1981? ...82?

I never cease to be amazed at how the White House's own web page is faithfully documenting and publicizing this administration's stupidities. In a way, I guess, it's strangely comforting. I mean, consider the alternative. What if all the embarassing Bushisms were whitewashed away, replaced by erudite prose? The implications, if that were the case, bring disturbing thoughts to mind--memory holes... Ministries of Truth... that sort of thing.

It seems we're not quite there, yet, as you can plainly see here, where Alberto Gonzales does a lot of hand-waving, dodging, and dashing in response to the question, "If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?"

That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

My translation: "It wasn't bloody likely that we would be able to do what we wanted legally, but we went ahead and did it anyway."

Billmon over at The Whiskey Bar has an even better translation.

Paul Mirecki situation

My opinion is similar to those of Ed Brayton and John Lynch. I think some skepticism about the attack is in order, it's unfortunate that the university took action against Mirecki and shut down his proposed course, and I wasn't impressed with the quality of Gary Hurd's defense of Mirecki at the Panda's Thumb and its speculations about martial artists inflicting just so much but no more injury on Mirecki.

Another stray puppy

In our neighborhood, we frequently see stray dogs, usually without collars or identifying information. We catch them when we can, and turn them into the pound. The puppies tend to get quickly adopted. Others, we point out to RESCUE, an animal rescue group we volunteer with, so that if they get put on the euthanasia lists they may have another opportunity for survival. Unfortunately, RESCUE can't save all of them.

This puppy had been given to a homeless man we know, who in turn gave him to us to take care of. Kat removed numerous ticks and gave her a bath (the first photo is pre-bath, the second is post-bath). We estimated her age at less than three months, and the breed could be some kind of Chow mix. I think this is the fifth stray we've turned in this year; last year we turned in about the same number, including at least three puppies.

Hot For [Pedagogical Agent]

As an individualist, I harbor no sentimental attachments to my species, any more than I do to my nation, my gender, or my race - in fact I despise the very notion of the collectivist "us-versus-them" mentality, and believe it to be a primary destructive force in the world today.

As a "natural", I lack belief in a human soul, whether mortal or immortal, so, in principle, I can't see any objection to the idea that someone will one day succeed in creating an "artificial intelligence."

Because of my naturalist and individualist bent, I'm really not bothered by the possibility that humankind might one day be destroyed, Terminator- or Matrix-style, by our machine offspring - at least not any more than I'm bothered by the possibility that I'll be bludgeoned to death in a dark alley, or waste away, uncared-for, in a convalescence home.

I wonder, though... Is the Terminator myth really a likely, or even possible, future? We're still not entirely sure what "intelligence" really is, let alone how to create it (aside from growing and interacting with human babies, that is). Is the ability to be introspective and/or self-aware a requirement for intelligence? What about feeling emotions? What about having an instinct for self-preservation? I'm not sure about any of those things - and I'm not sure anyone else is, either (in spite of the attractiveness of the thesis found in the hugely entertaining book, Gödel, Escher, Bach).

However, if there is a possibility for some sort of machine revolution, then we are surely doomed. If Congress's reaction to a vegetable that could follow the movements of a balloon is any indication, then, long before our simulated friends (in meatspace or virtual space) have anything approaching a human-level intelligence, we will have been completely beguiled. Our reptile and monkey-brains are too entrenched for our prefrontal and frontal lobes to counteract the instinctive and immediate reaction to an attractive face. Witness the recent craze over the Furby. We even have a hard time not anthropomorphizing skinless heads (see also here). Throw in a little skin, some pretty eyes, and some basic interaction and it's over. Even when it's miserably failing the Turing test, we're convinced in spite of ourselves that we're talking with something that has - for lack of a better word - a soul. Spielberg's prediction, in his film A.I., of the human reaction to our machines is dead on, I think--with the exception that we wouldn't even be able to kill any of the Mechas that look like walking television sets.

If I'm conveying the sense that I think any of this is bad, then I apologize, because I don't mean to. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this stuff, yet. Like any technology, there are good and bad aspects.

The return of private supersonic flight

Since the demise of the Concorde, there has been no private or commercial air travel at supersonic speeds. Now, however, Gulfstream, SAI/Lockheed Martin, and Aerion are working on developing technology that, through specially designed aircraft body shapes, can reduce the "sonic boom" and allow private jets to take flight paths that the Concorde was unable to use. There's more on this subject at The Economist (free audio interview; the print article is premium content).

Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts

Today's Sunday Times (London) has a story about polar bear drownings occurring off the north coast of Alaska. The bears have to swim longer distances now that average summer temperatures off the north coast of Alaska have increased by 2-3 degrees Celsius since the 1950s, leading to the polar ice cap receding last summer by 200 miles more than the average distance of two decades ago.

Today's Doonesbury on creationism/intelligent design

Of late I've often thought that drugs developed on the basis of evolutionary biology should have warning labels indicating that their effectiveness is predicated upon the fact of evolution, and creationists should not make use of them. Today's Doonesbury is along similar lines. (Of course, creationists will say that this is microevolution, not macroevolution, and they only disbelieve in the latter.)

This is as good a place as any to recommend Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams' book, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine (1996, Vintage).

Activist Judge Cancels Christmas

The Onion has given proper attention to the "War on Christmas":

WASHINGTON, DC—In a sudden and unexpected blow to the Americans working to protect the holiday, liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled the private celebration of Christmas unconstitutional Monday.

"In accordance with my activist agenda to secularize the nation, this court finds Christmas to be unlawful," Judge Reinhardt said. "The celebration of the birth of the philosopher Jesus—be it in the form of gift-giving, the singing of carols, fanciful decorations, or general good cheer and warm feelings amongst families—is in violation of the First Amendment principles upon which this great nation was founded."

In addition to forbidding the celebration of Christmas in any form, Judge Reinhardt has made it illegal to say "Merry Christmas." Instead, he has ruled that Americans must say "Happy Holidays" or "Vacaciones Felices" if they wish to extend good tidings.

Within an hour of the judge's verdict, National Guard troops were mobilized to enforce the controversial ruling.

The rest of the story is here.

Five "Lingering Questions" for Sternberg

Daniel Morgan has assembled a very nice list of five "lingering questions" for Richard Sternberg to answer regarding his publication of Stephen Meyer's paper supporting intelligent design. It would be nice to see them answered, but I won't hold my breath.

Galileo's Middle Finger

Galileo's middle finger of his right hand was removed from his body and put into a display case (around 1737) like a holy relic. It's on display at the Institute and Museum of the History of Science (IMSS is the Italian abbreviation) in Florence, Italy. (Hat tip to Alan W. Harris of the Space Science Institute, for his letter on pp. 67-68 of the January/February 2006 Skeptical Inquirer pointing this out. He notes that "One of my scientific colleagues, upon viewing it, noted dryly that it 'was not noticeably pointed toward Rome.'")