Tag Archives: Silly science

NASA’s pictures for the blind

Posted on by
2

I have gotten this press release in various forms for a few days now:

NEWS RELEASE: 2008-005                                                Jan. 15, 2008              

NASA Unveils Cosmic Images Book in Braille for Blind Readers

At a ceremony held today at the National Federation of the Blind, NASA unveiled a new book that brings majestic images taken by its Great Observatories to the fingertips of the blind. The Great Observatories include NASA’s Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer space telescopes.

“Touch the Invisible Sky” is a 60-page book with color images of nebulae, stars, galaxies and some of the telescopes that captured the original pictures. Each image is embossed with lines, bumps and other textures. These raised patterns translate colors, shapes and other intricate details of the cosmic objects, allowing visually impaired people to experience them. Braille and large-print descriptions accompany each of the book’s 28 photographs, making the book’s design accessible to readers of all visual abilities.

The book contains spectacular images from the Great Observatories and powerful ground-based telescopes. The celestial objects are presented as they appear through visible-light telescopes and different spectral regions invisible to the naked eye, from radio to infrared, visible, ultraviolet and X-ray light.
The book introduces the concept of light and the spectrum and explains how the different observatories complement each others’ findings. Readers take a cosmic journey beginning with images of the sun, and travel out into the galaxy to visit relics of exploding and dying stars, as well as the Whirlpool galaxy and colliding Antennae galaxies.

“Touch the Invisible Sky” was written by astronomy educator and accessibility specialist Noreen Grice of You Can Do Astronomy LLC and the Museum of Science, Boston, with authors Simon Steel, an astronomer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., and Doris Daou, an astronomer at NASA Headquarters, Washington.

“About 10 million visually impaired people live in the United States,” Grice said. “I hope this book will be a unique resource for people who are sighted or blind to better understand the part of the universe that is invisible to all of us.”
The book will be available to the public through a wide variety of sources, including the National Federation of the Blind, Library of Congress repositories, schools for the blind, libraries, museums, science centers and Ozone Publishing.

“We wanted to show that the beauty and complexity of the universe goes far beyond what we can see with our eyes!” Daou said.

“The study of the universe is a detective story, a cosmic ‘CSI,’ where clues to the inner workings of the universe are revealed by the amazing technology of modern telescopes,” Steel said. “This book invites everyone to join in the quest to unlock the secrets of the cosmos.”

“One of the greatest challenges faced by blind students who are interested in scientific study is that certain kinds of information are not available to them in a non-visual form,” said Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. “Books like this one are an invaluable resource because they allow the blind access to information that is normally presented through visual observation and media. Given access to this information, blind students can study and compete in scientific fields as well as their sighted peers.”
The prototype for this book was funded by an education grant from the Chandra mission, and production was a collaborative effort by the NASA space science missions, which provide the images, and other agency sources.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology, also in Pasadena. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.

For more information on NASA’s Great Observatories, visit http://www.nasa.gov . For more information about Spitzer, visit http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/spitzer and http://www.nasa.gov/spitzer .

Call me crazy, but does anyone else see the futility in this effort?  Surely I am missing something here.  Comments are definitely encouraged.

When Photoshopping goes bad

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of weeks or so I posted the Chang’e 1′s picture of the Moon on my Bowie blog because they named their spaceship after a Bowie album.  That was about as exciting as I thought the story would get.  Here it is again:
photoshopped moon
I post it again here for a different reason.  The story got strange.  Several noted astronomers couldn’t help but notice there were strange things about the pic.  Originally, it was kind of upside down.  The Chinese explained that fairly well.  Then, there were things where they were not supposed to be.  Like a little crater.  The Chinese claimed they had discovered a new crater.  Emily Lakdawalla solved that one.  It seems the pics came back in strips and they cut and pasted it together to make what it is we see.  Apparently they didn’t do a very good job.  So, the bottom line is nothing terribly exciting has come from the Chinese venture to the Moon.  Which is sorta how I felt in the first place.

And, in the immortal words of Bowie, who this whole adventure seems to reflect his earlier works, this whole thing seems to have turned to face the strange.

( This is not an endorsement of Photoshop, I use that generically as the process used.  )

11% of Men Have Multiple Sex Partners

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline.  Here’s some meat ( yeah, pun intended ):

More than 4,900 men ages 15-44 participated in telephone interviews about their sex lives, including the dates during which they were in sexual relationships in the previous year.

Concurrent sexual relationships were particularly common among these groups:

That mix may put those men — and their partners — at higher risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Now, I like WebMD.  They have this way of just blurting out stuff and leaving it at that.  They don’t ask questions.  I do.

  • If a man masturbates by himself, and has sex regularly with only one other person, would this still count as “multiple”?  Himself and the partner?  Doubt it, but I could see it creating conflicts when trying to honestly answer the questions.
  • Were the unmarried men having multiple sex partners before or after they became “unmarried”.  Sometimes being married leaves no other option other than multiple partners.
  • Were wives present during the questioning?  11% seems awful low to me considering the divorce rate is so much higher.
  • The age bracket seems screwy.  It’s illegal for a 15 year old to admit having sex.  How many guys answered “no” for fear of prosecution?  Seems kinda stupid if they did report that they were.
  • Along the same lines, how many eighteen year old boys are going to say they have NOT had sex with lots of babes?
  • At 44, most men are tied down raising families and worrying themselves sick over mortgages and such.  At 50 most guys have a little spare time on their hands. 
  • Why cut this thing off at 44?  Are they assuming guys quit looking after that point?  Got news for the WebMD, there’s no difference in libido post 44 ( of which I am ) than pre 44.  If nothing else, a certain sense of desperation starts setting in right about that time.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  The one thing most guys are most likely to lie about, for good reason, is the number of women they’ve been with.  Depending on the circumstance, it will either get skewed up ( bragging with other guys ), or skewed down ( wife’s present ).  I think 11% way too low.

The human race will split in two?

Posted on by
Reply

While heading to lunch I heard a report on one of the news channels that some scientists have come to the conclusion that mankind will split in two in 100,000 years or so.  There will be two distinct evolutionary tracts, one pretty, one ugly.  The pretty ones will rule the planet.

That’s sort of already true to some degree.

However, I don’t think the split will be that defined.  Those scientists are failing to take into consideration one very strong ingredient that I think will prevent this from happening:

People online get messages, those who are not, don’t

Posted on by
Reply

That is the amazing conclusion the Pew Internet Project came to.  I just have to wonder who thought for one second the inverse of their hypothesis could possibly be true, that teenagers not online could possibly get more contacts via the internet than those that are online?

My experience with parenting a very online fourteen year old girl is the younger you acclimate them to being online the more comfortable they are in dealing with online advances.  It’s an annoyance to the kids I know.  Kinda like the old geezer in a long raincoat in a park, they know instinctively to stay away, he’s no fun.  So, rather than expecting my kids to live in a shell, I expect them to know what’s right and what’s not.  And, I keep a close eye on who they are talking to and why.  When they know you are doing that, the rest gets a lot easier.

Now, in my opinion, researching WHO is contacting teens they don’t know is more important than spending time and resources to figure out that people online get more text contacts than people not online.  Someone send me some money so I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people with telephones get more phone calls than people without telephones.  OK?

Threesomes are good for you?

Posted on by
1

I just read where apparently they have undoubtable proof ( as in they’re stuck together and petrified for eternity ), that lizards have been having threesomes for 175,000,000 years.  It doesn’t say how long lizards have been trying to enforce monogamy.  But, 175,000,000 years is a long time. I could see getting tired of the same person after about 1,000,000 years.  So, I can see the advantage to having a third every million years or so to keep the spark alive.

Why People Have Sex

Posted on by
Reply

WebMD tackles the oldest question known to mankind. Why do people have sex? Now, the other relevant questions would be “Why do people breathe” and “Why do people eat food”. The cause and effect of sex is that mankind continues to exist. So, to me, as with food, you don’t need a reason to have sex. If the mood strikes, you have sex. If someone then asks you why you had sex, depending on the circumstances, you will have different reasons why you had sex. So, I don’t really buy into their conclusion. That’s not a big issue though. WebMD states there are 237 reasons to have sex. Not being a woman, I think I’ll dismiss that side of the issue. However, being a man, I’ve got an issue with their “Top 10″. To wit:

  1. I was attracted to the person.
  2. It feels good.
  3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
  4. It’s fun.
  5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
  6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
  7. I was “horny.”
  8. I wanted to express my love for the person.
  9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
  10. I wanted to please my partner.

Namely, this. Let’s look a little closer at the responses:

  1. I was attracted to the person. ( They made me horny. )
  2. It feels good. ( I was horny. )
  3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure. ( I was horny. )
  4. It’s fun. ( Being horny is fun. )
  5. I wanted to show my affection to the person. ( I get very affectionate when I’m horny )
  6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release. ( I was horny )
  7. I was “horny.” ( I was horny )
  8. I wanted to express my love for the person. ( I do that when I’m horny. )
  9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm. ( I was horny )
  10. I wanted to please my partner. ( I was horny, so they must have been too. )

Going about it that way, there’s only one REAL reason men have sex. They were horny. How many researchers does it take to figure that out? Another clue here too, google “affection”, then google “sex”. Wanna guess which one gets the most responses? You can’t quantify the single most prevailing urge of man. It’s everywhere, it’s all the time. So, no man is going to only do it when he wants to “please his partner”. He’s going to cover all 237 reasons if possible in his lifetime.

Bring the check, please

Posted on by
2

Some very intrepid researchers in Norway came to this startling conclusion:

Restaurant-goers are a picky crowd, requiring more than just tasty fare to satisfy them. A new study finds that dirty menus and waiting for the check could be just as critical to a diner’s overall experience.

Now, Livescience found some freaks in New York City who complained they get their ticket too fast.  New York’s just right in the head at times, so I’ll dismiss them.  The bottom line is that for most people, especially those with small children, when it’s time for the check, the meal is over and it’s time to leave.  Quite often, when a waiter/waitress asks you if you need anything else, if you say no, they’re gone pretty much forever.  Those are the times when waiting for a check completely ruins the meal.  The beauty of the buffet/cow trough style restaurant is that the last memory the diner has is a pleasant one of simply standing up and leaving.  That irritation of a forgetful/slow waitress bringing the check is eliminated.  Now, as a former restauranteur myself, I get more critical than I should with bad service.  I do know that if the last memory a person has is a bad one, it often trumps all the good that came before it.  Now, there is a very simple way to avoid both complaints, even including the New Yorkers wishing to spend an evening sitting in a restaurant.  Just ask if they’re ready for their check.  If they say yes, go get it.  Don’t ask and then go bus a table or check to see if others need more water, just go get the check.  The faster it’s delivered, the happier the customer, the bigger the tip. It’s a simple rule and it works every time.

And while I’m whining about restaurant service:

  • For Pete’s sake people, if you have a waiting line and some guy comes in toting small kids, MOVE THEM TO THE FRONT.  The people waiting in line won’t care that much since it gets those kids out of their hair, and, the faster you seat those kids, the happier the dad will be.  90% of the time, he’s the one footing the bill and therefore deciding the tip.  Works every time.  If someone else complains about the small kids bumping line, tell them you’ll be more than happy to give them the next table immediately next to that kid.  Or, they can continue waiting for a much better table.  Doesn’t work every time, but will more often than not.
  • If they have kids, section off a part of your restaurant just for kids.  When bad kids see good kids acting appropriate, the peer pressure has a chance of working.  If they all freak out, no one is bothered because the parents are simply comparing which kids are freaking out worse.  That’s a lot better mix than putting some antsy kids next to say, a romantic couple and making the parent feel like crap ( read no tip ).  Works every time.  Trust me.
  • If a family comes in with small kids, dote on the kids.  You keep the kids happy, the father will tip HUGE.  The rest of the patrons will worship you.  Works every time.
  • If parents are obviously struggling with their kids and all the  food has been served, get that check to them ASAP.  When a parent is struggling with their kid in a public place, useless delays that lengthen that struggle will push a parent over the edge in a heartbeat.  Get them that check.  Works every time.
  • Don’t seat kids near a bar.  Depending on where you’re at, when people drink, they LOVE to smoke.  Some people are self-conscious about smoking around kids.  That’s a good thing.  What’s a bad thing is making them feel self-conscious in the first place and thereby ruining their relaxation.  Even if it’s a non-smoking bar, when people drink they like to think about things such as sex and behaving badly a lot moreso than babysitting some stranger’s kids.  Keep em separated.  Works every time.

Just a few little suggestions to make the world a better place for all of mankind.

Especially for parents.

Bigfoot an endangered species?

Posted on by
1

A while back I did a piece on Bigfoot.  It was sort of done tongue in cheek, sort of serious.  To me, that’s where Bigfoot exists.  Nothing to be taken serious, but fun to think about anyway.  However, some guys in Canada are wanting to take all the fun out of it by proving Bigfoot exists.  And, before they’ll do that, they want Bigfoot listed as an endangered species.  Now, where it gets even sillier is apparently 500 people have signed the petition to do so.

Me?  I think there are a lot of animals out there that have had little to no human contact.  However, most of them are small or in very strange places that man just doesn’t hang around too much.  Something as big as Bigfoot would have been bumped into all the time.  And, with the advent of digital cameras and cameras on cell phones, documenting a siting would be very easy to do.  The fact no one has done this to date makes it a little hard for me to believe something that big, in a place where man is all the time, would exist.  Could be wrong, and have been many times, but I’m willing to put some money on this one.

Who didn’t know dinosaurs could swim?

Posted on by
Reply

I read this amazing discovery today:

Newly discovered fossilized claw marks paint a picture of a carnivorous dinosaur pedaling its hind legs as it swam against a strong current and struggled to maintain a straight path.The fossils, part of a 125 million-year-old trackway, are the most compelling evidence to date that some non-avian theropod dinosaurs could swim, scientists say in the June issue of the journal Geology.

 Of course, anyone who saw Disney’s Dinosaur already knew that.  I do wish researchers would cross-check their references before wasting resources on things we already knew.

Sheez.