Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Water for the World

A $3 gadget that promises to quench a user's thirst for a year without spare parts, electricity or maintenance.

Ah, crazy business men ruining the world yet again with their insane contraptions. 400 thousand children saved by a straw. Beat that UN!

Still you hear loons saying that the world is going down the drain (no pun). Even worse, some people still don’t undertand the power of technological advances.

I always think to myself how some of the “big problems” we have today will look pretty ridiculous in the near future (let’s say 50 years from now). The issues with potable water, for instance. Once we convert sea water to drinkable water, the problem goes away immediately. I can even hear my grandson saying “Didn’t they know that three quarters of the planet is covered by water?”

(After writing this I actually found out that such devices actually already exist. So we might get there way before 50 years from now).

Thursday, May 24, 2007

The power of tinkering

Interesting idea (see complete article here)

"You Can't Predict Who Will Change The World

Before the discovery of Australia, Europeans thought that all swans were white, and it would have been considered completely unreasonable to imagine swans of any other color. The first sighting of a black swan in Australia, where black swans are, in fact, rather common, shattered that notion. The moral of this story is that there are exceptions out there, hidden away from our eyes and imagination, waiting to be discovered by complete accident. What I call a "Black Swan" is an exceptional unpredictable event that, unlike the bird, carries a huge impact.

It's impossible for the editors of Forbes.com to predict who will change the world, because major changes are Black Swans, the result of accidents and luck. But we do know who society's winners will be: those who are prepared to face Black Swans, to be exposed to them, to recognize them when they show up and to rigorously exploit them.

...

If the success rate of directed research is very low, though, it is true that the more we search, the more likely we are to find things "by accident," outside the original plan. Only a disproportionately minute number of discoveries traditionally came from directed academic research. What academia seems more masterful at is public relations and fundraising.

...

America's primary export, it appears, is trial-and-error, and the innovative knowledge attained in such a way. Trial-and-error has error in it; and most top-down traditional rational and academic environments do not like the fallibility of "error" and the embarrassment of not quite knowing where they're going. The U.S. fosters entrepreneurs and creators, not exam-takers, bureaucrats or, worse, deluded economists. So the perceived weakness of the American pupil in conventional studies is where his or her very strength may lie. The American system of trial and error produces doers: Black Swan-hunting, dream-chasing entrepreneurs, with a tolerance for a certain class of risk-taking and for making plenty of small errors on the road to success or knowledge. This environment also attracts aggressive tinkering foreigners like this author.

Globalization allowed the U.S. to specialize in the creative aspect of things, the risk-taking production of concepts and ideas--that is, the scalable part of production, in which more income can be generated from the same fixed assets through innovation. By exporting jobs, the U.S. has outsourced the less scalable and more linear components of production, assigning them to the citizens of more mathematical and culturally rigid states, who are happy to be paid by the hour to work on other people's ideas.

...

The current discourse in economics, for example, is antiquated. American undirected free-enterprise works because it aggressively allows us to capture the randomness of the environment--the cheap Black Swans. This works not just because of competition, and even less because of material incentives. Neither the followers of Adam Smith nor those of Karl Marx seem to be conscious of the prevalence and effect of wild randomness. They are too bathed in enlightenment-style cause-and-effect and cannot accept that skills and payoffs may have nothing to do with one another. Nor can they swallow the argument that it is not necessarily the better technology that wins, but rather, the luckiest one. And, sadly, even those who accept this fundamental uncertainty often fail to see that it is a good thing.

Random tinkering is the path to success. And fortunately, we are increasingly learning to practice it without knowing it--thanks to overconfident entrepreneurs, naive investors, greedy investment bankers, confused scientists and aggressive venture capitalists brought together by the free-market system.

We need more tinkering: Uninhibited, aggressive, proud tinkering. We need to make our own luck. We can be scared and worried about the future, or we can look at it as a collection of happy surprises that lie outside the path of our imagination.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is an applied statistician and derivatives trader-turned-philosopher, and author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable."

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

What We Don't Know

42 of the biggest questions in science.

My favorites:
- Where did life come from?
- What is the universe made of?
- What causes gravity?
- Why can’t we predict the weather?
- Why do we sleep?

And here is the most interesting fact of all:
"Information is expanding 10 times faster than any product on this planet - manufactured or natural. According to Hal Varian, an economist at UC Berkeley and a consultant to Google, worldwide information is increasing at 66 percent per year - approaching the rate of Moore’s law - while the most prolific manufactured stuff - paper, let’s say, or steel - averages only as much as 7 percent annually. By this rough metric, knowledge is growing exponentially. Indeed, the current pace of discovery is accelerating so rapidly that it seems as if we’re headed for that rapture of enlightenment known as the Singularity."

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

More Optimistic Prognoses

Here.

A lot of great ideas. I am particularly optimistic about infrared solar power. The technology to make this possible was actually discovered last year by scientists and I have already seen some reports of companies investing on it.

Can you imagine how huge this will be?

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Multiculturalism + Eugenics

‘Designer’ babies with made-to-order defects?

Well, it makes total sense doesn't it?

If nothing is right or wrong, nobody is better than anyone, and the bottom line is just that "we are all different", why not design your babies to be like you even if you are a dwarf?

UPDATE:
God damn you, motherfuckers

Sunday, December 10, 2006

David Deutsch

David Deutsch talks about the universe, life and… global warming.

Deutsch's theory of “cosmic knowledge” makes all the sense to me. We should understand what makes us different and realize that our only hope to avoid extinction is not “sustainable development”. It is “knowledge for development”.

The example of global warming was a great one. I’ve always thought that this illusion (typical of “progressives”) that we can somehow solve things by limiting economic progress is lunatic. Especially because economic progress is one of the most important enablers of scientific progress.

Why aren’t we looking at solutions that really address the consequences of global warming? Why don’t we recognize that we can’t accurately predict our climate and stop wasting our time? Why don't we talk more about possible options instead of making movies only to scare people in the wrong direction?

Maybe the real problem is the mix up of politics and science. Lefties think this is a problem only with the religious right, but in my opinion the real threat is the crazy left. Things like the Kyoto treaty are more related to the idea of bringing countries to similar levels of development than decreasing pollution. The fact that only developed countries were included is a pretty good indicator of that.

Problems are soluble. Problems are inevitable.