From New Scientist: Are we about to eliminate AIDS?
This article discusses steps that could be taken to eliminate AIDS. Even though there is no cure or vaccine, the antiretroviral course available allows HIV+ people to "live a long life and almost never pass on the virus, even through unprotected sex." Through worldwide, regular, mandatory testing and free distribution of those drugs, it's theorized that AIDS could be eliminated. The author hits on the privacy concerns that could come up a massive health initiative like this. Good read, and very hopeful.
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Friday, February 20, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
sweet personal dynamo, and, ahem, a rant
From New Scientist: Innovation: Personal dynamo
This is a sweet little gadget. Hook it on something that's going to move, and as it rolls on the ground, it generates electricity. Not a huge amount, but the dynamo is intended to shore spotty communication in developing or undeveloped countries, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa; inventor Cedrick Ngalande says, "At normal walking speeds we have gotten more than 2 watts, which is more than enough for running cellphones or radios."
I think it would be pretty awesome for everyone, though. Backpackers, campers, anyone who's on the go in a way that involves a lot of moving yourself, like people who fly a lot (not sure if security'd let it on the plane, but anyway). The author also suggests it as part of of a kid's toy so the batteries couldn't run out as long as the kid's batteries didn't run out.
For some reason I've gotten into the habit of reading comments... the people who commented on this article art pissed. They think it's the worst idea ever. Solar's better; wind's better; wind-up's better. All those poor starving people shouldn't have to walk for their energy; roads suck in undeveloped villages; it'll get covered with shit. IT SUCKS AND IT WILL NEVER EVER BE USEFUL.
To them I say: hey, guys. Stop bitching. Clean, inexpensive energy solutions are needed and useful, and we don't have to be monogamous about how we get it. Different things are useful in different situations. Neither the author nor the inventor suggested we strap one of these on the back of every African south of -15°, just like it would be silly to suggest that solar, wind, and water power can meet every need everywhere.
I get the impression that these posters think that impoverished starving people either shouldn't be or shouldn't have to think about more than food, or perhaps that richer nations shouldn't be thinking about more than feeding them. That make assuage their hunger for a while, but starvation isn't the problem. Starvation is a symptom; poverty is the problem.
Corrupt, inept governments mismanage land, money, and natural resources. The people are generally uneducated and illiterate. Populations tend to be disorganized or even isolated, and completely unprotected by their governments from both invading and native armies as well as the exploitative rich. Conflict and genocide caused by changing climate, overpopulation, greed, racism, and overgrown tribalism are widespread. And, compounded with and aggravated by all of that, an HIV epidemic where physical and prophylactic safety are scarce, rape is rampant, and too many people know little about the disease and are unable to learn more.
But let's just about feeding them, right?
This is a sweet little gadget. Hook it on something that's going to move, and as it rolls on the ground, it generates electricity. Not a huge amount, but the dynamo is intended to shore spotty communication in developing or undeveloped countries, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa; inventor Cedrick Ngalande says, "At normal walking speeds we have gotten more than 2 watts, which is more than enough for running cellphones or radios."
I think it would be pretty awesome for everyone, though. Backpackers, campers, anyone who's on the go in a way that involves a lot of moving yourself, like people who fly a lot (not sure if security'd let it on the plane, but anyway). The author also suggests it as part of of a kid's toy so the batteries couldn't run out as long as the kid's batteries didn't run out.
For some reason I've gotten into the habit of reading comments... the people who commented on this article art pissed. They think it's the worst idea ever. Solar's better; wind's better; wind-up's better. All those poor starving people shouldn't have to walk for their energy; roads suck in undeveloped villages; it'll get covered with shit. IT SUCKS AND IT WILL NEVER EVER BE USEFUL.
To them I say: hey, guys. Stop bitching. Clean, inexpensive energy solutions are needed and useful, and we don't have to be monogamous about how we get it. Different things are useful in different situations. Neither the author nor the inventor suggested we strap one of these on the back of every African south of -15°, just like it would be silly to suggest that solar, wind, and water power can meet every need everywhere.
I get the impression that these posters think that impoverished starving people either shouldn't be or shouldn't have to think about more than food, or perhaps that richer nations shouldn't be thinking about more than feeding them. That make assuage their hunger for a while, but starvation isn't the problem. Starvation is a symptom; poverty is the problem.
Corrupt, inept governments mismanage land, money, and natural resources. The people are generally uneducated and illiterate. Populations tend to be disorganized or even isolated, and completely unprotected by their governments from both invading and native armies as well as the exploitative rich. Conflict and genocide caused by changing climate, overpopulation, greed, racism, and overgrown tribalism are widespread. And, compounded with and aggravated by all of that, an HIV epidemic where physical and prophylactic safety are scarce, rape is rampant, and too many people know little about the disease and are unable to learn more.
But let's just about feeding them, right?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
don't go overboard
From New Scientist: Human emissions could bring 'irreversible' climate chaos
First, let me say: I'm not a warming skeptic or anything like that. I think we need to stop polluting, being wasteful, and using fossil fuels. Now, preferably. It'll suck, but you can't keep shitting in your own bed without starting to feel pretty nasty.
However, I also think that articles like this are kind of... misleading, maybe? Or perhaps as short-sighted as people who don't want drastic changes to our environmental policies because short-term economic concerns.
Scientists are predicting that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, by the year 3000, CO2 levels "would still be around a third higher than pre-industrial levels."
Even if we can quickly switch over to alternative energies, no matter what we do, it's going to suck for people right now. It's going to suck for people for a while. But 1000 years isn't really that long. Yeah, I know it's what, 40 generations? But think 1000 years ago. Sure, we didn't have any of the sweet technology we do now, but a lot of our cultural roots were around then.
And think about it on a geological time scale. We're in the middle of a interglacial period of an ice age, a period that started about 12,000 years ago. The last interglacial period, which started about 130,000 years ago, lasted 20,000 years. According to Wikipedia, a scientist has predicted a warm period of at least another 50,000 years (because of low eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), but we really don't know.
Plus, crazy stuff always happens. For example: before about 50 million years ago, Earth was a lot warmer and wetter, and CO2 levels were some like ten times what they are now. Then, about 49 mya, a bunch of ferns pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere (Azolla event), eventually lowering the amount from ~3800 ppmv to ~100 ppmv. Earth started the ice age cycle it's going through today.
I'm a little unsure of my point, I think. It's not that we should forget about environmentalism or anything like that. The way we're doing things sucks, and if we want to stick around, we have to find better ways. I guess I'm just saying, we can't save the world. We can't save everything. We can't hold the world as it is. The Earth changes; we have to evolve to it, not the other way around.
I'm just afraid someone's going to do something crazy like try and pull all of the CO2 gases out of the air, and we'll end up in a glacial period again. We're not ready for that guys. I hate the cold.
First, let me say: I'm not a warming skeptic or anything like that. I think we need to stop polluting, being wasteful, and using fossil fuels. Now, preferably. It'll suck, but you can't keep shitting in your own bed without starting to feel pretty nasty.
However, I also think that articles like this are kind of... misleading, maybe? Or perhaps as short-sighted as people who don't want drastic changes to our environmental policies because short-term economic concerns.
Scientists are predicting that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, by the year 3000, CO2 levels "would still be around a third higher than pre-industrial levels."
Even if we can quickly switch over to alternative energies, no matter what we do, it's going to suck for people right now. It's going to suck for people for a while. But 1000 years isn't really that long. Yeah, I know it's what, 40 generations? But think 1000 years ago. Sure, we didn't have any of the sweet technology we do now, but a lot of our cultural roots were around then.
And think about it on a geological time scale. We're in the middle of a interglacial period of an ice age, a period that started about 12,000 years ago. The last interglacial period, which started about 130,000 years ago, lasted 20,000 years. According to Wikipedia, a scientist has predicted a warm period of at least another 50,000 years (because of low eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), but we really don't know.
Plus, crazy stuff always happens. For example: before about 50 million years ago, Earth was a lot warmer and wetter, and CO2 levels were some like ten times what they are now. Then, about 49 mya, a bunch of ferns pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere (Azolla event), eventually lowering the amount from ~3800 ppmv to ~100 ppmv. Earth started the ice age cycle it's going through today.
I'm a little unsure of my point, I think. It's not that we should forget about environmentalism or anything like that. The way we're doing things sucks, and if we want to stick around, we have to find better ways. I guess I'm just saying, we can't save the world. We can't save everything. We can't hold the world as it is. The Earth changes; we have to evolve to it, not the other way around.
I'm just afraid someone's going to do something crazy like try and pull all of the CO2 gases out of the air, and we'll end up in a glacial period again. We're not ready for that guys. I hate the cold.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
we're not the boss of you now
From The New York Times: On Arab TV Network, Obama Urges Dialogue
Obama's first interview is with Dubai-based Al Arabiya. He strikes "a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that 'the Americans are not your enemy.'" About the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he says: "Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions, but I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table."
This seems like a good move. He not only says, hey guys, we don't want to fight, let's talk about this, specifically to Iran, he also says, basically, that we can't tell you how to live, and if you disagree with me, I'm not going to call you a terrorist. I reserve that for those who actually killing civilians.
I'm glad. I don't want our country to be the boss. We don't know any better than anyone else. I'm glad we have a president now who recognizes that.
Obama's first interview is with Dubai-based Al Arabiya. He strikes "a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that 'the Americans are not your enemy.'" About the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he says: "Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions, but I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table."
This seems like a good move. He not only says, hey guys, we don't want to fight, let's talk about this, specifically to Iran, he also says, basically, that we can't tell you how to live, and if you disagree with me, I'm not going to call you a terrorist. I reserve that for those who actually killing civilians.
I'm glad. I don't want our country to be the boss. We don't know any better than anyone else. I'm glad we have a president now who recognizes that.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
45 minutes on 1/20/09
I live pretty close to DC, but I didn't go into town for the Inauguration yesterday. Even though I'm very happy Obama is our President, something about braving bitter cold in the pre-dawn hours with a million other people made me want to curl up in front of my TV with a blanket and hot cup of tea instead.
One of the things I like about Obama (that he has been criticized for) is his professorness. When he speaks, he doesn't bite off clips for the news to play over and over. He doesn't play to people's knee-jerking instincts, though he does try to sway emotions. I feel like he's giving the benefit of the doubt to us, the American people. His speeches are to intelligent people, and it seems like he's willing to work a little harder to treat us like actual reasoning beings instead of basically saying, "Because I said so," and "It's good for you." His speeches aren't sentences and seconds; they're paragraphs, essays, many moments together.
I thought that could sum up the Inauguration itself (I didn't follow the parade or balls or anything, except to check out Michelle Obama's dress, of course). It was very powerful, and I enjoyed it for the most part. Aretha's performance was grand as always (perhaps not her strongest ever, but she looked great and it was very emotional), and I loved the quartet performance of Air and Simple Gifts. However, I thought Elizabeth Alexander's poetry reading was kind of a dud. From her bio, it seems like she's a decorated writer, so maybe she just psyched herself up too much.
Being fairly agnostic, state-led prayers can be a little annoying to me, but getting a non-pinko shoutout from Obama helped. Also, a great deal of the country is Christian or otherwise religious, and there are better battles to pick. That said, I thought Rick Warren's invocation fell pretty flat. I understand what Obama was trying to do. I just think it kind of sucked. Like, he was pulling it all out of his ass. Or he cut out pieces from a bunch of different sermons and speeches, put them in a hat, and picked out some. On the other hand, I really liked Rev. Joseph Lowery's Benediction. It was moving and a little humorous, and that Lowery was a civil rights activist gave kind of a nice "full circle" feel.
I thought Obama's Address was excellent. I've read some criticism that he wasn't very hopeful; some wanted more specific policy ideas; it was "good but not great."
For the first, I can understand that point. He's been pointing out for a while that the economic situation will get worse before it gets better. And I mean, who's denying that? It took almost a decade-and-a-half with World War II for the country to recover from the Great Depression. Things aren't as bad as they were when FDR took office, but these things don't just resolve themselves overnight. I like to think that when Obama is saying "hope," he's not saying, "I'm a superhero; I'm your saviour; I will fix all problems and everything will be peachykeen and you can start buying too much crap again." He's saying, "This way isn't working, and with that idea in your leader, together we can all change ourselves, the way we live and thus the world." Things can't go back to the way they were; it's unsustainable economically. We need to move forward, try to rid ourselves of the idea that everything's about more and better stuff, stop sacrificing the future for the present. And it's going to suck for a lot of people, because when Obama said, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense," he didn't mean it in the same way that Cheney did when he said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable."
Anyway, for the second, I really don't see how anything specific would have added to it. Obama isn't just trying to make and change laws; he wants to add fuel to the fire of ideas. Plus, he's pretty much been talking all along of what he's going to do, on his website, with Congress, and in his "fireside chats."
And the last... I don't really know what the NYT wanted. Angel choirs, the area to suddenly become a warm beach, with unicorns running around, I don't know. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who's ever heard an Obama speech knows he's not good for a soundbite. No "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for..." Let's wait a decade or two and wait for history and quote books to decide, though, all right?
Anyway, what he does is just as important as what he says. And I'm happy what he's done so far, so we'll just have to see how this goes.
One of the things I like about Obama (that he has been criticized for) is his professorness. When he speaks, he doesn't bite off clips for the news to play over and over. He doesn't play to people's knee-jerking instincts, though he does try to sway emotions. I feel like he's giving the benefit of the doubt to us, the American people. His speeches are to intelligent people, and it seems like he's willing to work a little harder to treat us like actual reasoning beings instead of basically saying, "Because I said so," and "It's good for you." His speeches aren't sentences and seconds; they're paragraphs, essays, many moments together.
I thought that could sum up the Inauguration itself (I didn't follow the parade or balls or anything, except to check out Michelle Obama's dress, of course). It was very powerful, and I enjoyed it for the most part. Aretha's performance was grand as always (perhaps not her strongest ever, but she looked great and it was very emotional), and I loved the quartet performance of Air and Simple Gifts. However, I thought Elizabeth Alexander's poetry reading was kind of a dud. From her bio, it seems like she's a decorated writer, so maybe she just psyched herself up too much.
Being fairly agnostic, state-led prayers can be a little annoying to me, but getting a non-pinko shoutout from Obama helped. Also, a great deal of the country is Christian or otherwise religious, and there are better battles to pick. That said, I thought Rick Warren's invocation fell pretty flat. I understand what Obama was trying to do. I just think it kind of sucked. Like, he was pulling it all out of his ass. Or he cut out pieces from a bunch of different sermons and speeches, put them in a hat, and picked out some. On the other hand, I really liked Rev. Joseph Lowery's Benediction. It was moving and a little humorous, and that Lowery was a civil rights activist gave kind of a nice "full circle" feel.
I thought Obama's Address was excellent. I've read some criticism that he wasn't very hopeful; some wanted more specific policy ideas; it was "good but not great."
For the first, I can understand that point. He's been pointing out for a while that the economic situation will get worse before it gets better. And I mean, who's denying that? It took almost a decade-and-a-half with World War II for the country to recover from the Great Depression. Things aren't as bad as they were when FDR took office, but these things don't just resolve themselves overnight. I like to think that when Obama is saying "hope," he's not saying, "I'm a superhero; I'm your saviour; I will fix all problems and everything will be peachykeen and you can start buying too much crap again." He's saying, "This way isn't working, and with that idea in your leader, together we can all change ourselves, the way we live and thus the world." Things can't go back to the way they were; it's unsustainable economically. We need to move forward, try to rid ourselves of the idea that everything's about more and better stuff, stop sacrificing the future for the present. And it's going to suck for a lot of people, because when Obama said, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense," he didn't mean it in the same way that Cheney did when he said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable."
Anyway, for the second, I really don't see how anything specific would have added to it. Obama isn't just trying to make and change laws; he wants to add fuel to the fire of ideas. Plus, he's pretty much been talking all along of what he's going to do, on his website, with Congress, and in his "fireside chats."
And the last... I don't really know what the NYT wanted. Angel choirs, the area to suddenly become a warm beach, with unicorns running around, I don't know. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who's ever heard an Obama speech knows he's not good for a soundbite. No "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for..." Let's wait a decade or two and wait for history and quote books to decide, though, all right?
Anyway, what he does is just as important as what he says. And I'm happy what he's done so far, so we'll just have to see how this goes.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
hey guys, let's get along. c'mon, s'mores.
From BBC News: Israel 'to announce Gaza truce'
That's good. But Hamas says that Israeli troops have to leave Gaza and the blockade has to be lifted for them to honor a ceasefire. Wonder if that'll happen? The Israelis say they'll strike back if attacked.
I'm so glad I don't live in a place of constant warfare.
That's good. But Hamas says that Israeli troops have to leave Gaza and the blockade has to be lifted for them to honor a ceasefire. Wonder if that'll happen? The Israelis say they'll strike back if attacked.
I'm so glad I don't live in a place of constant warfare.
whoops, you pissed off the turks
From BBC News: Turkey rallies to Gaza's plight
Turkey is pissed about Israel bombing relief facilities in the Gaza Strip, too.
Israel wonders why people don't try to put pressure on the Hamas to put an end to the conflict.
Maybe because you're blocking aid to Gaza and destroying food, water, and medical supplies? Just saying.
Turkey is pissed about Israel bombing relief facilities in the Gaza Strip, too.
Israel wonders why people don't try to put pressure on the Hamas to put an end to the conflict.
Maybe because you're blocking aid to Gaza and destroying food, water, and medical supplies? Just saying.
Friday, January 16, 2009
out of line
From Al Jazeera: Israel shells hospital, UN compound
This is horrible. "[T]housands and thousands of tonnes of food, medical supplies and other emergency assistance are there."
I understand the Israelis want to cut down on the weapons going into Palestinian Gaza, but destroying medical facilities and neutral UN aid is unacceptable.
I know Barack Obama has indicated he will give at least some support to Israel. But he really needs to take a hard line on this conflict. I definitely don't have any suggestions (I still don't even understand why we and the UN thought it was a good idea to just take someone's country and give it to someone else in the first place), but something concilitory needs to happen there.
This is horrible. "[T]housands and thousands of tonnes of food, medical supplies and other emergency assistance are there."
I understand the Israelis want to cut down on the weapons going into Palestinian Gaza, but destroying medical facilities and neutral UN aid is unacceptable.
I know Barack Obama has indicated he will give at least some support to Israel. But he really needs to take a hard line on this conflict. I definitely don't have any suggestions (I still don't even understand why we and the UN thought it was a good idea to just take someone's country and give it to someone else in the first place), but something concilitory needs to happen there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
