Ebola lingers in semen for nine months - BBC News
All quite unexpected, too, it seems. Does any other virus do something similar?
Update: just to make readers uncomfortable, here's an article about all the various types of virus that can be in semen, and the list is longer than I expected. I was more interested, though, in the ones which it seems the body has defeated, but they linger on.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Yes, sometimes they do impress
If you believe the account of her contact with a medium given in this really fascinating first person article in Elle, you will understand why mediums sometimes can still make deep impressions that are hard to explain away.
And Ross Douthat, inspired by the article, writes interestingly on ghosts in the secular age.
And Ross Douthat, inspired by the article, writes interestingly on ghosts in the secular age.
Higher sensitivity still quite possible
Most of the talk over the last couple of years has been about observational studies indicating that climate sensitivity to CO2 was perhaps on the lower side, rather than the high side. Yet I see that in a paper that has just come out, some NASA based researchers give reason to think the high side is more likely:
That seems important...The large spread of model equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is mainly caused by the differences in the simulated marine boundary layer cloud (MBLC) radiative feedback. We examine the variations of MBLC fraction in response to the changes of sea surface temperature (SST) at seasonal and centennial timescales for 27 climate models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 and Phase 5. We find that the inter-model spread in the seasonal variation of MBLC fraction with SST is strongly correlated with the inter-model spread in the centennial MBLC fraction change per degree of SST warming and that both are well correlated with ECS. Seven models that are consistent with the observed seasonal variation of MBLC fraction with SST at a rate −1.28±0.56 %/K all have ECS higher than the multi-model mean of 3.3 K yielding an ensemble-mean ECS of 3.9 K and a standard deviation of 0.45 K.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Birth order and consequences
This very long review of a couple of new books about the history of the Castrato contains a lot of information. Here are a couple of paragraphs, noting which boys got to draw the short straw, so to speak:
It began, it seems, because women were not allowed to sing in church,
and, in the Papal States, were banned from singing at all. ‘It is
important to bear in mind,’ Feldman writes, ‘that castrations for
singing, beginning well before 1600, took place only in Italy,
geographic heartland of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.’
While London warmed to castrati, and paid them fortunes, the English did
not castrate their own. One contemporary of Handel’s commented on this:
‘You Englishmen complain that castrati are too costly, so that too much
money ends up in Italian lands, but if you want to make all this use of
them and [still] make savings, it’s amazing that for such a profit you
still can’t castrate there.’
Castrati, for Feldman, can be understood as the second sons of Italian families who, instead of goinginto the military or the church, took up singing, and in order to excel
had to make a sacrifice. She notes that castration arose at a time in
Italy when the eldest son got most or all of the inheritance. For one of
the others, getting castrated was a way to deal with the problem of
making a living. She writes rather well about this notion of sacrifice,
quoting Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, two late 19th-century writers on
the general subject of sacrifice. They wrote, according to Feldman, that
the victim ‘somehow has to be ravaged in a solemn but devastating way …
The end goal is to sanction the victim so as to authorise him for a
special purpose, removing him … from ordinary life … by radical
alteration that leads to a kind of rebirth. Thereafter the victim, now
improved, mediates between sacred and profane worlds.’
The start of an amusing series?
Beachcomber apparently intends to make this an occasional series - examples of "crazy couplings", being famous people who were wildly incompatible but nonetheless had sex. The first - Simone de Beauvoir and Arthur Koestler.
[What a daggy haircut Arthur has in that photo, by the way. And the one of Simone is in colour, which gives it that trick of making a scene look more contemporary than it really is.]
[What a daggy haircut Arthur has in that photo, by the way. And the one of Simone is in colour, which gives it that trick of making a scene look more contemporary than it really is.]
Re-visiting The Shining
I've no great interest in the Stephen King oeuvre - I've never read his books or watched the mini series based on them. And as for the movies based on his novels - I am usually seriously underwhelmed, if I see them at all.
The one exception: The Shining, which I re-watched for the first time in 35 years last weekend.
I had forgotten how magnificently creepy and disturbing it could be. I love the formalism and effectiveness of Kubrick's direction here - apart from following the cycling boy, the camera is often determinedly stationary, and the editing leisurely, in a way that itself feels otherworldly. (Not sure if that was the intention - from memory, Kubrick did just like keeping the camera steady for long periods in whatever he was making.) Jack Nicholson was at the peak of his career and simply couldn't have been better.
I remember that the film did not win over everyone: Pauline Kael was no great fan. And it's true - I wouldn't call it a perfect film; but then again, I don't know that I ever categorise films that way. In this case, sure I can understand criticism that Nicholson's descent into ghost addled madness and aggression started too quickly; and at some points the (largely) creepily effective score was being just too obvious.
But overall, I think it's a great film.
Interestingly, I see that King never liked it, and didn't appreciate the underwriting of the wife's character (although I think Shelley Duvall does well with the material), as well as other substantial changes from the book. But hey, if you had Kubrick writing and directing, you don't really expect warm, well-rounded characterisation on the screen; that's just a given. But it is, I think, probably Kubrick's most accessible film, in the sense that it works at an emotional level, rather than being just coolly cerebral, like most of his other work.
The one exception: The Shining, which I re-watched for the first time in 35 years last weekend.
I had forgotten how magnificently creepy and disturbing it could be. I love the formalism and effectiveness of Kubrick's direction here - apart from following the cycling boy, the camera is often determinedly stationary, and the editing leisurely, in a way that itself feels otherworldly. (Not sure if that was the intention - from memory, Kubrick did just like keeping the camera steady for long periods in whatever he was making.) Jack Nicholson was at the peak of his career and simply couldn't have been better.
I remember that the film did not win over everyone: Pauline Kael was no great fan. And it's true - I wouldn't call it a perfect film; but then again, I don't know that I ever categorise films that way. In this case, sure I can understand criticism that Nicholson's descent into ghost addled madness and aggression started too quickly; and at some points the (largely) creepily effective score was being just too obvious.
But overall, I think it's a great film.
Interestingly, I see that King never liked it, and didn't appreciate the underwriting of the wife's character (although I think Shelley Duvall does well with the material), as well as other substantial changes from the book. But hey, if you had Kubrick writing and directing, you don't really expect warm, well-rounded characterisation on the screen; that's just a given. But it is, I think, probably Kubrick's most accessible film, in the sense that it works at an emotional level, rather than being just coolly cerebral, like most of his other work.
Tough days for the yakusa
Are Japan's crime clans going out of business? Tea with a yakuza. - CSMonitor.com
Lots of fascinating details in this report, but the key point is that legal actions are finally eating into the size and strength of the yakusa. I found this bit rather amusing:
Lots of fascinating details in this report, but the key point is that legal actions are finally eating into the size and strength of the yakusa. I found this bit rather amusing:
Japan's post-1980s economic swoon hasn't been all bad. Yakuza made"Dispute resolution"! Ha.
money from "cleaning up" bad loans, distressed assets and bankrupt
companies. "Dispute resolution" remains a core activity, partly due to
Japan's notoriously slow and expensive legal system. "We can get things
done quicker," says Kumagai.
Double slits and quantum gravity
Backreaction: A newly proposed table-top experiment might be able to demonstrate that gravity is quantized
This is one of Sabine Hossenfelder's more readily accessible posts about a major issue in quantum physics.
[Just this weekend, while driving, I was trying to give a verbal description of the twin slit experiment to my son, but this post reminds me that I stopped at photons, and didn't continue to make the important point about electrons doing the same. No wonder he was underwhelmed. Tonight over dinner, perhaps!]
This is one of Sabine Hossenfelder's more readily accessible posts about a major issue in quantum physics.
[Just this weekend, while driving, I was trying to give a verbal description of the twin slit experiment to my son, but this post reminds me that I stopped at photons, and didn't continue to make the important point about electrons doing the same. No wonder he was underwhelmed. Tonight over dinner, perhaps!]
Monday, October 12, 2015
A death noted
As much as I disliked, and puzzled over the popularity of, Sam de Brito's Fairfax career of over-sharing, I had noticed that he had started writing on topics other than himself, even though I had come to rarely read him. But as it happens, I had read his last column about co-sleeping with his young daughter, and thought that he sounded like a very caring father. So, of course it is sad for his family, and his daughter in particular, that he is gone. (It's also been more than 4 years since I criticized him here, so I think it safe not to feel guilty about that.)
Oddly, the SMH report of his death specifically notes that it was not being treated as suicide or suspicious. That seems an odd comment to make if there is to be a coroner's report, which I assume means they don't yet know the cause.
I see from another recent column (a lightweight one about on line dating - maybe he was still writing mainly about himself?) that he referred to "swilling codeine and whiskey" at 2 am. I wonder if that was serious, and will have anything to do with his death...*
Update: the SMH says "Sam de Brito was essentially a very private man."
Um, as far as I could make out, no. It was exactly his lack of privacy which bothered me (at least in the context of making a living from it. I once wrote if he wanted to be full of self disclosure, he could do it on Blogger - I couldn't understand why Fairfax would host it.)
Oddly, the SMH report of his death specifically notes that it was not being treated as suicide or suspicious. That seems an odd comment to make if there is to be a coroner's report, which I assume means they don't yet know the cause.
I see from another recent column (a lightweight one about on line dating - maybe he was still writing mainly about himself?) that he referred to "swilling codeine and whiskey" at 2 am. I wonder if that was serious, and will have anything to do with his death...*
Update: the SMH says "Sam de Brito was essentially a very private man."
Um, as far as I could make out, no. It was exactly his lack of privacy which bothered me (at least in the context of making a living from it. I once wrote if he wanted to be full of self disclosure, he could do it on Blogger - I couldn't understand why Fairfax would host it.)
Uh oh
More Life, Less Death | MIT Technology Review
The article says the UN has revised its population growth projections to 10 billion in 2050, due to increased longevity outweighing reduced birthrates. That's close to more than 3 billion extra compared to today.
Here's a bit more detail:
The article says the UN has revised its population growth projections to 10 billion in 2050, due to increased longevity outweighing reduced birthrates. That's close to more than 3 billion extra compared to today.
Here's a bit more detail:
At the country level, much of the overall increase between now and 2050A bit of a worry...
is projected to occur either in high-fertility countries, mainly in
Africa, or in countries with large populations. During 2015-2050, half
of the world’s population growth is expected to be concentrated in nine
countries: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Ethiopia, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America,
Indonesia and Uganda, listed according to the size of their contribution
to the total growth.
Bald paranoia
Our bald, cat loving, infrasound fearing Senator appears to be right on side with stupid American Right wing paranoia about "gun control". What an embarrassing twit to have fluked his way into the Australian Senate:
[People have been effectively disputing the "Nazis disarmed the populace" for well over a decade - see this 2004 paper - but still it rolls on.]
Update: a more quickly read summary of the history of the use of this claim by the NRA appears in this Mother Jones article. This paragraph is particularly significant:
And isn't it curious that, following the fall of Soviet communism - the only genuine post War international threat to the future of America - the paranoia has only intensified, not been reduced. Congratulations on your tactics, gun makers of America.
Update: I wrote this post before seeing that David Frum had weighed in on it:
[People have been effectively disputing the "Nazis disarmed the populace" for well over a decade - see this 2004 paper - but still it rolls on.]
Update: a more quickly read summary of the history of the use of this claim by the NRA appears in this Mother Jones article. This paragraph is particularly significant:
"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."Yep. A large part of the problem with the common libertarian take on gun control is not only that they are paranoid; they are also prone to fantasies about how guns would empower them in their "if only I had been there with my gun, I could've been a hero!" imaginings. (Look at the disgusting things that Right wingers have been saying after the recent Oregon attack.)
And isn't it curious that, following the fall of Soviet communism - the only genuine post War international threat to the future of America - the paranoia has only intensified, not been reduced. Congratulations on your tactics, gun makers of America.
Update: I wrote this post before seeing that David Frum had weighed in on it:
The claim that the Jews of Europe could have stopped the Nazi Holocaust if only they’d possessed more rifles and pistols is a claim based on almost perfect ignorance of the events of 1933 to 1945. The mass murder of European Jews could proceed only after the Nazis had defeated or seized territory from three of the mightiest aggregations of armed force on earth: the armies of France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. The opponents of the Nazis not only possessed rifles and pistols, but also tanks, aircraft, artillery, modern fortifications, and massed infantry. And yes, Jews bore those weapons too: nearly 200,000 in the Polish armed forces, for example.
From 1941 until the end of the war, armed bands of Jewish partisans roamed through Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, just as they roam through the imaginations of American gun enthusiasts. That didn’t stop the Holocaust either.
Even before the war started, in the 1930s, Jews sometimes attempted armed resistance to the Nazis. It was the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jewish refugee that provided Adolf Hitler with the pretext for the Kristallnacht pogrom against Jews in 1938.
There’s really only one way in which gun control is at all relevant to the history of the Holocaust. As the late historian Henry Turner forcefully argued in Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power, the last clear chance to prevent the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 would have been a military coup at the end of 1932, followed by mass arrests of members of Nazi and communist militias, and the confiscation of their weapons. You might even say that stricter control of guns and gun-carrying political groups could have prevented the Holocaust.
The failed Prime Minister was worse than suspected
Why Glenn Stevens is breathing easier since Tony Abbott got rolled | afr.com
It's not as if this piece is written with much objectivity, but it does make it clear that Abbott was a bit more of an ideologically motivated twit as PM than may have been obvious (given that he would waiver and not implement things he really wanted to do, apparently.)
It's not as if this piece is written with much objectivity, but it does make it clear that Abbott was a bit more of an ideologically motivated twit as PM than may have been obvious (given that he would waiver and not implement things he really wanted to do, apparently.)
More magic water needed
Facing the rain deadline, in a world over which we have diminishing control
I see that Paul Sheehan manages to write about El Nino and the potential for lack of rainfall in Australia to wipe a lot of money from the value of crops, all without mentioning climate change.
I guess someone who was impressed with Ian Plimer's wildly inaccurate Heaven and Earth may not know that climate scientists have been worried about climate change causing more intense "super El Nino" events.
I see that Paul Sheehan manages to write about El Nino and the potential for lack of rainfall in Australia to wipe a lot of money from the value of crops, all without mentioning climate change.
I guess someone who was impressed with Ian Plimer's wildly inaccurate Heaven and Earth may not know that climate scientists have been worried about climate change causing more intense "super El Nino" events.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Into the detail of the "many worlds"
Anyone who reads about quantum physics would know that the rather improbable sounding "many worlds" interpretation of it has actually become quite popular amongst physicists.
But there's a review paper on arXiv from earlier this year that has a good explanation of the uncertainty and debate as to what the interpretation really means in terms of the "multiplicity" of universes. Starting from Everett down, it's not actually obvious how it's meant to work.
I don't think I had really appreciated the extent of the problem with the idea before. The paper is not always easy to follow in every detail, but it is generally understandable and is well worth reading. Here's the abstract:
But there's a review paper on arXiv from earlier this year that has a good explanation of the uncertainty and debate as to what the interpretation really means in terms of the "multiplicity" of universes. Starting from Everett down, it's not actually obvious how it's meant to work.
I don't think I had really appreciated the extent of the problem with the idea before. The paper is not always easy to follow in every detail, but it is generally understandable and is well worth reading. Here's the abstract:
Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed to avoid problems inherent in the prevailing interpretational frame. It assumes that quantum mechanics can be applied to any system and that the state vector always evolves unitarily. It then claims that whenever an observable is measured, all possible results of the measurement exist. This notion of multiplicity has been understood in different ways by proponents of Everett's theory. In fact the spectrum of opinions on various ontological questions raised by Everett's approach is rather large, as we attempt to document in this critical review. We conclude that much remains to be done to clarify and specify Everett's approach.
The old trolley problem
The Lifespan of a Thought Experiment: Do We Still Need the Trolley Problem? - The Atlantic
A nice article here looking at the history of the trolley problem in philosophy and ethics, and which notes it is getting a bit of a revival because of the prospect of driverless cars. Cool.
A nice article here looking at the history of the trolley problem in philosophy and ethics, and which notes it is getting a bit of a revival because of the prospect of driverless cars. Cool.
Friday, October 09, 2015
Testing the medium
How Harry Houdini and Scientific American Fought the Fake Mediums of the 1920s
It's an extract from a book on the topic. Sounds like a good read.
It's an extract from a book on the topic. Sounds like a good read.
Can't last
These leaked records cast light on how ISIS makes its money - Vox
Interesting to note the long term frailty of the ISIS current financial "model".
What I want to know is - who's buying their oil, anyway?
Interesting to note the long term frailty of the ISIS current financial "model".
What I want to know is - who's buying their oil, anyway?
How fathers pass on problems
Discovery of how environmental memories may be transmitted from a father to his grandchildren
It seems it's all in how certain proteins affect the DNA, not just the DNA itself.
It seems it's all in how certain proteins affect the DNA, not just the DNA itself.
Whiteford on tax and transfer
Who really benefits from Australia's tax and social security system?
I've always thought Peter Whiteford sounded very reasonable. (I recall he has made occasional appearances over the years at Catallaxy in threads to challenge arguments put up by Sinclair Davidson. He has seemingly given up on doing that, given the rabid threads as well as the evidence-resistant propaganda-ish nature of many of the posts.)
The approach taken in this report is good and a necessary corrective to the over-simplified complaint of the "small government, less tax" lobby:
I've always thought Peter Whiteford sounded very reasonable. (I recall he has made occasional appearances over the years at Catallaxy in threads to challenge arguments put up by Sinclair Davidson. He has seemingly given up on doing that, given the rabid threads as well as the evidence-resistant propaganda-ish nature of many of the posts.)
The approach taken in this report is good and a necessary corrective to the over-simplified complaint of the "small government, less tax" lobby:
A final issue that arises from this analysis relates to the question of whether people can be characterised as “lifters” or “leaners”and relates to the idea that it is only the rich that effectively pay (net) taxes. A lifecycle perspective shows that people whose lifetime annualised income is less than $25,000 actually pay more than 10% of their lifetime income in taxes (rather than near to zero), and this doesn’t include indirect taxes.
In contrast, middle income people over their lifetime receive far more in social security benefits than do people in these income brackets at a point in time. The implication is that a much wider range of people benefit from the welfare state and pay taxes to support it than is often acknowledged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)