Monthly Archives: June 2010

A foxy Caturday | Bad Astronomy

Posted on by

It’s Caturday! Which, regular readers know, I have expanded here at the BABlog to include all creatures great and small. So check out this cutie pie:

This is a young fox that lives across the street from my in-laws’ house. We were over there the other day, and I had to leave early (to come home to write, somewhat ironically). But my wife and daughter saw a fox running around the neighborhood, and saw it go into a neighbor’s yard. There were people standing around looking, so they joined them… and what they found were a pair of young kits poking around. They obviously had a lair there.

My brother-in-law took this picture, and several others. The foxes are apparently pretty tame, but I hope people still keep their distance. Also, my B-i-L has had to deal with finding mostly-eaten corpses of various prey in his yard, too. Nice. We’re starting to get pretty good at identifying bones…


Is That Food Expired or Safe to Eat?

Posted on by

Some experts believe that manufacturers are much too cautious when it comes to devising best-by dates for certain foods. Determining shelf life typically involves using professional testers and instrument data, but some believe that using consumer rejection data would also help to better pinpoint a

How Will the Gulf Oil Spill Affect Energy Policy?

Posted on by

Current predictions put oil from the Gulf in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few more weeks. The spill happened just a few weeks after the U.S. announced its intention to increase offshore drilling of domestic reserves. Will the Gulf oil spill become the world's most costly disaster in terms o

Cable Copper Thickness

Posted on by

I want to know how the thickness of a 60 HP slip ring induction motor cabling for overhead crane from 1.5MVA transformer is done. What are the parameter to be considered, i have a slight idea that we should consider short circuit current. Please explain with formulae.

Treacherous Texting on the Road

Posted on by

In many small towns, cities, and states in the U.S., it's now against the law to text while you drive — the reason being that it distracts a driver's attention from the road. Yep, as dangerous as driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, as the stats say. But it still happens day in

Are science journalists being overly criticised? | Not Exactly Rocket Science

Posted on by

Muzzled_watchdogIn the UK, there is no more famous scourge of bad science journalism than Ben Goldacre, author of the Guardian’s well-named Bad Science column. In last week’s column, Goldacre published a critique of an inaccuracy-laden piece in the Observer, penned by health correspondent Denis Campbell. This triggered a sequence of ripostes including an opinion piece from the Independent’s health editor Jeremy Laurence criticising Goldacre, a response from Goldacre criticising Laurance, and a defence of Laurance from Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre.

I have already commented on Laurance’s frankly appalling view of what journalism is, and I will leave that aside for now. Both he and Fox essentially argue that a critical overview of science journalism is necessary but both advocate a softly-softly approach that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin too much.

Laurence said, “While raging rightly at the scientific illiteracy of the media, [Goldacre] might reflect when naming young, eager reporters starting out on their careers that most don’t enjoy, as he does, the luxury of time.” Fox chimed in with “Ben was well within his rights to do his weekly column on the weaknesses in the Observer report on Omega 3 but he would not have prompted this backlash if he had done it in a different style”, and elsewhere, “I think it’s about the tone of Ben’s particular brand of critique.”

I will summarise these arguments: we like watchdogs, but we’d prefer it if they had no bite.

Both mention the difficult, high-pressure environment of the modern newsroom, which Fox refers to as “mitigating circumstances”. I disagree but there is certainly a grain of truth here about the life of a journalist. I have argued before that critics of journalism would do well to better understand such day-to-day routines, filled as they are with deadlines, editor-wrangling, dictats about what stories to cover, and many people to interview. In Flat Earth News, Nick Davies derides the culture of intense pressure for more stories in less time with less fact-checking, while simultaneously empathising with young journalists who are ground down by it.

You can understand why people who work in that environment might get a little narked with critics, especially when certain subtleties of the profession are commonly missed (hint: the journalist didn’t write the headline). This isn’t helped by the typically ferocious nature of internet criticism. It’s easy to rain vitriol on a name on a webpage over a wrong headline or a dodgy stat, while forgetting that behind the name is a real people with a real livelihoods. So I empathise with science journalists who feel that their backs are up against the wall, or who feel that they are sometimes criticised unfairly.

But none of this means that people shouldn’t be criticised if they screw up or that during such criticisms, they should be given an easy ride.

The high-pressure nature of the job merely explains some of the mistakes that are made – they don’t excuse them. At the most basic level, as an employee of a workplace, you are contracted to do a job, with all the stress and pressure that entails. If you can’t cope with that and fulfil your obligations, then you’re in the wrong job. This is particularly important in science and health journalism, because the costs of error can be very substantial.

Then there’s the old canard that the critics have it easy. Laurance accuses Goldacre of having “the luxury of time” while Fox contrasts the day of a “jobbing journalist” to the “luxury of a columnist like Ben who gets to lay bare the flaws in those stories once a week”. That’s absolute rubbish. I can’t speak for Ben but it’s worth noting that his column is written on top of his activities as a full-time doctor. I can, however, speak for myself. In the upcoming week, I will be writing 6 lengthy news pieces for this blog and a 1,500-word feature for the Times, outside of my day job in my spare time. In fact, writing this piece is eating into that time. The critic’s schedule is no less hectic and indeed part of the reason that bad science journalism is such an irritation is that correcting it soaks up time!

During my day job, I have to answer enquiries from people who have been misled by an inaccurate headline. I respond to sensationalist coverage and provide a more measured take on things. I also provide some of the quotes that work into those news pieces, often dropping all my other work to meet a reporter’s deadline – furiously reading the relevant paper (if it’s provided, otherwise, hunting it), second-guessing the angle of the story, drafting a response, and getting it signed off. That high-pressure news environment turns my office into a high-pressure working environment.

And really, regardless of how intense the schedule of a journalist is, that defence really starts falling apart when you consider that many people cope with it admirably. You’ll note that some reporters hardly ever seem to draw the wrath of critical bloggers. Why? Is it because they’re part of some secret club? Do they know where the off switch is? No – it’s because they’re simply better at what they do. They’re more careful. They do their homework. They check their facts. And most importantly of all (because we’re all human) if they do make mistakes, they take it on the chin and engage with their critics (check out that last link for my own personal fiasco and its swift resolution).

Earlier yesterday, Petra Boynton asked for resources to help journalists avoid making common mistakes and I answered that the only things people really need are humility, a willingness to learn, and time. We’ve talked about time already; the other two are just as important because they ensure that if you make mistakes, you’ll make them only once, and that you maintain accountability and professionalism.

It’s the lack of such accountability that fuels much of the frustration with bad science journalism. In fact, those who repeatedly do the worst job have a habit of not holding themselves to account. Goldacre’s attempts to track the source of the article that started all of this were protracted and difficult. The article in question has since disappeared from the Guardian website with no correction or explanation, even though the Code of Conduct from the National Union of Journalists calls for journalists to do “her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies”. Instead, we get one piece in another national newspaper and one blog post criticising Goldacre for his tone.

This is not the type of reaction that instils confidence in a softly-softly approach.

The bottom line is that if people like Laurance and Fox feel that the “self-appointed critics” of science journalism are being too harsh, there must be some evidence that a more cordial tone would actually yield dividends (after all, scientists like evidence). To my knowledge, those data are sorely lacking.

Of course, most of this piece has been focused on bad science journalism and we must be careful to avoid confirmation bias. As I’ve argued repeatedly, there is plenty of good science journalism out there that often gets lost amid the venom triggered by the worst exemplars. I’m currently judging the ABSW Science Writer Awards and it’s a joy; there is no shortage of truly excellent science journalism of the sort that takes specialist skills (and a lot of time) to go out and find.

The critic who thinks that all journalists are rubbish is a straw man, but we could certainly do more to collectively highlight good science journalism (in this, I actually agree with Fox). It would serve to show the world what the craft actually looks like when done well, and it would hopefully encourage the best practitioners, who might otherwise think that their entire profession is being condemned despite their high-quality efforts. This will contribute towards raising overall standards just as much as debunking the worst articles. Social media is excellent for this and there is clearly a culture developing on Twitter where science journalists who do excellent work get praised for it. That can only be encouraged.

But in the meantime, the watchdogs are still needed. Their bites and barks may be unpleasant, but so are the consequences of the errors that draw their attention. In the end, the best way to avoid such criticisms is to give people as little as possible to criticise.

UPDATE: Martin Robbins at the Lay Scientist has an angrier take ;-)

Image by Joshua Sherurcij


Twitter.jpg Facebook.jpg Feed.jpg Book.jpg

The Associated Press finally gets it right on Rand Paul – he’s a "libertarian-conservative"

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

We've been using the term "libertarian-conservative," for years here at Libertarian Republican. We didn't invent the term, but we've certainly been at the forefront of its use and its popularization.

Now finally, a media outlet - the Associated Press no less - has caught on. In an article by Charles Babington, "Tea party shaping Republican Party, fall faceoffs," the term "libertarian-conservative," is used to describe Rand Paul.

The article leads off talking of Nikki Haley's stunner in South Carolina: "a tea party surge and Sarah Palin's endorsement propelled her to an easy first-place finish." It then goes on to talk of "tea party favorite Sharron Angle," Sharron Angle. Continuing:

The movement had another victory on Tuesday. In Maine, a tea party favorite, Waterville Mayor Paul LePage, won the GOP nomination for governor.

These events follow the stunning rejection of three-term Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah in a GOP convention, libertarian-conservative Rand Paul's victory over a Republican establishment favorite in Kentucky's Senate primary and Gov. Charlie Crist's forced withdrawal from Florida's GOP Senate primary.

Paul's description in the liberal media has had numerous incarnations. He's been called a Big 'L' Libertarian, which is inaccurate cause he is not a member of the Libertarian Party. He's not a mainline "Conservative," either, given his views on medicinal use of marijuana, casinos and such. Paul is right at the apex of the libertarian and conservative movements; a perfect Tea Partier.

The AP finally got it right. Let's hope other liberal media will now catch on.

Police Arrest Those That Video Tape Them: Is it a privacy issue or CYA?

Posted on by

By The Right Guy

If there's one thing I could say about myself it is that I am anti-authoritarian, which means I am pro-liberty or libertarian. This belief transcends political parties or religion and remains my prime mover if you will, that people should be free.

Ayn Rand said it well in this statement:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

She also said

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave".  Strong words from an articulate woman.

When it comes to a philosophy that summarizes this in a way to live, Thomas Jefferson said it thusly:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Yesterday I received a message through chat from a friend of this blog and myself, Hector Portillo. Hector has a blog, The Electric Eye. Hector was one of my first readers and has engaged me in very meaningful conversation that has had a profound effect on some of my ideas. He's a very intelligent young man and we keep in touch as they say. Anyway, Hector sent me this link, Are cameras the new guns? from Gizmodo. Probably knowing how pro-second amendment and individual rights oriented I am,  he sent this to me for comment.

In the United States, most states are what they call single party consent states. Usually this means that if I am involved with a conversation or interaction, I can record it without the other members consent. In 12 states, the consent must be from all members involved in the conversation.

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that some police in all party consent states have come up with the bright idea of using this law to cover their asses. This is what happened in one case:

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law...

Wow. And the story Continues:

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Interesting. There have been incidents, according to this article, where police have been willingly videotaped without explicit consent and did not interdict or prosecute the videographer, such as when the police are doing something positive, heroic, etc. Do news people get releases from police? I don't know, but I bet not.

What makes these cases interesting is that they do rely on law that is clear and can be used to justify their actions. The question of privacy is a valid one, but I haven't seen the police exercise such concerns with the cameras in their cars, speeding and red light cameras, and certain municipalities that have installed cameras to monitor the public, including police, as in New York City and Chicago. In all these cases the police seem to go along with the program.

What seems res ipsa loquitur about this is that their actions are self-serving. We have seen many cases where police brutality has been uncovered with video and if it were not for the video, such abuse would have gone unpunished. It's an interesting juxtaposition of rights here, and if I had to take a stand, it would have to be on the side of the public. The police work for the government and as such an agent thereof with powers that extend beyond the average citizen, come under a higher level of scrutiny and a set of standards.  An individual in society should be able to use any means to document interactions with these agents of the government as a protection of their rights. I might have a slight difference of opinion if police were against red light and speeding cameras, as well as cameras in public. They are not. They are also not against cameras in their own cars, which we have seen malfunction at certain times. What I would like to see happen is the thin blue line go away. This fortress mentality has not served police well and this type of enforcement we see here does not serve them well either. They seem to forget they serve us. Since when does the servant become our master? Let me know what you think.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Wilder Publications Puts Warning Label on Constitution, Declaration of Independence

Posted on by
[Miss+Me+Yet+Constitution.png]

by the Left Coast Rebel
"A product of it's time." "Does not reflect the same values as it would have if it were written today." "Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

The classic work(s)? The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers. According to Wilder publications those documents for children need a warning label. Per Fox News,  a screen shot that accompanies said documents:

constitution_monster_397x224

Unbelievable. File this one in the 'Orwellian story of the day' file. I wonder if we will one day face the day in America where our Founding documents are outlawed? Because essentially they represent a belief system that is diametrically the opposite of our current state of government. Hate speech?

The encouraging thing about this this story though comes from Amazon.com reviewers of in response to the Wilder Publications warning label. Here's a few:

By Graham Bradley  -

             

        

The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and our other founding  documents are not controversial, as Wilder would have us believe. Here  is the text from the disclaimer that Wilder puts in this book:

This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same  values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to  discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality,  ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was  written before allowing them to read this classic work."

This is so offensive I can't even think straight. Literary  censorship is already stupid enough as it is, but to add FUNCTIONING,  FOUNDING LEGAL DOCUMENTS to the long list of items that are  "controversial" is total garbage. This will not stand.

Do not buy from Wilder. TOR has a version available that is correct  and doesn't have this bogus nonsense attached to it. You fail, Wilder.      

By Wes "Wes"  (Chicago)

               

Progressives, liberals, statists - whatever you want to call them - are  now trying to infect our great nation's foundational documents. Wilder  Publications seeks to "nudge" us all back into the loss of freedoms that  our founders fled.  Individual liberties, and a limited government  designed to protect those liberties, are now under attack from the  people at Wilder Publications who are trying to pose the core  foundational elements of our great nation as some kind of irrelevant  historical artifact.  BOYCOTT anything from Wilder Publications.      

By Conservative Resister  (San Antonio TX)  -        

The Constitution is harmful for your psyche?   (Maybe if  you're a "liberal")

I can understand why Wilder chose to put a disclaimer on this  publication.  Reading it will make you question the current state of  government in this country, and really get it that the Federal  Government is 20 times the size it should be.

And then there's that pesky 10th Amendment that nobody but the TB  "kooks" want to talk about, and that General Welfare clause that is used  to invalidate the rest of the document (it's like their version stops  at that sentence, and you don't get the part where it tells you it  applies to 18 specified powers).

Buy it, read it, understand the words, and look at your government  in a different light.

Share it with your State Legislators, let them know that Washington  has stolen their authority, and that the very existence of the states as  entities are at danger.

I particularly appreciate Conservative Register above - I can understand why Wilder chose to put a disclaimer on this publication. Reading it will make you question the current state of government in this country, and really get it that the Federal Government is 20 times the size it should be.

I disagree just a bit - I think the Federal government is 30x the size it should be.

(Disclaimer) - Dangerous discussion at Memeorandum. Also, check out the 'Miss me Yet' stuff that the Humble Libertarian has for sale.

Freeze The Oil Leak

Posted on by

I had an idea that the well head coud be surrounded with liquid carbon dioxide or nitrogen or wutever iz cold enuf to freeze the oil into a plug.

The advantage woud be that it woud slow it down gradualy to avoid blasting the whole shabang out uv the ground.

Freezing fluid coud also

How to Build 0-200Hz Square Wave Generator

Posted on by

Hi guys. I want to build a variable frequency generator (square wave) from 0 to 200Hz range, which can be set by a potentiometer (i.e. not fixed, since the ability to gradually/rapidly change the frequency is something having to do with how it will be used). I thought I could do it with a 555 but ch

How to understand….

Posted on by

I got a motor. No name plate on it. How can I find out the details power, volt,FLA,frequency, efficiency, power factor of this motor in practical way?...(I hope nobody will suggest to search in google with the photo of motor)