About six weeks ago, I joined a small group of people who are fellow students at IUPUI and concerned by Indianapolis, Indiana’s stark lack of transportation planning and public transit availability. The group is called Hoosier Progress. Just this evening, we were discussing the differences between Indianapolis and Madison, Wisconsin when it came to commuting options. Madison is laden with bicycles and crisscrossed with a network of bike and foot paths that would make any city in the nation envious.
The likely root cause of this situation is geography. The heart of Madison is situated on a narrow isthmus between two lakes, Monona and Mendota. This is likely what encouraged higher population density, which in turn led to tighter city blocks on the isthmus and smaller residential properties. Madison was founded in 1836. Needless to say, there were few cars on the road and public transportation had not yet taken off. Therefore, there was a greater need to move about the city on foot.
Indianapolis is built on flat, open land, with only a river and a smattering of man-made lakes on the edge of town to determine how things are laid out. There are no natural barriers to determine the size of house lots or the shape of neighborhoods. It also means cheaper land for newer, more land-intensive housing tracts in the suburbs. Like Madison, the older parts of the city have smaller blocks, but this is a relic from a time when few people owned cars and the population was much smaller.
As a consequence of these two different city development paths, Madison has about 50 percent greater population density. The greater Madison area also has about a third the population of Indianapolis, this makes it easier to get from place to place within Madison. Madison also benefits from a comprehensive network of bicycle paths.
When considering Indianapolis’ abysmal public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, there are things to be learned from citys like Madison. Encouraging increased population density when creating or rebuilding neighborhoods can make it easier for residents to go about their day without a car.
Increasing population density would also make it easier to determine where bike paths should be laid. Currently, they are restricted to abandoned rail lines and along major waterways. A comprehensive trail network should connect neighborhood centers, residential areas, and major attractions like museums, parks, and airports.
Indianapolis still has a long way to go when it comes to building out non-automotive traffic infrastructure. However, we do not have to reinvent the wheel (so to speak.) We can look at the ways it is been successfully implemented in other places and try to apply those lessons here.
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis is an urban campus shared by Indiana University and Purdue University, two large, well-funded public education institutions. There are Schools of Computer Science, Computer Information Technology, and Informatics. IU’s University Information Technology Services does an excellent job of supporting students on all of IU’s campuses. (I am not just saying that because I work for UITS.)
However, despite all the up-to-date computer labs with dozens of computers, free software deals from Microsoft and Adobe, and 24/7 technical support, IU seems to be lacking one thing: open source. There is some Linux/UNIX software available through IU’s software site, IUWare. However, the amount of Linux software there is far outmatched by the software available for Mac and Windows.
Indiana University has deals with several software vendors, in particular Microsoft and Adobe. These corporations provide free software to faculty and students in the hopes that they will continue to use their respective software after graduation. A copy of Adobe CS5 Design Premium can cost as much $1,900. A Microsoft Office 2008 license can cost at least $150. OpenOffice may not be as feature-rich as Microsoft Office, but it would certainly get the job done for 99% of users and it’s free.
Unless it is detailed in IU’s agreement with Microsoft and Adobe that it not push open-source options too hard, I do not see why it should not become a bit more open about open source. At the very least, it is free software that the University will not have to haggle over every few years.
There. That was my first rant over open source. I will get hate mail.
There is little controversy when discussing the need for more renewable energy sources in the United States’ energy mix, with emphasis on solar and wind power. The controversy begins when it comes to deciding where the physical infrastructure for these energy sources will be placed.
This has led to the (somewhat derogatory) term “NIMBY,” which stands for “Not in my Back Yard.” It describes people who may be enthusiastic about the prospect of the renewable energy industry but do not want its associated physical infrastructure in a place where it will affect the appearance of their properties.
An unfortunate consequence of renewable energy developers being pushed to put more and more wind farms on the grid is that they have become a bit overzealous. Plans and permits are issued quickly and residents who will live nearby these windmill farms ultimately complain. Not all complain, just a few.
This makes it extremely important to get feedback from residents who live near proposed wind and solar farms before beginning any planning on the placement of windmills or solar panels begins. Since we are installing infrastructure that will likely be in place for decades, these windmills and solar power plants will not just be infrastructure – they will be neighbors. It is important to get along with your neighbors, especially when you are trying to improve the public perception of renewable energy nationwide.
If a windmill needs to take a slight performance hit in order to not make a serious impact on the appearance of the landscape, then that is a fair compromise. Saving an unnecessary fight with local residents in exchange for a slight drop in efficiency is not really a drop in efficiency.
Having comprehensive public participation would probably be of more importance in the northeastern states, where population density is much higher than in areas such as the midwest and the southwest. More people would be affected by a new windmill in rural Vermont than in rural Illinois simply because the states are smaller and there is a higher overall population density in Vermont.
If you ever find yourself faced with a “NIMBY,” get them all together and tell them where to put the windmill. They will figure it out.
For those have not seen the Symphony of Science videos yet, I highly recommend you go watch all of them. There are five so far and a new one is added every few months.
In the most recent one, “The Poetry of Reality,” I have found that a few of the scientists in the video think that is “great not knowing”. I understand that all of the phrases and audio clips are taken completely out of context. Even so, I feel that these statements are poorly worded. Surely, Richard Feynman was not advocating ignorance as an alternative to absolute certainty and knowledge. Neither of these are logically tenable positions to try to maintain. Also, both tend to be associated with organized religion.
Absolute certainty means holding a very specific position on a topic and not wavering from it, even in the face of new evidence. An opinion can seem perfectly reasonable at one time, but then will appear more and more absurd to others as time goes on.
Absolute certainty breeds a terrible type of ignorance, willful ignorance. When one is willfully ignorant of reality, they will do everything in their power to avoid newer, uncomfortable evidence. In extreme cases, they will become immune to reason and become a risk to themselves and others.
In order to become inquisitive, one must first admit ignorance where no publicly verifiable evidence exists. Ignorance is not the equivalent of stupidity and it is easy to solve the problem of ignorance. Even if you do not have access to the internet or a library, you can still become a rational, thinking human being.
Also realize that whatever you hold to be true is not invulnerable to new evidence. Be ready to accept that new evidence and incorporate it into your over-arching world view.
Then again, that’s just me. I could be wrong.
Update: If you would like some additional reading, consider Bob Carroll’s “Becoming a Critical Thinker.” It’s a good introductory book to logic and reason applied in the real world.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4]
Earlier this year, Google announced that they would stop filtering their Internet search results for the Chinese market, a request made by the Chinese government. This came after a massive attack on Google’s US-based Gmail servers which was likely an attempt by the Chinese government to get information about Chinese dissidents and human rights activists.
In the past few days, Google has moved its operations and personnel from mainland China to the less restrictively-governed Hong Kong. Google.cn will now redirect to google.com.hk.
Naturally, the Chinese government is not too thrilled about this move and even called it “the wrong choice.” Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not really your decision, is it? If Google doesn’t really want to put up with filtering results in your country while at the same time trying to sell themselves as one of the greatest research tools in history, then that is their call. The decision that the Chinese government made is to censor the Internet. They can block Google at any time.
What I found truly bizarre in all of this is that the Chinese people, at least according to the general portrayal of events in the media, actually feel sorry for Google, which confused and frustrated me a bit. Google is going out on a limb here and trying to provide uncensored material to you and feel sorry for them? I do not get it.
Good for Google. I completely agree with their decision here. The Internet was never meant to be censored by anyone, individual or government. A free and open Internet benefits everyone. Hopefully, the Chinese government will someday see the light and lift its restrictions on freedom of speech and information.
I recently watched an excellent Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture several times. In it, he made an excellent argument for the origins of the “Intelligent Design” theory and how to confront it in the public discourse.
He brought up the instance of Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest minds in human history. Tyson listed his major achievements, most notable of which were his understanding of gravity and the motion of the planets, as well as Newton’s somewhat flippant creation of calculus. However, when it came time for Newton to explain the perturbations of the planets’ orbits by one another’s gravity, he was stumped. With what he knew, Newton could not account for this perturbation and could not understand how the planets remained in stable orbits around the sun. Rather than delving into the problem with a rational mind and keen intellect, he simply surmised that a great, divine power was at work. Possibly the greatest mind in Western culture was confused for a moment and explained something away by claiming that a god did it.
The problem with simply chalking a natural phenomenon up to the supernatural is that it instantly ends all analysis and intellectual work. Thought and investigation on the matter simply stop. Not only does the former investigator not have a good explanation for the phenomenon, the entire human race is poorer for it. It took nearly a century after Newton’s death for the perturbation of the planets to be adequately explained with science.
The same thing is happening in the case of intelligent design and evolution. The reason that evolution should be taught in the science classroom and intelligent design is not is that the possibility of evolution has scientific evidence behind it. ID does not have any scientific evidence behind it, just a bunch of idle speculation and lack of curiosity about the world. Science requires a curiosity about the world and its workings. ID discourages investigation and curiosity. Therefore, it cannot be considered science or a part of a proper science curriculum.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY]
Last week, Google broke the news that they had been hacked and that the attack originated from China. Since Google has been careful to not keep any of its servers or data in China, opting to store everything on servers in the United States, it is likely that the Chinese government itself is responsible for the attack. Google responded to this by announcing publicly that they would no longer be filtering content on Google.cn searches in compliance with Chinese laws. This essentially has ended Google’s corporate presence in China for the foreseeable future.
Maybe Google did the right thing here. It is not the only corporation that has submitted to the Chinese authorities in order to have a presence and marketshare there. As part of the Golden Shield Project, anything that is deemed inappropriate or subversive on the internet by the Chinese government is blocked. Since Facebook and Twitter are exceptionally hard to filter, those sites are blocked out entirely.
By leaving its 30% marketshare of the Chinese search market, Google essentially took a financial hit so that it could redeem its moral standing to a degree.
If internet and technology companies want to send a message to the entire world that they will stand up for free speech on the internet, then they should simply leave any country that uses internet censorship to repress its own people.
While China is fairly tech-savvy and its own native search engine, Baidu, would likely pick up the slack, the tech companies that leave would at least be able to keep themselve true to the spirit of the internet: an open, free forum for public discussion and communication.
I recently watched “The Hills Have Eyes” and noticed a couple messages in its sick, gruesome plot. Essentially, it is a story about a middle-class family that is attacked by mutants. It is a cheesy story, one that has been done to death, so to speak and not that interesting until one starts to consider the secondary messages imbedded in the film.
The obvious message, if this film was ever meant to have one beyond senseless violence and cannibalism, is that of environmental neglect, which led to the mutation of otherwise normal people. This leads to my main point, that the attackers are lower class people and the attackees are middle class. Essentially, there is a small class war between two social classes in which almost everyone involved are largely destroyed.
This is one of the main reasons I do not enjoy horror movies. They do not just leave me unsettled. They guilt-trip me.
I am not talking about diplomacy in that title. I am talking about a drastic changeover in power within a country. I mean more drastic than one party overtaking another for a few terms or a new president or prime minister taking office. I am talking about revolution.
When a country’s government is overthrown by its people, it is typically a small portion of the people, out for their own power. Populist revolutions almost invariably lead to democratic or republican governments. Look at Cuba. It underwent a revolution, created by a group who claimed to be champions of the working man, but it ended up becoming a communist dictatorship.
Revolutions are almost invariably power grabs by people with guns. They create a state of anarchy by toppling the existing government of their country and then swing around and offer that country’s people an alternative to that anarchy, an alternative that those revolutionaries they themselves provide and one that is impossible to refuse in the face of total social breakdown and chaos.
Anarchy is not a permanent state. Humans, when in groups, are self-organizing. We are social animals and the idea of being individuals out for ourselves is not an attractive one, save for a few exceptions. Anarchy is a temporary state between one form of government and another. This is why I feel it is erroneous to compare anarchy with the likes of democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorships. It is not just the lack of government. It cannot be compared with the others because it is inherently temporary and fleeting.
Tonight, the IUPUI Freethinkers had their weekly meeting. The topic this week was the media. The ultimate consensus was that the media has developed some serious, deep-seated issues.
Extremism sells and most news outlets are corporate entities or owned by corporate entities. This is the unfortunate truth. Unfortunately, extremism does not make for good reporting. It does not serve the American people well. Until we start demanding en masse decent, in-depth reporting, we simply will not get it from the corporate interests that own our media.
Fox News and MSNBC both engage in the presentation of polar extremes as rational, mainstream methods of political thought. The truth is, they are not even close. They are political extremes that do not inform the populace or encourage civil discourse. They are simply talking heads. They just make noise.
Since ideologues in the media come down on issues so cleanly and predictably, however, politicians can make them part of their strategies. Politicians, in particularly fierce races like last fall’s Presidential race, can fine tune their arguments to divide and polarize the American public, to create dichotomy where none need exist.
It is necessary that we as a nation stand up and announce that we have the right to clear, concise and in-depth news reporting. We deserve to hear the whole story without major facts and events being cherry-picked to suit some egotist’s or capitalist’s agenda. We need to know what is going on out there. We cannot just trust that the people with the loudest voices will let us know what is really going on.
The Daily Show – “For Fox Sake”
Patrick Proctor was here 