ideonexus.com

Clan Apis

Clan Apis chronicles the life and times of a single worker honey bee, Nyuki, who’s delightfully wise-ass and wholly enchanted with her life in a hive where her personal experiences are no different from those of the her thousands of neighbors.

Dr. Jay Hosler’s understanding of entomology, evolution, and natural science allows him to fill Nyuki’s life with all the minutiae of the honey bee’s world. From the details of her life as a larvae, joining the swarm to establish another hive, and defending that hive from other bees and animals. We even learn the physiological effects of the bee ageing process, what happens when bees get old and how they die.

Dr. Hosler’s literary knowledge gives the story another layer. The irony of a dung beetle named Sisyphus, forever rolling his boulder of poop along. The bee characters all have names like Nyuki, Dvorah, Hachi, Zambur, Abeja, and Melissa, which mean “bee” in Swahili, Hebrew, Japanese, Farsi, Spanish, and Greek respectively.

While the his decision not to anthropomorphize his bees’ physiology ensures Disney will never have anything to do with the story (that and its realism, Hosler’s worker bees are female), Dr. Hosler’s choice does not make it difficult to distinguish characters from one another and keeps them entirely bee-like, instead just of being dumb humans with bee-features.

Dr. Hosler’s combination of literary, artistic, and scientific talents create some wonderfully witty moments that stick with the reader long after. My favorite of these is his recounting of the evolution of life in the sea, as things get more complex and more crowded, a lone amphibian, struggling to find some breathing room, struggles to find its way onto land, the first human ancestor to do so:

Although Nyuki’s life is wholly ordinary and unexceptional for a honey bee, her attitude, her perpetual ionian enchantment with her world makes her exceptional and unique.

You can purchase Clan Apis online through Amazon.

Having MLK day off messed up my clock, so we have two Jupiterdays this week. Yesterday was actually Mercuryday.

: )

Martians! “I want to believe.” - X-Files

I figured out that something was seriously wrong with Yahoo Answers recently when I was looking for serious academic research into possible selective breeding practices of American Slave Owners, and found this ignorant racist crap posing as a serious question:

Dumbass (Note the Skinhead Avatar)

Worse than this, however, is that the questioner then got to pick the answer that best synched with his dumbass uneducated opinion:

I’m With Dumbass

What the heck kind of system is that for determining truth???

Dumbass: Are blacks stupid because they were bred that way?

Best Answer (Chosen by Dumbass): Sure, why not?

I’m sorry, but Yahoo Answers is completely blown away the argument that “There are no stupid questions.” A question is stupid when it is a logical fallacy.

Take for instance this question, where the poster asks a loaded question “If there’s no such thing as race…[then how come this]?” Then the Asker chooses the answer that best conforms to the argument they have all ready made with their loaded question.

So Yahoo Answers has established a forum where people may Beg the question and then award the top answer spot to the person who repeats the answer. Unlike other Web-based truth-seeking applications that allow everyone to decide on the best answer, like Wikipedia.

Oftentimes people ask questions that reveal a deeper misunderstanding, and the answer must correct it on a deeper level. Why would you build a Q&A application that doesn’t account for the questioner’s ignorance?

I am sooooo tempted to start exploiting this myself:

Ryan: If I’m not the smartest and wisest of all obsessively opinionated people online, then why is it that everyone I know who’s right always agrees with me?

Best Answer: Because you are absurdly more intelligent than everyone else! And handsome to boot!!!

I’ve posted my short story The Reluctant Transhumanist to Oort-Cloud. It’s about a young man sacrificing his humanity to pursue his dreams.

I’m gonna work on getting more stuff up there in the coming months. I’ve got a backlog of SF stories I need to get out of my writing folder that I keep getting distracted from polishing. : )

Jennifer Jaquet of Shifting Baselines, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of the Intersection gave an important talk on why scientific issues don’t get press coverage and provided a brief overview of the Science Debate 2008 initiative.

Jennifer Ouellette has the best write-up of the session, and Bora has the video posted (see “Changing Minds through Science Communication” in the list of video feeds), so I’ll just publish my own thoughts on the matter. Which you should skip reading all together, and check out the above links instead. : )

Larry Moran of Sandwalk blog has posted a dissenting opinion to the movement, and has previously suggested that science should stay out of politics. There were also several people in the audience who lamented the unfairness of today’s media, arguing that, even if the Candidates debate Science, they will only distort it for their own ends.

If scientists are not very fond of politics, that is more than understandable. Political disputations are a quagmire of irrationality. The defenses and detractions of political positions are overwhelmingly subjective.

One need only look to Senator Inhofe’s and David Demming’s blatantly dishonest attacks on Global Warming Theory to understand why scientists would want to avoid engaging political debate. The effort tends to be incredibly time-consuming, and people’s minds are very stubbornly adhered to their ideology, no matter what facts contradict their positions.

But look at what happens when scientists, and those who hold science dear, don’t confront the political arena. The Republican congress dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment, President Bush II downgraded the Science Advisor’s position, moving the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) off the premises, and denied H. Marburger III the title “assistant to the president.” These actions were just a prelude to the now chronic abuse of science occurring in the Bush Administration.

If scientists don’t want to engage politics, then they then have no business complaining when all their research funding goes bye bye. Scientists need to sign the petition, join an organization that represents their interests, obediently pay their dues, and donate the few minutes it takes to cut-and-paste e-mails to their representatives when told to do so.

Non-Scientists need to get behind this idea, and others like it, because, although science isn’t “Truth” with a capital “T,” it is the closest approximation we humans, with our muddled and narrow perception of reality, have to it. We should be suspicious of a congress that dissolves the office responsible for reporting the truth to them, and we should be wary of a President who moves the truth off the premises, but most of all, we should make them suffer the political consequences of ignoring the Science and Enlightenment base.

If you haven’t all ready, please sign-up for Science Debate 2008.

This was my most highly-anticipated session, a discussion led by Janet Stemwedel of Adventures in Ethics and Science blog, which wrestled with the issues of factual accuracy, comment moderation, and other responsibilities bloggers have to their readership.

One contributor brought up the “Science News Parabola,” where, as a scientific paper is approaching publication, the scientific accuracy increases, peaking at publication, and then becomes communicated with less and less accuracy in press releases and the media. It should be noted that this blog is part of the downward curve in scientific accuracy, a natural result of my lack of a scientific background.

I was glad to see the issue brought up that readers need to become more savvy. It isn’t enough that we maintain factual accuracy, if readers can’t tell the difference between a blogger communicating his or her best approximation of truth and an intellectually dishonest scientist like David Deming, then any measure of accuracy achieved is worthless.

There was a huge learning curve that came with e-mail, where urban legends swept like wildfire across the web. Now people know to fact check the e-mails they receive against sites like snopes. I think learning that they could not trust everything they read online led to questioning everything else, from running to FactCheck to verify Political rhetoric, to catching Ted Koppel’s embarrassing presentation of forged documents.

It was noted that blogs have the power of instantaneous peer-review, and I know I love it when real scientists post corrections to my comments. I love it even more, when I post something under debate, and commenters engage the disputation, usually without resolution, but at least with everyone coming away from the argument more educated. I’ve found that nothing inspires me to hit the books like when someone challenges my position on an issue.

At the same time, another commenter brought up the issue of blogs having the power to spread disinformation as well, citing the Grand Canyon-Creationist Book Controversy, where bloggers incorrectly spread the news that the Grand Canyon bookstore was selling a creationist text. Once true, but no longer. The blogosphere corrected the mistake, but, as with print media, the correction got less attention than the original story, albeit more attention than print media gives their corrections.

My first reaction is that this is an unfeasible idea. Maybe if bloggers only wrote about science in their own field of expertise, but bloggers write about a wide range of topics from their research, to movies, to politics, books, music, and accounts of their personal lives. No system can accredit such diversity of content.

So how about just accrediting specific posts? The posts would need to go out first and get Certification later; otherwise, bloggers would suffer delays in getting their content out. Once certified, the blogger could put a certification icon on the post, but by that point the blog has moved on and readers won’t notice unless the blog claims their bragging rights with another post.

However, such a system of after-the-fact certification of blog posts could be used to establish a directory of factually-accurate articles that people may reference. This way, blogs could become official citations in places like Wikipedia, thus dramatically improving their respect when compared to traditional media.

Who’s going to run the certification process? Perhaps it would be like Peer-Review journals, where the organization keeps a directory of experts on hand who review submitted blog posts and advises the board of which to include in the directory of peer-reviewed posts. Because blogs really aren’t profitable, the Certification Board and peer-reviewers’ efforts would be voluntary (although there could be a marketable product here that submitters might pay for).

Of course, my own blog wouldn’t have anything to do with the process, being neither an expert or a scientist blogger; however, I would appreciate having such a resource online to reference, since including citations from it would greatly improve the legitimacy of my own posts.

NCSBC 2008 Dinner photo by John Dupuis

Being the social-phobic dweeby-guy that I am, I decided to sign up for the the NCSBC Friday-night dinner early on as an exercise in social skills. You know, maintaining a conversation with other people and getting outside of my head for a bit. Practice for that day I get elected President, so I will be able to listen to my advisors and not just clear brush on my ranch in the comfort of my own unchallenged ideas all day.

At first, my worst fears were realized as I was sitting by myself uncomfortably; however, one of the waiters, noticing my discomfort, assured me more people were coming, to chill out and have a beer. The beer helped, and so did having more bloggers show up to share the table. And a very cool selection of intellectuals they were!

Eric Roston of CarbonNation (two N’s), was first to sit down. He’s author of the upcoming book The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat, which sounded like a very fascinating overview of, not just the Earth’s current rising carbon levels, but also the complete life of carbon atoms, from conception in the centers of stars, to sequestration in the shells of forminifera and eventually limestone rock. This is Roston’s first book, and his blog will cover the years of information on his subject that he couldn’t include in print.

Thomas Levenson, author of many books, first winner of the Foundation for the Future’s Science Documentary Film Award, and who has recently started the Inverse Square Blog, also joined us. His blog has been up and running for two months now, and I found much to agree with in his posts, as well as many wonderful old paintings on display. He’s working on a book about Isaac Newton, and the blog is at the request of his publishers. Although Levenson downplayed the frequency of his posting, I found a great deal of content for only being online two months.

Head of the Steacie Science & Engineering Library, York University, Toronto, John Dupuis of Confessions of a Science Librarian was also in attendance, and I enjoyed his strong personality. When North Carolina’s Senate Candidate, Jim Neal, stopped by the dinner to speak with the bloggers, Dupuis challenged the Democrat to name the Prime Minister of Canada, where Dupuis heralds from. He’s also a Creative Commons supporter, like me, and tried to convince Roston to put his book online for free in addition to in print, like Cory Doctrow. Dupuis also has some pictures of the dinner online as well.

Christina Pikas of Christina’s Library Rant, and who helpfully posted her notes from conference online, which I am now using to learn about some of the points I missed during the “Adventures in Science Blogging” talk was also at our table. She was very pleasant, down to Earth, and sociable.

Out of my earshot, but also at our table was Gabrielle Lyon, Executive Director of Project Exploration, which works to make science accessible to the public through “Youth Development Initiatives; Services for Schools and Teachers; and Public Exhibitions and Online Initiatives.” Lyon was very outspoken, in a good way, at the Framing Science Session. It’s good that there are passionate activists like her in the world in general.

Someone else beyond my conversational zone was Kate Skegg, who I got the opportunity to speak with in between sessions at the conference itself. Skegg is just getting into blogging with katesboard, after achieving her Master’s degree online. Kate believes everyone should be blogging, just as “everyone should sing” she told me.

Although he couldn’t name the Prime Minister of Canada, I thought Jim Neal’s appearance at the dinner was a remarkable act. Scientists are fed up with the Bush Administration’s abuse, they’re blogging about it, and their Science Debate 2008 movement shows they are becoming politically savvy.

The dinner was at the Town Hall Grill, and the Mahi-Mahi I had, served on polenta was tasty, and the atmosphere was nice. : )

I attended NCSBC 2008 this last weekend, and I’ve got much to write about on it. Just like last year’s event I’m left will a great deal to mull over, new intellectual avenues to pursue, and issues to work out.

Bora Zivkovic has the best roundup of coverage from the conference, including several videos of the sessions. There’s a lot of great stuff there, so take a moment to check it out if you’re curious. There are some good lectures listed.

It’s sooooo cool to hang out with minds publishing on the frontier of this ever-evolving medium.

Look at all that stuff! NCSBC08 Schwag Bag

Dr. Reed Cartwright and Prof Steve Steve of Panda’s Thumb With Cthulu

Nobel Laureate, James Watson, recently made the claim that blacks were ‘less intelligent,’ than whites, which just goes to show, being smart in one area doesn’t prevent you from being foolish in other realms.

The following message is from the American Anthropological Association:

“race” has no scientific justification in human biology.

Tiger Woods coined the term Cablinasian to describe his ethnicity, merging Caucasian, black, Indian, and Asian to encompass his blending of heritages. The very fact that such diverse groups of people can successfully produce offspring together proves that they are not of different races.

The difference between light and dark skin human beings really is only skin deep, when we trace the course of human migrations we learn that our skin colors are an adaptation to sun exposure. As humans migrated into the North, they were exposed to less sunlight, and began to suffer Vitamin D deficiencies. People with lighter skin produced more Vitamin D and survived to pass on their genes in this environment.

Ryan Somma’s Paternal Genetic Journey

I’m in Haplogroup J2 on my paternal side, according to my genetic ancestry test. My father’s Italian, but specifically Southern Italian, which means we share our ancestry with people from Northern Africa. I’m practically half-Arab genetically (but don’t tell my Italian relatives that).

Similarly, Native Americans bare a stronger resemblance to Asians the further Northwest you go, because that’s where their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait.

All of us are Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo sapiens, and Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, all of us. It doesn’t matter if someone’s dark skinned, blue-eyed, tall, heavy-set, light-skinned, curly-haired, big-nosed, smart, web-toed, etc, etc, they are only about 0.1 percent genetically different from anyone else.

As for Watson, it was also recently found that he has black genes.

Scientific food for thought this MLK Day.

Saw Clovefield this morning and the film has been haunting me all day. It’s abstractness, catching glimpses of the monster here and there, trying to figure it out, has left me distracted and scouring the Web for more information.

A commenter I read at one site said to watch the ocean carefully in the background of the film’s final shot. I wish I’d had this advice before going into the film, because I definitely thought I saw something going on there; although, I am also certain that whatever it was, would only raise more questions.

What is the monster? The kids at the comic shop believed it was a creation of H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthuhlu mythos, which would explain its seemingly supernatural nigh-invulnerability. One of the film’s characters suggests it might have come from the sea, which would explain the ravenous lice that rain from its body, what might have been air-bladders on it’s neck, and its fin-like tail. This same character also suggests space and top-secret government projects.

The unknowable nature of this film’s monster and much of its action is what brought me into its world. One character’s death is extremely unnerving because we don’t get to see it directly, but what we see in the shadows makes our imaginations run wild with gruesome possibilities. This is a film that, despite it’s high-budget, wholly convincing special effects, wisely relies on the audience’s imagination to fuel its believability.

The mysteries of this film, all the questions it raises, not the answers, are what made it so effective at leaving the audience disturbed and seeking any details that might help figure it out. It’s a film that will lend itself to weeks of debate and speculation.

While Cloverfield gave me bad chills, a teaser trailer before the film (also by Cloverfield’s director) tingled my spine in a very good way:

Flatland the Movie VS Flatland the Film

I really enjoyed and appreciated Edwin Abott’s 1884 classic book Flatland, A Romance of Many Dimensions, which tells the story of Square, a lawyer living in Flatland, a two-dimensional world that has height and width, but not length. It’s in the public domain and free to download at a variety of places if you’re interested in checking out a book that will change the way you look at the world.

In 2007, two animated adaptations of Abott’s book arrived in DVD format Flatland the Film and Flatland the Movie. While neither was wholly satisfying, they each had their good points.

FtF was definitely the more hard-core of the two films. We can see its Flatlander’s internal organs, the clockwork of their brains and hearts, just as we should being Spacelanders looking down on them, and just as four-dimensional beings would see our insides. The social dynamics of Abott’s world are preserved here, in all its male-chauvinist, authoritarian glory. The Flatlanders in this representation are covered with wiggling hairs, which we may assume aid their locomotion and interacts with the world. Unfortunately, the film is filled with intertitles that don’t add anything to understanding Flatland, but do everything to let you know the writer thinks you’re too stupid to get it. I definitely didn’t appreciate having my film interrupted so I could be insulted every few minutes with statements like, “Did you get that important plot point?” and “SuchandSuch should be obvious to you.”

FtM side-steps many of Abott’s more controversial social issues, or rather dumbs them down into a substantially less controversial form. Women and Men are both Squares, unlike Abott’s world, where women are intellectually inferior, however physically superior lines. FtM’s Flatlanders have fractals for their insides, and they carry suitcases with them by magical means. When they turn upside down, the eye and mouth of these Flatlanders magically switch places so as not to upset the viewer. The movie does present a disclaimer that it is not a true representation of Flatland, so as to make it more palatable to Spacelanders like ourselves.

FtM was 100% kid-safe, its concepts presented in an easily digestible format, and was filled with characters resembling those we have here in Spaceland.

FtF was most definitely not something you could watch with your kids. In fact, one scene, where an asymmetrically-shaped senator with revolutionary ideas is assassinated in the public forum, drags on forever as isosceles triangles hack him to pieces, and then into smaller pieces, and then even smaller pieces. Not cool. I was looking for enlightenment and got gross juvenile indulgence.

At 30 minutes in length, FtM barely skimmed the multitude of fascinating aspects to Abott’s world and left me wanting for more mathematical goodies. Luckily the special features on the DVD included a talk with a mathematician who walked through a thought experiment of going through our Spaceland’s three-dimensions into Hyper-Spaceland’s four-dimensions.

At an hour and a half, FtF had me checking my watch about halfway through, trying to figure out how much longer they could draw it out, and then was left gawking as the credits rolled, “That’s how they ended it??? Nooooooo!!!”

FtM has a vastly superior website with flash animations and sound effects. FtF has a flat brochure website with black text on a white background. FtM runs $30, FtF runs $22. These factoids had no affect on my impression of either movie, I mention them because there they are.

I have to go with Flatland the Movie, despite what I think is the flaw of not being alien enough in its presentation of the two-dimensional world, the film is accessible and it focuses on the intellectual, enlightenment principles I admire. The Movie’s website does make the dishonest claim that you need to buy the Special Educational Edition of the DVD if you want to show it in the classroom.

However Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act qualifies showing any film in a classroom for education as Fair Use; and, therefore, not a violation of copyright law. So share this film with your students, follow up with the extras, and have an enlightening discussion about life in dimensions one through four and beyond. You can supplement this discussion with the book, and maybe provide a few screenshots of Flatland the Film to explore the hard-mathematical realities of these worlds.