LHC

I have been too absorbed with work to make any postings lately, but now that I have some free time, I want to talk about a momentous event: The switching on of the Large Hadron Collider (the most powerful particle accelerator ever built) last Wednesday. Why is this exciting? Aside from it being likely to change our fundamental understanding of the Universe, for someone like myself, who grew up reading science-fiction and day-dreaming about what wonders FTL, or anti-gravity, or wormhole technology, or force fields, (non-sensical or not) may bring, it feels like a re-awakening of hope that the future will arrive, not in tiny bits and pieces, but in a resounding, trumpet-blaring, triumphantly big chunk. For all of my life, there have been no major applied physiscs breakthroughs. We have basically two types of motors: electrical and chemical -stop counting. Electrical motors are about one century old; rockets are centuries old, internal combustion about century also, and jets (the cutting edge!!!) a mere 60 years old. OK, there is potential with nuclear propulsion especially in space, but those are basically glorified rockets (or glorified steam engines in ships). So why haven't we developed anything better in all this time?

I think because we have gone as far as good engineers can go -that is, by learning through experimentation, trial and error, and testing prototypes. There is only so much we can do by perfecting and building on what we already know; We need new, raw knowledge to start a new cycle of discovery. It is also true that a theory without a means to test it and get specific data, won't bear much fruit.

With the LHC, we have a tool to test those theories. Will we find the mass-carrier particle? Will we find the hidden dimensions that superstring theory predicts? Will we find dark matter? Will we finally figure out the "Theory of Everything"? I don't think anyone has a clue, I sure don't. What I do know, is that major new discoveries are usually followed by a cornucopia of pratical applications.

Maybe even a gravity-generator engine, to swiftly propell us accross space ;)

Dark Night

In a newspaper article, a reporter attempted to use this movie as an example to justify the doctrine of the current administration. In essence, that the end justifies the means. That if the only way to defeat our enemies is to play by their rules now and then -to become like them- then that's OK.

I agree that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Herein lays the key: what we do makes us what we are. If you knowingly act like a bad guy, you are one. This is why there is a line that should never be crossed. The moment we do, we give up the higher ground, loose our credibility, and our identity. Is it worth surrendering our core values, to win a fight? Some would have us believe that it takes strength to do "what is necessary" -I believe real strength lies in abiding by your principles, no matter how hard, no matter what's at stake. It is giving up on those principles that makes us weak. America strengthens its enemies and weakens itself when it practices torture, or lies to its citizens.

There is such thing as moral complexity, but there are also moral absolutes. Batman is a dark character, faced with difficult choices, but his actions don't contradict his principles; more than any heroics, this is what makes him a hero.

Here is an excerpt from Batman Begins:

Henri Ducard: "You are ready to become a member of the league of shadows. But first you must demonstrate your commitment to justice" (by killing a captured criminal)
Batman: "No. I'm no executioner"
Henri Ducard: "Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share"
Batman: "That's why it's so important. It's separates us, from them"
Henri Ducard: "you want to fight criminals, this man is a murderer!"
Batman: "this man should be tried"

POTUS Action Items

During the past two terms of the current administration, the US has plunged from a relatively good situation -budget surplus, sympathy abroad after 9/11, environmental progress- to what seems like the dark ages: a huge deficit, an environmental policy deviced to favor the oil industry, lying its way into a war designed to funnel funds into contractors of all kinds, despised and ridiculed abroad as much as by its own citizens.

Perhaps a positive note can be recovered from the catastrophe of the Bush administration: that many of those who, unquestioning, fell for the deceit that sank us into the current disaster, now know better. The eye-opening experience may perhaps explain the shift away from the right, and towards the center in the republican party. In any case, and regardless of the winner, both candidates are far closer ideologically and tactically than either one would ever admit in public. This, in my opinion, bodes well for the ability of the future president to get things past the legislative and accomplish the seemingly impossible task of repairing the damage done, only cooperation can achive that and all that needs to be done to make that happen. I believe that neither candidate can be bought by the those who own the current administration, both want to do what is right, and have what it takes -the task at hand, however, is monumental -heroic, even. But not impossible.

Here are my humble suggestions for the next President of the US:

1. Regain the trust and respect of the international community by promoting peace:

a. Apologize unequivocally in the world stage for the Iraq war and its consequences
b. Sponsor and lead the effort to create a Palestinian state. Do so with the support and agreement of the regional states G8, and the thirld world powers. Privately make clear to the Israeli authorities that anything short of full cooperation is not a good idea.
c. Publicly regret and reject categorically the use of torture in any form; enact laws to that effect.
d. Lead the creation of a global club of the richest nations on both the developed and developing world to faciliate development in the poorest nations, beginning with Afghanistan.
e. Encourge the creation of a European Chancelor and a European Armed Forces. A united Europe speaking with a single voice will add stability and balance to the world stage.

2. Embrace environmental responsibility:

a. Put in place and strongly pursue a strategy to replace the oil economy with one of renewable energy, by facilitating and encouraging the development of new technologies and industries.
b. Join global environmental efforts and lead by example on conservation and restoration projects.

3. Regain scientific and technological leadership; promote and invigorate scienceific research:

a. Put in place and strongly pursue technologies to replace the oil economy with one of renewable energy, by facilitating and encouraging the development of new industries.
b. Establish a permanent settlement beyond Earth orbit to capture the imagination of the new generations, promote the study of science, and invigorate the development of advanced technology.
c. Increase funding for scientific research accross the board.

4. Move to break the grip of special interest groups in the government and regain sovereignty for the people. Start with campaign finance reform.

5. Re-think the educational system:

This is not about getting students to learn more, although bringing the level of learning on par with other developed countries should be a priority. This is about a system that has largely remained unchaged for a hundred years. It is about changing the priorities, and preparing the children not just for a career, but first and foremost, for success in life. We now have the know-how to teach how to avoid the social and mental traps that lead to poor decisions, and reprogram our drives to follow our decisions, instead of the other way around. This cannot be accomplished in two presidential terms, but it should be enough time to firmly seed the idea.

Independence Day

Today, the United States of America celebrates its birthday. To me this should be celebrated in global brotherhood as one of the great milestones in human history as the begining of modern Democracy, not just American history. After all this idea was inspired by the thinkers that paved the way; by France and Britain, by the Roman Republic and classic Greece. This idea that the people should rule their own lives instead of a tyrant or a monarch, grew out of many minds, in many countries, until it found fertile ground in this young nation. It seems so obvious now, that even dictators pretend to be legitimate representatives of the people. Let's remember the high price paid for it by so many people in so many nations, and let's not forget that many more have yet to enjoy it. Let us, at least, be grateful for what we have.

Science

The Speed of Dark

Science is more than a collection of theories or dusty books in some academic library, it is a powerful force that can add a new dimension to your life. Once you experience the wonder of it, your view of the world has a new depth of perspective that stretches the mind. Science is a also a way of thinking. I am not a scientist, but no one needs to be one to experience this. You see, coming up with a new scientific idea is the hard part -but understanding that idea once it has been discovered, is something anyone can do. Science has the power to make you rich in a way that money never will, but it's free for the taking. For generations, scientist have been accumulating and perfecting knowledge, refining it, adding to it. Billions are invested in it; like a corporation in which workers and technicians and bureaucrats labor day after day to produce a profit -but you don't have to, you are the shareholder and all you have to do is reap the benefits. Isn't that something?

The Fourth Screen

At first I didn't know it was a commercial, I couldn't figure out where it was headed. It sounded intriguimg, until I realized they were just talking about mobile phones, and the seriousness of it just made it amusing -but still, it appealed to the part of me who loves to search for trends.

What will really make a difference, is not so much the "4th screen" itself, but mass mobile internet access and the radical ways in which it will change our lives, and our society.

Pangea Day

I hope you were able to join the global campfire, a day when we got together to contemplate that peace is more than just hope.

Zen Moment

Time to change

Do you remeber Internet Time? It was intended to eliminate the hassle of time zones, as real time interactions across time zones started to raise dramatically. No matter where you are, or what time scheme is in place, everyone shares the same exact time. Under Internet Time, the day was divided into 1000 units (beats), starting at midnight European Central Time. It came out right after the internet boom, and it seemed like an awesome idea (at least to me) -if you've ever tried to coordinate an activity with someone in a different part of the world, you've surely gone through something like this:

A: OK, how does tomorrow at 10 AM work for you?
B: 10 AM your time or my time?
A: My time
B: You are US Pacific, right?
A: Yes.
B: OK, you're 8 hrs behind me so that's 18:00 my time
A: Is that military time? I'm not sure...
B: Right, sorry -that's 6pm.
A: Are you sure, we're on daylight savings time here
B: All right, why don't we set up the meeting on Outlook, that should adjust the time automatically for everybody's time zone.
A: Well, they changed the daylight saving time this year, and IT says there have been problems with the exchange update patch...

How about this, instead:

A: OK, how does tomorrow at @750 work for you?
B: Can we make it @815?
A: Sure, that works.

I don't know about you, but I know which conversation I like better.

I think the reason Internet Time never took off, is that people are resistant to change and easily confused, but we don't have to give up regular time, we can display both times side-by-side. How hard would it be to add a little bit of code to time servers and operating systems and save millions of headaches every week?

Internet movers and shakers, how about some moving and shaking here?

Netscape

Today, the life of Netscape Navigator oficially comes to an end. This posting is my tribute to this icon of the internet's dawn.

Though its real death came about in the late 90s, after loosing the browser wars to Microsoft's IE, it was given a new lease in life when it was acquired by AOL, though its market share continued to decline, and faded into irrelevance at the turn of the millenium. While Netscape was a better browser in the beginning, IE's eventual superiority became irrelevant in the face of its strategic advantage: IE was pre-installed on all new Windows PCs.

In the early years of the web, Netscape soon attained dominance over Mosaic, and was the first browser for most people back then. For those of us who lived immersed in the emerging web, it was like exploring a new world. There were no commercial websites, just individual pages with all kinds of weird content. Forget about media-rich pages, with neatly laid-out content designed by web-design firms. Back then, my idea of multi-media was colored text. The occasional GIF (picture) was a slow-loading event, at 9.6 kilobits per second on a dial-up connection. Every new release of Netscape seemed to introduce a whole new dimmension to the web. Tables, text alignment, the web-shattering support of JPG images... Every conversaton included rumours about how the next Netscape release -never more than a few weeks away- might change the web's landscape. It was hard not to see Netscape as the brave startup company that brought us the Web.

When I realized its days were numbered, sometime in '98, I couldn't help but to feel a little sad, not unlike parting ways with a travel companion, in the middle of an interesting journey.

So long, Netescape.

Leap Year 2008

I could not let today pass without a posting to mark the event. Happy February 29th, world!

Lunar Eclipse 02.20.08

The combination of two events -a total lunar eclipse, and a clear night sky (in Seattle both are quite rare) prompted me to go out and document the occasion.

I could see a lot of detail with my binoculars, and managed to take a few photos and video, but most of the detail was lost.

Unlike solar eclipses, lunar ones aren't particularly spectacular. The Moon does not go completely dark, but acquires a redish hue. While Earth does block all direct sunlight to the Moon, some is refracted through Earth's atmosphere, the blue portion of the spectrum being absorbed in the process -just like at sunset, when sunlight paints everything red.

I wonder how it looked like from the Moon. I imagine the Earth slowly blocking the Sun, its black circumference bordered by a red-gold ring of glowing atmosphere... but that of course, would be a solar eclipse.

Caucuses

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the democratic party presidential caucuses -where voters have the opportunity to vote for their choice of nominee. I almost didn't make it, but I am glad I did. The caucus location was -a very large room at a highschool- filled to capacity; but more than that, the crowd seemed to be humming with a kind of electricity. After speaking with several caucuses veterans, my impression that this caucus had attracted much larger crowds than usual was confirmed. For starters, for the first time in US history, a candidate that is not a white male has a serious chance of becoming president. Add to that the fact that a large part of the population is desperate for change -even on the republican side, those who supported the current administration are fed up with it, according to the polls. This could explain, at least in part, why McCain -the most anti-establishmentarian force within his party- has become the republican front runner in spite the hostility of the party's conservative core and after all the pundits forecast his early demise -he, more than anyone in his party, represents change; at times it seems like he is single-handedly saving his party from obsolesence.

What I found most interesting about the caucus, however, is the willingness of people to listen to other's views. While there were, of course, those who had made up their minds long before, many wanted to hear what others had to say, and made their choice at the tables, moments before casting their vote.

Seeing so many people together, genuinely interested in doing their part to ensure the best possible leader got elected was very reassuring and left me with a positive feeling of optimism -but then again, after the past seven plus years, things can only get better.

Expiration date

As I looked through my usually empty kitchen cabinets earlier this evening, I was happily surprised to find a TV dinner, just when I was debating which of my healthy and nutritious meal options to opt for (go hungry, order pizza, or suck on some mustard packets).

The TV dinner's history is divided into two distinctive epochs: pre and post- convenience store. The former began sometime between its arrival at the convenience store, and an unknown point in time after the big bang. The latter ended a few moments ago, and started when, sometime last year, I picked up the TV dinner at said convenience store on my way to work. Somehow, it ended up in a remote corner of an unused drawer, where its existence soon faded from my mind. A few weeks ago, it again saw the light as I was cleaning my desk, and I decided too bring it home for later examination. Again, I threw it in yet another unused drawer -this time in the kitchen, and soon forgot about it.

This time, when I found it, noticed something I usually never look for -the expiration date, which in this case happened to be 03/29/07. I firmly believe that expiration dates are set with a generous margin of safety to minimize unpleasant legal complications, but this one was pushing the envelope. In the interest of science, I decided to test my theory.

It was actually much better than I expected -I would say that it was even borderline pleasant- and what it lacked in quality, it made up for in quantity -not much, but more than the mustard packets.

So far, I feel OK.

Pangea Day

Don't miss it: http://www.pangeaday.org

About McCain, Eisenhower, and real change

John McCain, republican presidential hopeful for the US elections of 2008, has just won the State of Florida primaries, leaving him well positioned for "super Tuesday", a key event in the presidential race. I am very happy about this.

First of all, because I just think that he is one of those rare exotic species: the honest politician. Of course, I don't really know, I can't know for certain, what is in his mind, what his true motivations and intentions are. However, I do believe that a person's eyes are a window into their soul, and that if you pay attention, you can see a lot through them. What I see, is honesty, selflesness, and the drive to do what is right -not too scientific, but I think that intuition, when balanced by analysis, is a powerful tool.

Second, because he is one of the very few -certainly the only one this close to the top- who feels strongly about finance campaign reform, which in my opinion is the single most important issue in US politics. Why is this issue so important? The answer is clear when we look at the "achievements" of the current administration in light of president Eisenhower's farewell address speech, and we realize that his worst fears expressed almost five decades ago, have become true. I am convinced that Mr. McCain wants to change this. Can he actually make campaign reform happen, return sovereignty back to the citizens, even as president? It certainly would be an uphill battle, perhaps it would be wiser to attack the issue on a second term, after accumulating political capital and popular support. In any case, knowing that he wants to tackle the worst problem in our political system, and knowing that he went for it, when he could have ignored it just as the other candidates did back in 2000, speaks better of him, in my opinion, than any speech writer could possibly dream of doing.

Unfortunately, and paradoxically, the consequences of eight years of catastrophic leadership in the Republican party at the hands of the Bush administration will prove a far worse enemy to senator McCain than the Democratic candidates could ever hope to be; I believe that as american voters have finally awaken to the truth about the Iraq war, and the "legal corruption" within the administration, they will be driven away from the Republican party, stacking the odds in favor of a Democrat.

Interestingly, a democratic win will almost certainly place a member of a minority in the oval office for the first time in US history. While this fact in itself would be a boost for both the country's self-image, and for its reputation abroad, I think we still need to vote for the right candidate, regardless of race, creed, or gender, and while I think both Clinton and Obama would make capable leaders, I doubt either one would bring real change -I hope they prove me wrong.

Direct democracy

Limitations of Representation
Have you ever thought to yourself, “if I was president, I would handle this issue this way” or “drastic changes are needed in this area now” or “this important issue is being ignored”? As individuals, our direct influence on the policies and actions of our nation are limited at best. So we settle for hoping that the people in office don’t upset things too much for the rest of us, and perhaps -dare we hope- actually make things better. And yet this system -representative democracy- is the best practical system of government us humans now have. By best, I mean a system that maximizes the ability of the society and individuals abiding by it, to thrive and achieve their potential.

An intrinsic problem of political power is that for the most part –there are of course, exceptions to the rule- the kind of people that are good at acquiring it, are not the best choice for wielding it. If you crave power above all things, you probably shouldn't have it. By the same token, I believe the same set of virtues that would make individuals excel at wielding that power, would also make them averse to the process of acquiring it.

So while it is probably better for the people with the most political savvy, the most funding, and the most support to be in charge, than say, the people with the most military might, it is still not ideal. But how do you define ideal? Good question, but dangerous ground because what is best for the governed body, and what that same governed body wants, are not necessarily the same, a point often used by supporters of totalitarian systems; but we can probably agree that the ideal government follows as closely as possible the will of its citizenry, in the most efficient way possible within the parameters of a constitution.

Let’s go back to the issue of having the right individual in power. Just because we have found an extremely wise, acutely intelligent, unselfish, dedicated, and visionary individual, doesn't mean she or he wants the job, or the kind of action needed to obtain it. So, save exceptions, we are left with those that want the job and have managed to make their way into it. For most of us this does’t make for an appealing leader. Yet for the most part those are the people we elect as leaders, because the choice has been narrowed down to what a handful of interests consider acceptable, and for the rest of us, some choice is better than no choice. Thus representative democracy goes on. Not because it is ideal, but because it’s the best system we have.

Potential

So what happens next? Is this the best we can do? Do we have better feasible alternatives? It is said that a political system can only be as good as the society it emanates from. Assuming we continue to progress as we have in the past few centuries, we will continue to become more educated, and will have better sources and access to information. Slowly but surely, we will become more aware of the political environment. Today an election can be won or lost over circumstantial issues. A charismatic candidate can briefly talk about “traditional values” or “social justice” without really saying anything of substance, and turn those words into votes. I believe that as society advances and becomes more enlightened, it will become harder and harder to obtain votes in that manner. Campaign funds will steadily loose vote-purchasing power as people are less influenced by campaigns or misinformation, and more inclined to make decisions aligned with their personal values, and based on facts and figures, rather than emotion. Little by little, political power should shift away from interest groups, and towards individuals.

Now, let’s assume that we do evolve and continue to advance as time goes by. In this hypothetical future, we would reach a near ideal representative system, driven by an enlightened citizenry. Let’s ponder this hypothetical wonderland for a moment: a government without corruption of any sort, where office-holders are selfless individuals driven by a passion to serve, working together for the common good, in an efficient and cooperative manner. Elected by individuals who are balanced, knowledgeable, and believers in the greater good -yet diverse in their thinking, as humans will be. As good as that sounds, it is nothing revolutionary, just a description of how the system that we have today should actually work. Nothing more. The problem with that picture, is that a representative system has built-in flaws that prevent it from reaching that idea -nevertheless, let's assume that we do get there somehow: is that it? Will we reach a dead end in our sociopolitical evolution with an ideal version of what we have today? I believe history and human nature hold the answer.

Looking Back

In small enough societies, such as pre-colonization native-American tribes, the naturally occurring structure of government was usually a direct democracy. A council of elders with a leader chosen by consensus. It seems obvious that we favor direct democracy as the natural way of governing ourselves; but civilization became an obstacle for this kind of government. With large numbers of people, making decisions in this fashion becomes difficult at best. In spite of this, the ancient Greeks managed to rule themselves through direct democracy. Of course, citizenship was significantly restricted by today’s standards, but it shows that it is indeed practical and can be incorporated into our daily lives. If you are still not convinced that we do have a tendency in that direction, think about how any of us reacts as soon as someone tries to tell us what to do, or how to manage our own affairs. The point is this: to rule ourselves directly is in our nature, a representative system is just what we settle for.

Why

We have talked about our instinct to govern ourselves directly, but we have lots of instincts, unfortunately not of all them good. We need to have a valid reason to put it into practice. In what ways would a direct democracy actually benefit us, and to what extent? Let's name a few:

Special interest groups severely weakened, or rendered powerless

Minimizing government corruption

Better decision-making

Efficiency

The Obstacles

OK, we have agreed -hopefully- that a direct democracy would be in our best interest. But can it be done?

The obstacles between us and a direct democracy are social, political, economic, and technological. When people are starving, they don’t have time to think about politics. Ironically, prosperous societies also tend to be unfertile soil for seeds of political change. Even if we had the collective will, we lack the means for a secure, inexpensive voting system –though the Internet today would be an adequate vehicle for the legislative and voting processes, access to it is still far from universal. Additionally, those in the best place to lead the way -the politicians- may not feel compelled to change a system in which they have a privileged status –and in which, even those with honest intentions, find themselves in a herculean struggle simply to correct its flaws. Lastly, we need to have a voting body that will not decide to increase spending one day and vote off all taxes the next -or at least conscientious enough to legislate without catastrophic results -and most importantly, we need to get a majority of people to get involved and participate actively.

How long will we have to wait until we can overcome these obstacles?

You could argue that we have already started down this path. Many countries, cities, and provinces consult their citizens directly on key issues via referendums on a regular basis. With all circumstances being favorable, a strong political will and an above-average citizenship, perhaps a small and progressive nation could implement some form of direct democracy in as little as a half a century from today; but even that seems unlikely now. A safer conjecture is that as time goes by, perhaps in a century or two, a combination of factors will lead gradually closer, in stages, to the point where it occurs naturally. Just as the advent of the printing press eventually made possible the spread of ideas that eventually led to the French republic and the modern democratic state, the current wave of media democratization as we see on the internet, a continuing advancement of access to more and better education, the constantly improving communication and information distribution technology, may provide the means for a direct democracy. With instantaneous, ubiquitous communications and information management tools beyond anything we have today, staying abreast of all significant events related to a particular area of human activity may not need to be a full-time occupation –I imagine a prominent citizen participating in a legislative or judicial debate, while in a photographic expedition in Antarctica, or perhaps while attending to the care of a child at home. In this true global village, an average citizen-legislator may have an active, involved role in government, without having to sacrifice personal pursuits or ever visit a hall of government. Thus freed of the need to be tied to a particular schedule, desk, or city, we may see the tasks of government become appealing to the population at large.

Taking Action

But how do we make this vision a reality? A change of this magnitude I think, can only happen in one of two ways: as a gradual process, where it is adopted by lower hierarchy entities or portions of government, where the system and infrastructure can be streamlined and the bugs worked out with a smaller impact, until adoption at the highest levels becomes the next logical step -or by a new society or state being created from scratch, as in the birth of a new nation, or perhaps a relatively isolated scientific outpost, where undoing the previous sytem is not the largest obstacle. Either way, we can help ease the way by creating a blueprint of how such a system could work. So how do we make most people interested in participating actively in government , and have a system that works efficiently? First, let's divide these challenges into three areas: the system itself, its integration into our daily lives, and the infrastructure to make it possible.

1) System: A new set of instruments and governing bodies to replace the functions of our current executive cabinets, legislatures, judicial bodies, etc. so they can be performed directly by all of us, citizens, instead of elected/appointed representatives.

2) Infrastructure: communication and information-processing tools to enable the new system, adequate to handle the billions of simultaneous exchanges, and sort out massive amounts of information in an efficient and user friendly manner, instantaneously and ubiquitously.

3) Integration: the most important piece; for the system to be appealing enough for most of us to participate, it has to enable us to perform these functions without giving up most of our time or becoming professional politicians, so that our political lives can merge with, and enrich other aspects of our lives, rather than take away from them.

TED

For the past month or so, it seems that as soon as I get a free moment, I find myself watching yet another fascinating talk at TED. Soon I'll run through all the archives and will have to do with just a couple a week. Delirium tremens looms.

Saturn

Perhaps the most beautiful solar eclipse in our system. This breathtaking picture was taken by the Cassini spacecraft. Besides the stunning views of Saturn's ring system, our planet can also be seen as a tiny blue dot, a billion miles away.

2008

Happy New Year, world!