Montana). The specimen shows examples of infection and physical trauma (tendon avulsion). The use of this non-invasive, high resolution CT-imaging techniques is providing new information on the response of dinosaur bone to trauma. Working with Emma Schachner at the University of Pennsylvania, USA.
· Dinosaur track formation, preservation and interpretation. This work is part of an ongoing study looking at the mechanical failure of sediments associated with the tracks of dinosaurs. The use of discrete element modelling is currently yielding useful data to be compared with laboratory simulated and fossil tracks. Co-workers on this project include: The Black Hills Institute of Geological Research (South Dakota, USA), The Pratt Museum at Amherst College (MA, USA), Memorial University of Newfoundland (Canada) and Manchester Computing Centre (University of Manchester).
· Theropod dinosaur respiratory system: anatomy and functional morphology. Co-workers on this project include: Department of Vertebrate Palaeontology at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (USA) and the Faculty of Life Sciences (University of Manchester).
· Sediment geochemistry and taphonomic controls on dinosaur soft-tissue preservation. The project is looking at material from two sites in the Hell Creek Formation. The sites have T. rex (Montana) and a hadrosaur (North Dakota) with soft tissue preservation.
· The use of LIDAR, 3D digital mapping, of outcrops in the field. Current research collaboration include University of Barcelona, whom we are developing a 3D digital map of a large outcrop of dinosaur trackways (circa 3000+) in the Spanish Pyrenees. Fieldwork also includes LIDAR digital outcrop surveys of Lance and Hell Creek Formations in Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, working with the Black Hills Institute of Geologic Research, Hill City (South Dakota).
· Dinosaur gait modelling, in collaboration with Dr Bill Sellers (Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester) and Professor Kent Steven (University of Oregon, USA), we are developing a set of biorealistic reference gaits for dinosaurs representing optimising for efficiency and performance over a range of speeds that can be used to aid understanding of the musculoskeletal physiology of giant animals.
· The endocranial structure, morphology and geometry of a Macroplata longirostris using high-resolution X-Ray computer tomography. The project is applying high resolution x-ray computer tomography (CT) imaging to the braincase of a single Macroplata longirostris specimen held at the Manchester Museum (University of Manchester). This investigation will achieve a greater understanding of the endocranial geometry of this extinct marine reptile and review phylogenetic and palaeobiological implications. The Manchester Macroplata ‘near-brain’ project is now building a research link with researchers and additional fossil material at the University of Cambridge (Dr Leslie Noe).

Photo Attribution: Manning

So… is this a hoax or is this evidence of initial data that requires further filtering?

For your rumor-hungry minds, here is the leaked note:

Internal Note
Report number ATL-COM-PHYS-2011-415
Title Observation of a γγ resonance at a mass in the vicinity of 115 GeV/c2 at ATLAS and its Higgs interpretation
Author(s) Fang, Y (-) ; Flores Castillo, L R (-) ; Wang, H (-) ; Wu, S L (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Imprint 21 Apr 2011. – mult. p.
Subject category Detectors and Experimental Techniques
Accelerator/Facility, Experiment CERN LHC ; ATLAS
Free keywords Diphoton ; Resonance ; EWEAK ; HIGGS ; SUSY ; EXOTICS ; EGAMMA
Abstract Motivated by the result of the Higgs boson candidates at LEP with a mass of about 115~GeV/c2, the observation given in ATLAS note ATL-COM-PHYS-2010-935 (November 18, 2010) and the publication “Production of isolated Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider Physics” (Letters B 683 2010 354-357), we studied the γγ invariant mass distribution over the range of 80 to 150 GeV/c2. With 37.5~pb−1 data from 2010 and 26.0~pb−1 from 2011, we observe a γγ resonance around 115~GeV/c2 with a significance of 4σ. The event rate for this resonance is about thirty times larger than the expectation from Higgs to γγ in the standard model. This channel H→γγ is of great importance because the presence of new heavy particles can enhance strongly both the Higgs production cross section and the decay branching ratio. This large enhancement over the standard model rate implies that the present result is the first definitive observation of physics beyond the standard model. Exciting new physics, including new particles, may be expected to be found in the very near future.
See: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1346326?

Recently, Nature Journal (The International Weekly Science Journal) interviewed 7 experts to get their thoughts on NASA’s future. The experts ranged from NASA Chief Scientist to Science Fiction Writer. In no certain order, here is the feedback harvested from the seven interviews:

1) Get Us to Mars! Currently there is no clear cut agenda for Mars exploration beyond a small handful of proposed rover missions. If we set our sights on Mars several things come into our grasp. The most powerful of them all is establishing a colony outside of Earth.
2) Build a Case for Humans in Space. NASA continues to muddle along. Over the past 20 years we’ve spent $20 billion on research and development for getting humans into space via alternative means (sans big rocket). None have made it to the final test flight phase.
3) Send More Robots! NASA can maintain self-sufficiency by building a significant unmanned space flight program to explore NEO (Near Earth Objects, such as the Moon), our Solar System, and near-by Galaxies.
4) Deflect Risky Asteroids. Simply put… prioritize defending Earth from direct threats such as Asteroid Impacts. We’ve enough geological and paleontological data to discern it happened before and it is definitely going to happen again.
5) Find a United Purpose. Imagine NASA focused and committed towards leading an international spaceflight endeavor to search for habitable worlds?! To extend humanity’s reach to Mars and well beyond.
6) Ditch the Rockets! This represents very old technology. The only manner in which to fundamentally change humanity’s relationship with outer space is to engage in developing radically new launch and exploration systems.
7) Revolutionize Research. A concurrent, highly-Darwinistic approach to developing multiple crucial technologies is required now. No more fruitless efforts undertaken without a clear objective or end game in mind.

You would have to have been living under a rock to not understand that “Big Brother” is watching you, and everyone you know these days. From security cameras, red light cameras to those cameras in your own office complex, you are more than likely vid-streamed or imaged several times during the course of your normal day. Big deal right?  “Who cares?!? I have nothing to hide.” is a tired refrain I hear/read most often. I suppose this may well be true, unless you didn’t realize that what you thought was protected freedom of speach/expression, is considered an
indicator that you might be a dangerous threat. Fire sale on Ron Paul bumper stickers.

So yeah, most people just don’t care (as ToyMaker makes a case for in a recent post) anyway. However, let us forge ahead and serve up some information about newer, rather far reaching technology – in the hands of well, anyone.

Creepy Stuff?!?
Bob does a nice job of laying out how this great data aggregation software can be used by anyone, pretty much any where, and take advantage of people blindly using this or that technology must have. If you must have this yourself, grab it here.

Still with me? So what might the government be doing with all this overload of technology? The Onion hit it on the head.

Facebook, a Dream Come True for the CIA!

This next bit in a nice cheeky, and dare I say a little snark thrown in, actually puts forth some facts.

More on just some of the facts, nothing to see here though.

All of this continually sets off my “Suspicion Theory Meter”, but hey! I’m probably just paranoid…

1. The Bible is a book that was constructed from various disparate texts. Those texts were voted on in Charlemagne’s court and those that were selected made it into the bible. Meaning – the bible is a book constructed from a vote by MAN (note not women as they were not allowed to vote). The irony here is that it is documented that any canon written by a woman was automatically dismissed – which I find odd since those canons are the word of God then we have an issue whereby the word of God was voted on and found dismissive of that word of god came through a woman.
2. There are several versions of the Bible. Right. A book that is the word of God has been interpreted and re-interpreted to get different versions out there. I can only conclude then that God keeps revising God’s perspective on reality – which to me is a bit odd.
3. The Bible comes in many different languages – and nobody seems to think that matters. The Khoran also comes in many different languages however Islam recognizes that the meanings may be different in different languages and thus the only authentic text is the one written in Arabic. Christians don’t seem to think that is the case with the Bible. Most Linguists will tell you differently.
4. Finding Canons written before the Bible was ever written really doesn’t validate the Bible, but rather validates the story of how the Bible came to be. A bunch of Holy MEN met, reviewed the canons the had collected, and voted on them. The ones found could be early versions of those canons – that’s it.

I can’t wait to see where this little journey takes us.

I’ve found something better for an $8 annual subscription rate. A Journal that truly matches the focus and pulse of this blog. It is a Journal that is entirely devoted to the scrupulous collection and analysis of scientific anomalies in current premier scientific literature. Upon opening the envelope covering my first edition today (it actually had typewritten addresses on it) I smelled what can only be described from my memory as a “good and ancient smell.” This brought me instantly back to the top floor of the University of Georgia’s Document Archive where I dug through old journals for research or earlier memories of my Grandmother’s attic where I spent numerous late summer afternoons with my plastic army men locked in battle. Inside was a typewritten coversheet stating, “Your new subscription begins soon. Delay is due to personal injury and hospitalization. Apologies.”

I looked into the Publisher, Science Frontiers, and saw that a single gentleman had been producing this bimonthly digest since 1974. He has a very respectful following. The gentleman’s name is William R. Corliss. Wikipedia defines him as: “William Roger Corliss (born August 28, 1926 [Age: 85] in Stanford, Connecticut) is an American physicist and writer who has become known for his interest in collecting data regarding anomalous phenomena. Arthur C. Clarke has described him as “Fort’s latter-day – and much more scientific – successor.” Looking at his body of work, Corliss has produced articles and books for NASA, Atomic Energy Commission, and the National Science Foundation. Based on the information I’ve read in his Journal thus far, this guy must read and synthesize EVERYTHING at or approaching light speed. He makes my somewhat prodigious reading list look like that of an illiterate.

[Excerpt from Wikipedia] In his book Unexplained!, Jerome Clark describes Corliss as “essentially conservative in outlook”. He explains, “Corliss [is] more interested in unusual weather, ball lighting, geophysical oddities, extraordinary mirages, and the like — in short, anomalies that, while important in their own right, are far less likely to outrage mainstream scientists than those that delighted Fort, such as UFOs, monstrous creatures, or other sorts of extraordinary events and entities.” Arthur C. Clarke said: “Unlike Fort, Corliss selects his material almost exclusively from scientific journals like Nature and Science, not newspapers, so it has already been subjected to a filtering process which would have removed most hoaxes and reports from obvious cranks. Nevertheless, there is much that is quite baffling in some of these reports from highly reputable sources.”

I’ve just begun to dig fully into the envelop filled with back copies of his Journal. He obviously felt bad for being injured and starting my subscription late (I had no idea it was late!? Nor would have I cared knowing who this is published by now). All-in-all, his analysis is done in the classical way – extremely formal with absolutely no room for hubris or even colloquialisms. His critiques are delivered in a serious tone, yet presented in common language. I already consider this one of the coolest subscriptions I have – this guy is the definition of living history!

If you’re interested and have $8 to spare, I highly, highly recommend a subscription.

– http://www.science-frontiers.com/

I’d like to place my bet that nothing will happen and anything that does will be purely coincidental.

What makes this Astrologer “noted”?

One of my favorite quotes from the article: “(It should be noted that astrology is not a real science, but merely makes connections between astronomical and mystical events.)”

Yeah to Yahoo for shooting this down this quack’s predictions.

We, as a race, will benefit to a higher degree if we can break-down the historical myopic paradigm inherent with our fascination with being a “Specialist”. Can you imagine a job interview where the HR rep asks “so I now know you understand database design… but what do you know about art and architecture? Do you play a musical instrument?” Art, Architecture… even Musical Theory offer a rich baseline in which to expand one’s knowledge of technological structure and design. This isn’t about being a generalist. This is about building a diverse foundation of knowledge from which to produce the necessary elements in which to optimally “think differently” about an esoteric or highly-specialized subject matter. To over-specialize without this foundation should be thought of as synonymous with “to maintain the conventional, to snuff-out change, and even to under-perform.” Broadening one’s array of interests should be considered in a similar fashion to how dissimilar foci was considered during the Renaissance – literally a standard for which all else depends. Some of my smartest friends display pure genius in highly-concentrated, very specialized areas. However to get to know them one would quickly understand that they pull from a diverse field of disparate interests (hobbies and even play [essential for creativity]) to stay fresh and relevant in their chosen path.

Without further ado…

Dinosaur Census Reveals Abundant Tyrannosaurus and Rare Ontogenetic Stages in the Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation (Maastrichtian)

A recent study carried out by a seasoned paleo-group, two of whom unknowingly carry my “favorite person” designation, produced some groundbreaking evidence of certain bio-ecological niches during the Cretaceous period. Groundbreaking, not only from the presented results, but also by the sheer nature of these two cerebral rock stars working together. Paleo-High Priest John Horner (most likely known through his work as the “Jurassic Park” Movie Advisor) and Polymath Nathan Myhrvold (of Microsoft and Intellectual Ventures fame) engaged in building a dinosaur census via what they entitled, the Hell Creek Project (1999–2009). This study draws from multiple lines of evidence from geography, taphohistory, stratigraphy, phylogeny and ontogeny. The project set about to investigate the relative abundance of large dinosaurs preserved in the Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation of northeastern Montana, USA. Overall, the dinosaur skeletal assemblages in the Hell Creek Formation (excluding lag-influenced records) consist primarily of sub-adult or small adult size individuals. Small juveniles and large adults are both extremely rare, whereas sub-adult individuals are relatively common. The studies conclusion proposes that mature individuals (of at least some dinosaur taxa) either lived in a separate geographic locale analogous to younger individuals inhabiting an upland environment where sedimentation rates were relatively less, or these taxa experienced high mortality before reaching terminal size where late stage and often extreme cranial morphology is expressed.

The surprises remained tied to the relative abundance of Tyrannosaurus skeletons. They were cited as being as abundant as Edmontosaurus, an herbivore, in the upper Hell Creek Formation and nearly twice as common in the lower third of the formation. Note for non-paleo enthusiasts, this data triggered an excited response from anyone who considers himself or herself a Vert-Paleo specialized Bone Hunter. The smaller, predatory dinosaurs (e.g., Troodon and dromaeosaurids) are primarily represented by teeth found in micro-vertebrate localities and their skeletons or identifiable lag specimens were conspicuously absent. This relative abundance suggests Tyrannosaurus was not a typical predator and likely benefited from much wider food choice opportunities than exclusively live prey and/or specific taxa. Of importance, it was indicated that Tyrannosaurus adults may not have competed with Tyrannosaurus juveniles if the potential for selecting carrion increased with size during ontogeny.

In conclusion, the study further validated that Triceratops (my specialty) remain the most common dinosaur and isolated skulls contribute to a significant portion of this census. Associated specimens of Triceratops consisting of both cranial and postcranial elements remain relatively rare (and that which comprise a high proportion of my personal collection). This rarity may be explained by a historical collecting bias influenced by facies (in this case the mixing of Cretaceous and Paleocene taxa) and oft-related taphonomic factors (decomposition dynamics). The limited discovery of postcranial elements may also depend on how extensive a fossil quarry is expanded after a skull is collected. Taken together, the survey paints a fascinatingly broad picture of life in the Cretaceous period in what would eventually become modern-day North America. 

I live in the midwest, and if you have been paying attention to the news you know that I am smack dab in the middle of Snowmageddon and the Snowpocalypse according to the weather folks. The funny thing is weathermen and weatherwomen, also called Meteorologists - the joke being that they actually have nothing to do with meteors – har har we get it, are scientists whose job is to make an educated guess. Does this mean that they are not doing real science?

NO.

What it means is that they are using the best science they have at their disposal to guess at what it about to happen and what will happen in the near future. Tragically these people are often made fun of for their bad guesses – but realize what they are trying to do – PREDICT THE WEATHER. Folks, that is not an easy thing to do as you may be interested to know that the weather here in the midwest is actually affected by the weather in China, and so on. The world has a weather system, and the stuff you are looking at is a vast subset of that.

Why did I bring this up? A few days ago, we here in the midwest were told that we’d have a blizzard that day. Then the next day same thing. First it was 6 inches of snow, then 8, then 16, then 21, now they say 24. If they are using science how did they not say 24 day one with an exact date and time of when that would start? Because the science they are using to do these predictions is not as deadly accurate, or all inclusive, as it needs to be, and making it so is extremely difficult.

I think this is where Caravaggio and I actually agree on things. The scientific method is based on the idea of a theory that you test over and over and over again. Theories are constantly in flux. We have what is right right now based on what we know right now. We aren’t fudging data (this is where Caravaggio lost his mind on that vaccine dude who apparently altered his findings – at rightfully so I might add), we aren’t altering, we aren’t misinterpreting. We are reading what we have NOW right here in front of us, and historically it has meant X. Can that perspective change? Sure, in like 5 minutes – because the weather changes that often.

Is it Science? Yes. Is it a definitive science? Not yet – but they are getting there.