Robert's Ruminations

April 21st, 2017 Tomorrow, it is my intent to add my body to the crowd that will be seen for the March for Science 2017. My role is just adding to the body count, so the journalists covering the event can remark on the human turnout for this cause. This will be for the San Francisco “Satellite March for Science”, not the hopefully big March for Science to held in the Nation’s Capital. There are 609 such satellite events around the World. The events will of course be open to all manner of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians, and also sympathizers, supporters, friends, and the merely curious. Among the STEM people, we may have “practicing” (i.e. they get paid to do research, teaching, or other support of science) and non-practicing (otherwise employed, retired). As the Marches were deliberately scheduled for the annual Earth Day, and because the motivation for the Marches is in part due to recent changes in the USA federal government, there will be a strong envir

On the television science fiction drama "Extant", an android is asked to respond to the following scenario, which I have fleshed out a little from the script on the show. A known terrorist, of well documented acts of mass murder numbering in the thousands, has been located hiding in a school house in a remote location. A drone strike will kill the terrorist, preventing possible future acts of mass murder. The strike will also kill a dozen innocent school children. When asked if she would execute the drone strike, the android without hesitation, says "yes". I have heard others, who are real humans, claim they would make similar choices: if the possibility of stopping future evil is sufficiently large, they would harm or kill a few innocents for that objective. Problem is that this is not only a morally questionable action, it is illogical as well. Hence an perfectly logical android would not have said "yes". Of course, the fictional scenario does not in

The Creation of Money In the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", Jimmy Stewart in the character of George Bailey gives a concise description of how money is created. It may not be what you think. In the film, George Bailey is the president of a building and loan association. This is the about same as a savings and loan, except that the building and loan association focusses on using deposits to fund single owner construction projects. A savings and loan association has a broader reach, adding commercial startups and expansions, and other types of loans. In the film's story, which is set in the year 1939, there is a panic about the supply of money. As a consequence, in a single day a large number of the depositors wish to withdraw their money, because they fear the bank will fail and their money will vanish. George, being well aware that the bank can not, at a single given time, return all of the depositors money, has to calm down the depositors, re-assure them that

Do You Need Data Encryption? The decision to encrypt data is based on the balance between accessibility, safety, and security. Consider these aspects in relation to an ink on paper journal. (I find that most questions about computer usage are resolved by simply translating the question into 19 th century terms.) If this journal contains private information that you will need infrequently, and of which you wish no one else to ever see, you will keep just the one handwritten journal. You will place this journal in a vault to which you have the only key. Suppose you have business partners who also need infrequent access to the journal. You will have to give each of them a copy of the key. Next, suppose the information, while sensitive, is required on a frequent basis. The locked vault may cause too much delay in fetching the journal. Instead of a locked vault, you use a journal with its  own lockable cover. Going further, you make copies of the pages, binding these int

About a quarter of a century ago, I wrote a little essay about the difference between being a scientist and being an engineer. Here is an updated version. Engineers engineer engineering. The above sentence is grammatically correct and meaningful. It is so because "engineer" is both a noun and verb. In contrast, the following sentence is pure nonsense. Scientists science science. Science is not a verb -- only a noun. It is a thing, not an activity. To make an equivalent defining sentence for scientists as we have done for engineers, we should write this: Scientists discover science. That engineer is a verb and science is a noun is at the core of the difference between being an engineer (one who is engaged in engineering or has been trained for engineering) and a scientist (who is engaged in discovery or elucidation of science). Engineering is about conceiving, designing, planning, building and making. Science is knowledge. Scientists perform observation, investi

A friend asked me to explain hypothesis and theory. There are so many excellent resources on this topic, I should simply point the reader toward such. For example my favorite is "The Ring of Truth" by  Dr.  Philip Morrison and Phylis Morrison, both of whom have passed from this life, leaving an excellent legacy of science and science writing behind them.  Still it is always educational for a writer to write upon a given topic. No better way to learn (or relearn) than to teach. So here is my expression.   I. Definitions Observation : A statement about things you can see, hear, taste, feel, and so forth. Example: Fossils exist because we actually can dig such up and hold the fossils in our hands.  Observations are often combined. Fossils are old and can be chronologically ordered, because we believe in related geological processes, which were independently observed and determined.  We have natural observations, which are those made by simply looking at the