Tiny Planet

An interesting enough science bit from AP:

Mathematicians at UCLA have discovered a 13 million-digit prime number [one divisible only by itself and 1], a long-sought milestone that makes them eligible for a $100,000 prize. The group found the 46th known Mersenne prime last month on a network of 75 computers running Windows XP.

Hang on a sec. “Mathematicians discover”… but it was the computers actually doing the thing. I could run the Boinc app on my PC and do calculations for SETI, but that wouldn’t mean I “discovered” anything. Now, if it had been a group busily working away with pens and paper, or maybe an abacus, that would count as mathmaticians discovering. But then one could argue that many scientific discoveries should be attributed to the equipment, rather than the individual.

Maybe I’m just bitter and twisted. And maybe that explains why I think this: If it was Windows Vista, they’d still be looking.

Does anybody else think it’s a bit cheeky that Bruno Metsu has agreed to be Qatar’s manager, given that he quit the UAE soccer team a very short time ago?

From Reuters:

Ireland’s was the first eurozone economy to slip into recession this year, figures showed on Thursday, as the bursting of a property bubble ended 25 years of sustained growth in the once mighty ”Celtic Tiger”.

Official data from the country’s Central Statistics Office showed gross domestic product (GDP) fell for the second successive quarter in the three months to end-June, the technical definition of economic recession.

I thought we were already in a recession, but hey, what do I know?

You know ‘em, you love ‘em (you know you do really) and now Technologizer has compiled the 13 greatest error messages of all time, beginning with this classic: Abort, Retry Fail.

It could indicate either a minor glitch (you forgot to put a floppy disk in the drive) or catastrophe (your hard drive had died). And by forcing you to choose between three options, none of which is likely to help, it throws the problem back in your face.

NASA is making all the right noises, with its chief, Michael Griffin, again asserting that space exploration is key to human survival. Good luck getting the cash for that one.

His vested interest is apparent and, given the environmental damage that has been wrought to Earth, he may have a point. But then again it’s NASA’s 50th anniversary, so we should expect him to promote the overall endeavour.

“As we move out in our solar system, expanding human presence, we can’t prove what we will find will be useful.

“It was understood in Columbus’s time that if voyagers discovered new lands they would find valuable things. We can’t prove today that we can exploit what we find to the benefit of humankind.”

However, in the long run, Griffin believes “human populations must diversify if it wishes to survive.”

To be fair, he has a point. The greater the number of human populations, the greatert the chance that the species will, in some form, survive. The Moon is the obvious candidate, followed by Mars; you don’t have to be a science-fiction fan to figure that out. Though conditions will be far from luxurious, at least to begin with, even a few thousand people on each body will aid our ultimate chances of survival.

Complete terraforming is well beyond our grasp, although for a snapshot of something we could do regarding the Moon, read Moonseed by Stephen Baxter. Kim Stanley Robinson’s substantial Mars series is a hard science look at the transformation of the Red Planet.

Closer to terra firma, Griffin is also adamant that he does not see China as a competitor in space exploration. He may come to regret his words, which come the same week that China prepared for its as China launches its riskiest orbital mission yet, including its first space walk.

It would not be in Griffin’s best interests to praise the Chinese project, even if it could eventually see the Asian nation launch and complete its own space station in the near future. The space walk is pivotal for developing the expertise to snap the thing together.

Picture: Frédéric Vincent

Two English professors are convinced they know the true reason behind the prehistoric monument: It was a healing centre to attract pilgrims from across Europe.

Geoffrey Wainwright and Timothy Darvill

said the key to their theory was Stonehenge’s double circle of bluestones — a rare rock known to geologists as spotted dolomite — which lie at the centre of the monument.

The theory is based on the large amount of flakes of this rock, which has been found in tombs across the area. The tombs also contained bones showing signs of injury or disease.

It doesn’t ring true for me. That’s not to say the two aren’t right — after all, they’re the ones who’ve studied the thing and I’m just a history student — but to make the leap from rocks in tombs to European pilgrimage centre is vast, to say the least; if they have evidence that the dolomite, which was mined in Wales, is found in tombs across Europe, or if DNA analysis of the remains hinted that the bodies were of people from the continent, the news reports are silent. EDIT: I’ve found an article on the Daily Telegraph website stating that teeth were analysed and show half of the nearby bodies were of people “not native” to the local area (although it doesn’t state if they are continental in origin).

Wainwright

said the bluestones were prized for their healing properties — as evidenced by the small mountain of flakes the scientists uncovered during their dig.

Maybe they just thought the dolomite was pretty, or perhaps it had some trade value. Future archaeologists will see all sorts in our graves. It doesn’t mean our grave goods were believed to have some healing power.

Like all good researchers of prehistory, the pair agree that the site could have had other uses, perhaps as a religious centre.

I find myself wondering if my (I stress non-hostile) opposition to Wainwright and Darvill is the manifestation of a desire for Stonehenge to remain unexplained, or at least to have a more imagination-catching explanation. But this doesn’t seem to ring true, either. In all likelihood, far too much time has passed for a definitive reasoning to be established. It’s still fun to speculate, though.

I’ve enjoyed Robert Cringley’s recent series of blogicles on IT management — largely because it’s given me a greater understanding of a world that has, at various times, interested and frustrated me. He also draws a distinct line between management and leadership, two concepts that are often conflated but require very different skillsets.

If you get the chance, have a look at the three columns about the “Cousin IT of American industry”:

We serve the company but often don’t feel part of it. Certainly the value structures and lines of authority that function perfectly well for most of the rest of the company don’t work at all well for IT. We’re vital but at the same time, well, so different that it’s hard to imagine a CEO emerging from the IT ranks. It happens from time to time. Everyone points to John Reed, who rose from IT to CEO of Citicorp, but Reed was an exceptional case. He succeeded because his predecessor, Walter Wriston, had an unusual interest in IT and mentored Reed. Reed succeeded, too, because he didn’t really come from IT but from Data Processing, which was more hierarchical. And ultimately he didn’t succeed at all, by some measures, because John Reed was fired.

I hadn’t realised it was impossible to drive from Central to South America; it turns out there is a 90km stretch of Panama/Colombia borderland without a road. Fancy roughing it in a 4×4? Bad idea. But don’t take my word for it — here’s what what you’d face, as listed by Dark Roasted Blend:

• tough nasty jungle with plenty of disagreeable wildlife

• impenetrable swamps

• crazed drug traffikers

• pissed-off guerrillas

• greedy kidnappers

• paranoid government police

• no marked trails

I think I’ll stick with an aeroplane.

The US military’s latest strategy document throws in the usual ideological threats — and apparently the “war on terror” now has an acronym, GWOT — but has a very keen on eye on future practicalities: “We face a potential return to traditional security threats posed by emerging near-peers as we compete globally for depleting natural resources and overseas markets.”

An interesting phrase, “near peers”. I’m not sure if this is a subtle slight at Russian and Chinese efforts to restablish/establish themselves as world powers, or a tacit acceptance that US power faces being equalled in the medium term.

Tom Clonan of The Irish Times notes:

This thinly-veiled reference to Russia and China will, perhaps, come as little surprise given recent events in Ossetia and Abkhazia. The explicit reference in this context to future resource wars, however, will probably raise eyebrows among the international diplomatic community, who prefer to couch such conflicts as human rights-based or rooted in notions around freedom and democracy.

The document, however, contains no such lofty pretences. It goes on to list as a pre-eminent threat to the security of the US and its allies “population growth – especially in less-developed countries – [which] will expose a resulting ‘youth bulge’.”

A young, growing population would mean a corresponding growth in resource consumption. It’s valid for a military to consider these sorts of threats — its duty is to protect the nation and its citizens, and so it should be prepared for as many eventualities as possible, and however unpalatable it may seem to the observer. But this is an outline of what strategies and technologies will be needed in the future, rather than a plan of campaign.

That food and water could lead to conflict should not be unexpected. The rocketing price of rice, for instance, has prompted several Gulf states to look into buying farmland in producer countries as a means of safeguarding supplies. If we hear a country saying “Oh, that looks like a nice spot to invade and grow corn”, then we need to worry. But don’t think it hasn’t been said privately.

According to Clonan, the document also looks at hi-tech options for fight wars and conducting military exercises. The space-based perspective might sound like science fiction, but is unsurprising. Any military would want to use all the assets at its disposal — and orbit allows all sorts of perspectives and observation options.

It is also indicative of a drive to reduced US casualties. Mobile-operated drones and such have been mooted and occasionally deployed for some time, although with mixed results. However, the use of hardware over personnel is more PR friendly, as well as a possibility for reducing the used operating budget on pesky things such as food and water. We may not be in Terminator country just yet, but it would mark a major shift in military composition and operation.

If it comes to pass, of course,

Traffic congestion intensifies in UAE on world car-free day. D’oh.