skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My scientific training is as an experimentalist surface scientist in a materials science related study. I spent a significant amount of time in the lab. It is one of my secondary homes. One bone of contention in the scientific world is the clash between experimentalist (us) versus theorist (what is a lab?). Both disciplines take large amounts training, rigorous work and deep thought. In an ideal world, theory should follow after experimental data. Occasionally, theory should predict a result like nuclear weapons is a great example. This post is going to cover a potential dark side associated with theory.
Theory is based upon experimental data sets and observations. Most experimental data fits into trends following mathematical relations. New data usually has previous bodies of work to support the new theoretical idea or concept. Over time, a story is built within a given area of study. It becomes easier to predict experimental outcomes ahead of time. New chapters in the story are written as evidence is presented with a theorist entering the wording.
One very basic concept that is the basis of all theory are assumptions. The theory holds true if for example in a chemistry experiment, the temperature, pressure and etc. are at certain levels. Note, these are serious limitations. All related conditions have to be met for the theory to be true. One assumption is not met, the theoretical framework fails. During initial theory development, many pieces are missing and often all assumptions are not yet known. This will often lead to semi-independent theories. In science and engineering fields, this learning process is benign. Trouble comes with other less easily quantifiable subjects such as sociology, psychology and history for several reasons. First, many subtle factors come into play. Second, not all of the necessary pieces are known. Finally, if a theory is not correct and taken by public policy makers as gospel, significant damage to society may occur. One of the worst historical outcomes from a theory comes from the false science (accepted in the past) known as Eugenics. Eugenics is the idea of keeping a genetic stock pure without undesired genes like genetic diseases. Sterilization of those with less than desirable traits was the main cure. Sometimes death was the their cure. Eugenics was one of the main driving forces behind the Nazi concentration camps.
Groupthink is when a group of individuals comes to a consensus without any serious debate leading to the suppression of all opposing ideas. This is not a fault of theory itself, but of those who are authorities on a given subject. It promotes continuation of false ideals and is a greater threat to any organization than an incomplete theory. Development of a theoretical framework requires legitimate questioning of an idea or concept. If the theory can not comprehensively address a proper inquiry, the theory has serious problems. The problem can often be fixed with a slight refinement. Other times, the theory is then disproven and a new concept is proposed. Groupthink suppresses all questioning, thus, faulty theories are allowed to live and often thrive. Some faulty theories cause serious damage if applied without any moderation to public venues touching us all.
There is a huge debate going on in the US concerning the monitoring of public places using video cameras. I am personally in favor of monitoring some public areas within a limited context, but I also feel the cautious warning of civil libertarians against abuse. Privacy is also an issue with cameras constantly monitoring. This post is about an interesting monitoring technology that can locate gunfire within a given area. The makers (ShotSpotter of Mountain View, CA) claims the technology can pin point the discharge of a firearm according to when the shot occurred and the physical location.
ShotSpotter monitors only one thing: gunshots. Its microphones can detect a gunshot from a mile or more away. The system determines the exact location of each shot using triangulation and wirelessly transmits a recording of the sound to police dispatchers.
This technology solves the conflict between public security and personal privacy. If used in a proper context, cities and crowded locations guns have no place being fired, this would help prevent crimes infiltrated with guns. Since it is illegal to fire a gun in the city, all events recorded are crimes. Initial trials seem promising.
The system was installed in San Francisco late last year as part of a crime-fighting initiative. Since the beginning of the year, the city's homicide rate has dropped 50%.
The secondary use of a system would be as evidence in the proof of self-defense.
In an argument against the ShotSpotter system, it does not help law enforcement in crimes where no firearm was discharged. The system dose not help with a significant portion of crimes committed.
This post is a continuation of an earlier post, Luck or Skill, discussing the merits of luck and skill towards success in life. In that post, I concluded it is a combination of both luck and skill that leads to an individual's success at any endeavor. This post will investigate two vital skills I believe are more important than either luck or quantifiable skills such as mathematical abilities. The capabilities are abstract in nature and are not really teachable, per say.
1. Accepting the world as is and shaping your environment to reality and not to a desired reality is necessary. Simply put it, adaptation.
2. Looking forward to the future and adjusting the present, while simultaneously preparing for the future is the next even more difficult skill to learn. No one can fully predict the future.
We all want to believe in ourselves, sometimes greater than the truth. Being the great scientist, artist, business tycoon, surgeon and etc. Nothing is wrong with a little fantasy to escape the daily grudge. Once the daydreaming stops, unless we are independently wealthy (majority of us aren't) we have to find a way to support ourselves through employment. Often, many aspects of this employment thing are not pleasant. This is the reality we face everyday and serves as an example. Challenges come daily. The obstacles can be annoying or at the other extreme dangerous. Sometimes reality is a dead end. No where to go. In all cases, successful individuals will accept what is truly presented to them. Obtain something useful from the moment being presented. Not accepting reality allows any situation (potentially threatening) to catch an individual off guard.
Two extreme variations are those who live obsessed with a different time, the future or past. We all know of those who constantly say, "I will do this when this occurs". It is good to put off gratification to a limited extent. Taking this mind set to an extreme will has someone ignoring a possible opportunity though. The future is an accumulation of past (at that point in time present) actions. Carpe Diem loosely translated from Latin is "seize the day". This rings true. The expected tomorrow may never materialize. The opposite side of the coin are those trapped in the past. Life was good when I was a "enter position", but everything is wrong now. It is all my contemporaries' fault. Life moves on through various stages. Past events are water underneath the bridge. The past taught lessons and brought good memories, but dwelling there is unhealthy. The high school football star who won the state championship was glorious, but that is yesterday's news. As the slave said to Julius Caesar while riding the chariot in victory, "All glory is fleeting."
Finally, the ability to avoid negative situations both in the present and future. These damaging events can be layoffs, elimination of a profession through replacement by a newer technology, organizations turning against a member and etc. I personally think this skill is not teachable. It is deep within their mind and soul, a skill that is not quantifiable. The positive end of the skill is the ability to see emerging trends into the future. What is the next big thing? In the computer world, names like Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Steve Jobs are just the beginning. Multitudes of others made their fortunes by doing relatively accurate future predictions. Bringing any organization into the future is going to require some forecasting.
Our best known and really only truly operating space agency currently in the world is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA. NASA is funded by the United States government through taxpayer money. The organization is well respected for its many achievements including its crown jewel, the Apollo program landing astronauts on the moon.
NASA's main orbital launch vehicle for satellites and humans at the moment is the Space Shuttle. The space shuttle was designed and developed during the 1970's with what is now 30+ year old technology. During the Space Shuttle's inception, the concept of a reusable craft capable of reaching orbit was revolutionary. Original plans called for a reusable unmanned orbiter utilized as a satellite launch vehicle. After several rounds of politics, an area was added that would support humans. This increased the overall project costs twofold through:
1) Building a larger spacecraft
2) Increased amount of fuel and supplies during launches.
Currently, it costs $450 million per launch. The Space Shuttle's large price tag annuls the original purpose of a cheap, reusable space craft intended for launching satellites.
The other serious issue the space shuttle faces is the overall reliability and safety. Within the 28 year Space Shuttle mission span, the Challenger and Columbia both failed with disastrous results taking all honorable lives on board. To put this in prospective, here are approximate probabilities of dying over a span of 1 year using various transportation methods from Reason Magazine:
Airlines crash = 1 in 400,000 or 0.00045 %
Walking across street = 1 in 48,500 or 0.0021 %
Automobile crash = 1 in 6,500 or 0.015 %
Space Shuttle crash = 1 in 1800 or 0.06 %.
Yes, to date an astronaut has an extremely high chance of dying if routinely flying shuttle missions.
The numbers speak for themselves, the space shuttle is both expensive and dangerous. Space flight is a relatively new phenomenon being around for little over 50 years. Loading multi-million dollar satellites and really brave souls onto oversize candles was at one time patriotic in the Cold War, but the Berlin Wall fell and it is time to move on. This is why the Obama Administration is reconsidering the program's future.
It looks like the future may not be NASA's (NASA is involved through), but through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and US Air Force as the X-37B. The exact details are being kept secret due to the military aspect, but some details have slipped out.
The vehicle itself is about 29 feet long with a roughly 15-foot wingspan and weighs in at over five tons at liftoff. Speeding down from space, the craft would likely make use of Runway 12/30 — 15,000 feet long by 200 feet wide — at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This vague description is more in line with the original idea behind the Space Shuttle. That was to build a cheap, reliable spacecraft. As with all X-class aircraft, they tend to be experimental in nature with technology development as the main intent.
Just last month, a U.S. Air Force fact sheet noted that the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), located in Washington, D.C. "is working on the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle to demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space platform for the United States Air Force."
It looks like the military is stepping into the forefront here. Hopefully, the technology will make its way into civilian hands through NASA.
"NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments," said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing."
I truly believe the ability to reliably launch satellites cheaply into orbit would prove to be extremely profitable. This may not be too far away. Other ventures such as economically practical research and human space flight for the masses could then follow.
