They may have come up with a way to replace platinum catalysts with doped carbon nanotubes.
Of course, this is bad news for potential space industrialists, because it will depress the market for platinum-group metals (PGM) long thought to be a potential source of extraterrestrial wealth in asteroids.
No, this isn’t about the supersonic technology that I discuss from time to time. I’m referring to the fact that it doesn’t seem to be available for Linux. I’ve been using a Fedora workstation in lieu of my broken Windows box, and that seems to be the biggest deficiency. Many, many sites, including PJTV, are unviewable from Linux due to the fact that Adobe doesn’t seem to support it. There are claims that it can be ported via Crossover, or by using Wine, but I haven’t had time to try. This would seem to be a pretty big hole in the Linux desktop. How are the netbooks handling it?
I’m not really thrilled with the prospect of giving Microsoft any money (and I’ve been living without my Windows machine for over a month now), but XP is still available at Amazon, in both home and Pro editions. It may be the solution to getting my broken W2K machine back up.
Some thoughts on the audacity of technological hope, from JoSH.
John Tierney has some useful thoughts on the politicization of science in the new administration:
Most researchers, Dr. Pielke writes, like to think of themselves in one of two roles: as a pure researcher who remains aloof from messy politics, or an impartial arbiter offering expert answers to politicians’ questions. Either way, they believe their research can point the way to correct public policies, and sometimes it does — when the science is clear and people’s values aren’t in conflict.
But climate change, like most political issues, isn’t so simple. While most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences (like the condition of California’s water supply in 2090). And while most members of the public want to avoid future harm from climate change, they have conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today.
A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.
But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”
“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”
My concern with Chu and Holdren is that they are Club of Rome types who seem to be anti-technology. I’m sure that they would say that they are in favor of “appropriate” technology (yet another leftist theft of an intellectual base, like “progressive”), but it amounts to having no faith in our descendants to come up with technological solutions to today’s burgeoning problems. That inability to account for technological improvement is at the heart of apocalyptic predictions like world-wide famine and California agriculture drying up from lack of water. It’s that same blindness (and ignorance of basic economics) that resulted in Holdren and Ehrlich losing their bet with Julian Simon
Not to say, of course, that famines and droughts can’t occur, but if they do, it will be a result of foolish (or evil) government policies, not an overabundance of carbon in the atmosphere.
Kaus says that there are only four GM cars that he would consider buying, and one of them is a Chevy Malibu. Well, I rented one from National at LAX on Wednesday night. The thing has the turning radius of a supertanker (which is particularly problematic given the postage-stamp-sized parking spaces in LA). It also scrapes the undercarriage (or at least the bottom of the front license plate) coming in and out of the driveway, a problem that I didn’t have with the Versa I was renting last week.
I wonder if he’s test driven one?
The current state of play.
[Update a while later]
Here’s an interesting article on progress in anti-aging. I found this part particularly interesting:
The study will also give more confidence to people who are trying to extend their lives by severely restricting their food intake. Such extreme dieting, popularized by the late Roy Walford, has grown into a movement.
“I’m not going to get on the diet-restriction bandwagon,” Morimoto said. “But a little less consumption would be good for us. If you fast for 12 hours, that’s enough to send the right signals to your system.”
I sometimes do go a while without eating. I often skip breakfast, and since I (literally) don’t break my fast, I can end up going twelve hours or more. It’s nice to know that it could be good for me. It also indicates that breakfast may not be the most important meal of the day, and could in fact be harmful. In any event, it’s harder for people who are susceptible to blood-sugar swings to do this.
The Washington Post has an obituary for Tom Rogers. I didn’t know that he was having kidney failure. I wonder how he was holding out otherwise? How bad was his heart condition? Could he have lived several more years with a transplant?
I’m always frustrated when I hear of people dying of kidney failure, regardless of age, because it would be needless for many to do so, if only the free market was allowed to work (as in many other things). People who support the current regulations in the name of “medical ethics” are consigning thousands to needless death each year. And if he could have held out for a few more years, we might get to the point at which we can grow new ones from stem cells.
Anyway, this will be his legacy:
In a 2005 interview with Today’s Engineer, a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, he recalled delivering a talk on civilians traveling in space and afterward finding his wife in tears.
He asked her why she was crying. “Because I can’t stand so many people laughing at you,” she said.
Well, because he was willing to accept having people laugh at him, for years, a lot of the laughter has died down, and it’s finally becoming a real business, and likely to be the one that finally opens up space for the rest of us. And I hope that Estelle, in her understandable grief, is proud of him now. She certainly should be.
[Update about 9:30 AM Pacific]
Rich Coleman has info on the memorial service via email:
Memorial services are being held Saturday – Feb. 21 at 1 P.M. at the
Vantage House in Columbia, MD. The address: 5440 Vantage Point Road,
Columbia, MD 21044.I’m planning to attend the services, all are welcome, please let me
know if you plan to attend as well.
If I was still back there, I would.
[Update mid morning]
Leonard David weighs in over at NASA Watch:
In my near 30 years of jail time in Washington, D.C., Tom was an anchor for me. We had many morning meetings at the Cosmos Club – and I savor to this day his words of wisdom on space, and in particular space tourism.
In fact, I recall one memorable morning gabfest when Tom got so animated, swinging his arms wildly to make a point, that he knocked his own glasses off – sending them off into near space and forcing me into retrieval action.
That gusto was infectious…and spirited me onward.
Secondly, Tom was “there and on call” – a stalwart voice for space tourism when it was – quite literally – a giggle factor folly. His voice of trust, experience, and reason made the idea of space tourism not only compelling, but matter-of-fact. He was ahead of the power curve…and we ALL owe him a debt of gratitude for carrying the torch early on.
Thirdly, I remember Tom as one hell of a story-teller. He would launch into a treatise on some tangent of a factoid, so much so, that the listener might fall into a catatonic state – yet the saga would come full circle with the recipient of Tom’s words of wisdom invoking the “ah ha…I got it” response.
Tom Rogers was a true visionary – and thank god I retrieved his glasses that day at the Cosmos Club.
He was pretty far-sighted without them.
In response to this post:
How come the Left always preaches ‘sustainability’ or ‘it’s for the children’…until it comes to their economic plans?
How come, indeed?