A Ramble on Discovery

Space Shuttle Discovery landed for the last time yesterday.  It will be retired to a museum, an iconic image of folly or progress, depending on which asshole you're evesdropping on when you stand in line to see it.


Photo: John Raoux/Associated Press

This shuttle first launched on August 30, 1984, the day before SBD started college!  That's a long time.

Yawn for some, but not for SBD.  SBD is one of those assholes who sees it as an incredible marker of Man's progress.

As it coasted to a stop under a brilliant noon sun, Discovery had logged some 5,750 orbits covering nearly 150 million miles during 39 flights spanning a full year in space — a record unrivaled in the history of manned rockets.

Teach your kids that.  The attempted and successful routinization of orbital travel and experimentation.  Do not let science fiction diminish the importance and difficulty of real science and engineering and human effort.  Money may say, "Send the robots out there, instead," but it's humans on board that make it relevant and emotional.  It is humans that pursue discovery of the kind that can be touched and seen directly.  Hubble's images are facinating and luscious views of the universe's structures but they are abstract art to most - pure mystery and wonder and absolutely intangible.  They drive the imagination of the science fictionist. Those Martian rovers are incredible little bots which we anthropomorphise because we are jealous of them.  They drive the Martian sands, but it's Man that should be there, leaving his print as a marker forward.  Maybe we'd be further along if government did not insist on a monopoly over space or insist on defining its relevance for us.  It's possible Discovery represents the bureaucratization of human space travel.  A long in the tooth government program satisfied with boring low earth orbit high school science winner experiments; a Jabba the Hut of corpulent government lethargy, mafia contracts, and misappropriation of national resources.  For about the same cost, we could have built a space elevator, and that ain't science fiction.  In any event, the future may lie in bots collecting the data, all to be fed into VR machines, which will bring the experience of space travel without the actual travel and associated bone loss, radiation poisoning and death.  See how easy it is to slip into science fictionism?

The last shuttle mission is to be flown aboard Atlantis, named for the mythical repository of ancient technological prowess destroyed by some wrath of nature or human agency in violation of nature.  Now there's a load of irony for ya.  The shuttles are hard, practical science and engineering just as much as they are of government intrusion and capture of scientific endeavor and risk.  So how to prevent the shuttle from becoming a myth of the utility of off-Earth human endeavor?  Get the fuck out of the way.  Let the entrepreneurs play and scheme.

All Your iPads They Belong to Us

Department of Defense admits its acquisition process wastes taxpayer dollars, adds years to the development of useful gear, and lags in adopting innovative technologies. Its answer?

In a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency solicitation notice, we find out that the answer is ipads and Apple apps.

In today's military, handheld systems are characterized by a tight integration of specialized hardware with a narrowly focused software suite. Most of the handheld devices are heavily optimized for a particular task and are ill-suited for general-purpose use. A soldier's radio, for example, has very limited data capability and essentially no multimedia capability. Current language translation devices support neither messaging nor collaboration of any form. This inflexibility in function is further exacerbated by the military's own acquisition process, a process that can take years to complete and involves an unwieldy linear process of formal requirements definition, technology development, and system certification. The current process adds considerable costs and introduces schedule delays to the deployment of new, cutting-edge technologies. Furthermore, there is a real risk that these very technologies will be obsolete by the time they are in the warfighter's hands.

Phew! It's about time they told us the truth.

A transformation in technical approaches and business processes is called for. DARPA seeks to overcome current limitations and give our military ready access to the leading edge capabilities.As envisioned by DARPA, this transformation will:

• Result in the rapid development of applications and system enhancements that keep up with the fluid demands of warfighter on the ever-changing battlefield;

• Demonstrate both affordability and scalability that enable pervasive use, targeted especially among the end-users at lower levels in the military echelon;

• Encourage and support open competition among a broad set of suppliers in the military applications development process; and

• Support new business models and streamlined processes to incentivize a broad community of suppliers.

The primary purpose of this RFI is to discover sources of commercial and non-commercial apps with potential relevance to the military specifically the national security community more generally. These apps may be used in situations such as the tactical battlefield, for humanitarian assistance, and in disaster recovery efforts. DARPA's initial interest will focus on apps developed on the iPhone or Android platforms that can be used today with little or no additional research and development expenses. Application providers may already have offerings in the commercial marketplace that could be adapted to meet these needs.

In order to meet this objective, DARPA extends an invitation to the developers of currently existing apps encouraging them to submit a whitepaper about their product offerings.

Other

File It Away

We read Economics of Transition so you don't have to:

What Do Russians Think About Transition?

[INSERT random Russian obscure professors name generator here]

Economics of Transition, Vol. 18, Issue 2, pp. 249-280, April 2010

Abstract:

We use data from the 2006 round of the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey to describe perceptions of the Russian population about the transition process and the role of the state compared with that of free markets.

We find that about one-half of the Russian population is disappointed with transition and a large majority is in favour of high state regulation and state provision of goods and services. High demand for government regulation and increased state intervention coexists with a low level of trust in government institutions and recognition of high and rising levels of corruption.

The findings are consistent with the theory developed by Aghion et al. (2009). In an environment with poor social capital, private business imposes negative externalities on the society and society chooses to demand more state regulation and tolerate corruption to reduce these externalities. We also find that individual perceptions of social capital and corruption co-vary with the demand for regulation, as predicted by the theory.

Keep this study for your children; tell them to read it when they are adults and they'll understand their plight a little better.

A $2 Whore

The $100 Million Health Care Vote:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate
Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost?

According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Now, the health care bill is a $1 trillion prospect.

Sen. Landrieu tells us she is only worth 0.0001% of that prospect.

They don't come cheaper than that.

Update: Apparently, Senator Landrieu is not such a cheap whore. It seems she was able to talk the john up to $300 million in order to fuck the country.

Government vs. Private Sector

Here's some tasty research:

Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Life Sciences

by Pierre Azoulay, Joshua Graff Zivin, and Gustavo Manzo

Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. In this paper, we exploit key differences across funding streams within the academic life sciences to estimate the impact of incentives on the rate and direction of scientific exploration. Specifically, we study the careers of investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute HHMI), which tolerates early failure, rewards long-term success, and gives its appointees great freedom to experiment; and grantees from the National Institute of Health, which are subject to short review cycles, pre-defined deliverables, and renewal policies unforgiving of failure.

Using a combination of propensity-score weighting and difference-in-differences estimation strategies, we find that HHMI investigators produce high-impact papers at a much higher rate than two control groups of similarly-accomplished NIH-funded scientists. Moreover, the direction of their research changes in ways that suggest the program induces them to explore novel lines of inquiry.

So, the institution started by a mad man is more successful and productive than the institution run by mad men.

Quel surprise.

Let Them Party . . .

. . . and decrease the surplus population.

From the Center for Disease Control H1N1 "Questions and Answers" page:

What is CDC’s recommendation regarding "swine flu parties"?

"Swine flu parties" are gatherings during which people have close contact with a person who has 2009 H1N1 flu in order to become infected with the virus. The intent of these parties is for a person to become infected with what for many people has been a mild disease, in the hope of having natural immunity 2009 H1N1 flu virus that might circulate later and cause more severe disease.

CDC does not recommend "swine flu parties" as a way to protect against 2009 H1N1 flu in the future. While the disease seen in the current 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak has been mild for many people, it has been severe and even fatal for others. There is no way to predict with certainty what the outcome will be for an individual or, equally important, for others to whom the intentionally infected person may spread the virus.

CDC recommends that people with 2009 H1N1 flu avoid contact with others as much as possible. If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.