His official biography says that he has a degree in Economics and Political Science, that he is a pilot, obtained a Master of Defence Studies degree, and was promoted to colonel just last year. Oh, and he and his wife love golf. Now this distinguished career soldier can add another item to his resume: two-count suspected sex murderer.
I don’t usually get too worked up about stories of violent crime, but even I was shocked when I learned that the suspect in the recent disappearance and death of a Belleville woman whose body was just found by police is, in fact, a high ranking military officer, a colonel, the commander of the Canadian Forces base in Trenton.
The newsroom and possibly, significant portions of the archives of CTV Ottawa turned into smoke last night. Newsrooms can be rebuilt, equipment can be repurchased, no lives were lost, but the archives may be irreplaceable.
What’s up with all these big fires here in Ottawa this winter?
I’ve never even heard of this movie, Children of Men, until yesterday, when by chance I caught its trailer on the Space channel, announcing its broadcast tonight.
I’m watching it now, just about two thirds of the way through, and I think I already know why it earned the respectable spot of #184 among the top 250 movies of all time on the Internet Movie Database.
What a grand thing, this contraption called the Internet.
I was talking to my wife about the Olympics. (No, we aren’t fans.) I mentioned that in 2016, the games will be held in Rio. They’ll be dangling their breasts, she commented, sarcastically alluding to that Simpsons episode in which the family ends up in Rio. To the music of Villalobos, I added. (We both love the music of Villalobos.)
Then it occurred to me… last week, on my way to Waterloo, I heard a remarkable piece of music listening to the CBC in the car. All I remembered that it was from some Mexican composer. In the pre-Internet, pre-Google, pre-Wikipedia (not to mention pre-Youtube) days, that’d have been the end of the story: I’d not have been able to remember anything else.
But we live in the Internet/Google/Wikipedia/Youtube era. Within two minutes, we were listening to the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra playing Danzon n°2 by Arturo Márquez, as a matter of fact the very same performance I believe that I heard on the CBC:
Steven Weinberg has an opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal Web site, where he expresses confidence that Obama’s NASA budget is the right one. Instead of wasting money on a manned space program that is self serving (i.e., other than putting men in space, it accomplishes nothing) more money will be available for doing real science, he thinks.
He has a point… but, well, but there is a but. Science is an important goal of the space program, but it’s not the only goal. As a matter of fact, if you ask me as a taxpayer why I think it’s a good idea to spend some tax dollars on the space program, scientific research is just one of the reasons I’d mention, and not even necessarily the first reason. People should travel in space because our future is in space. The steps we’re taking today may be baby steps, but they’re still important steps… even if a future with colonies on Mars, manned exploration of the outer planets and their moons, or perhaps travel beyond the solar system is decades, if not centuries away.
Having said that… the Constellation program, effectively repeating the accomplishments of Apollo with slightly upgraded hardware, may not have been the smart thing to do even if it had been funded right, which it wasn’t. Another footstep on the Moon is not the same as sustainable manned deep space exploration. If I recall, one of the Augustine commission’s suggestions was a deep space program without a specific landing objective; one that focuses on developing capabilities more than achieving spectacular “footstep-and-flag” milestones, “landing” only on asteroids, if at all, focusing instead on long-duration flights in deep space. If this is the space program Obama’s administration is about to establish, who knows? Perhaps he’s putting the space program on the track that it should have been put on decades ago. (Then again, perhaps I’m just an incurable optimist.)
As a footnote of sorts, I find it noteworthy that, more than 50 years after Sputnik, there is still only one nation on Earth with a comprehensive deep space research program: the United States. Much of the Soviet space program died an undeserved and premature death after the collapse of the Soviet Union; as to China, India, Japan, the EU and other nations, their efforts are commendable but that still leaves them in the “also ran” category.
This is becoming more than a little annoying, to be honest. First, there were the Climategate e-mails. Then, the claim about Himalayan glaciers. Now the latest: according to the Daily Telegraph, claims made in the IPCC report about vanishing ice in the Andes and the Swiss Alps were based in part on a popular magazine, in part on the dissertation of a Swiss student who interviewed mountain guides.
And this is supposed to be the foundation for a multi-trillion dollar shift in the world economy in the coming years?
To be clear about it: I am not a “climate change denier”, disgusting as I find this term implying some kind of analogy between genuine scientific skepticism and things like Holocaust denial. Questions raised by Climategate notwithstanding, I do believe the data, and the data show that there was warming in the past several decades. However, the IPCC report was supposed to go much further, and provide answers to some very clear questions. Namely 1) is there a long-term warming trend? 2) is it due to CO2? and 3) is it bad for you?
These are not easy questions to answer. The long-term warming trend that might exist is hidden behind noise: large year-to-year fluctuations, the 11-year solar cycle, other longer-term cycles. The data may perhaps be equally well fitted by a model that proposes a long-term cooling, but medium-term fluctuations which caused the current warming cycle. Here’s where the second question comes in: the model should not be a mathematical mind game but firmly rooted in physics. Do we know the physics well enough? Knowing the cause is also important if we wish to reverse the effects… if we misunderstand the physics, all our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will be in vain, while we ignore the real causes. And even assuming that the physics is clear and the models are reliable… why is warming such a problem? Sure, ocean levels will rise a little and some cities may have to move in the coming century… on the other hand, for instance, how about vast stretches of tundra that become fertile and can be used to fed the planet’s growing population?
The IPCC gave us firm conclusions. Yes, there is a long-term warming trend. Yes, it is due to anthropogenic CO2 (hence it can be reversed by reducing CO2 emissions). And yes, all things considered, it is very bad for us. But… If the IPCC’s conclusions on these questions are based on sloppy research, why on Earth should I believe them? Is it something like Pascal’s wager, because we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by betting on the IPCC being right? I’m sorry but I don’t buy that just as I’m not buying Pascal’s original argument either… I’d rather end up in Hell as a virtuous pagan than as a hypocrite.
The Perimeter Institute turned into a major construction zone. But, it’s still fun to be here. And useful… I work very well with people over the Internet and the telephone, but some difficult issues are better discussed face-to-face.
This is becoming almost traditional: just before I embark on a trip, my otherwise ultra-reliable server crashes while performing some routine operation.
Back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth and the Internet was still an exotic novelty for most people, my wife and I spent an unforgettable few weeks driving around the United States.
My server has been in existence for more than two years by then. No Web site yet… that came later that year. (Actually, I already had a rudimentary version up and running courtesy of my Internet service provider, but I digress.) The server was “connected” to the Internet via dial-up; it dialed regularly (once an hour; my wife and I still remember the little touch-tone “song” that we heard many times a day) to exchange e-mail, and it dialed automatically if I tried to visit a Web site, for instance. Otherwise, the modem line was open for dial-in… and I planned to dial into the server regularly while traveling.
Except that on the morning of our planned departure, the server crashed. Not a minor crash either… its hard drive died. Fortunately, not an instant death, and I was able to obtain a replacement drive and rescue all data.
Though it was still a genuine, no-kidding, bona fide kernel panic, today’s crash was a little less dramatic. I was merely testing streaming video from the server, as I always find it useful to be able to watch an Ottawa newscast in the evening when I am out of town. Instead of streaming the darn video, the video capture driver (which I’ve been using, completely incident free, for many years) crashed, taking the server down. Most unsettling!
Here’s a nice tennis ball, photographed from both sides:
It’s a big one, mind you, almost a thousand miles across. It’s Saturn’s moon Iapetus, famous because one side of it is significantly brighter than the other. The explanation, however, is more mundane than that offered in the book version of Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey; the most recent hypothesis is that the discoloration is due to the thermal migration of ice.
