Blogs / Cosmic Variance

Not to be a harbinger of doom, but this one sounds bad. There are some 6-15 million computers out there running Windows which are infected with a computer virus, dubbed Conficker C. The recent report by SRI makes for some chilling reading. On April 1 (that is, next Wednesday!) the virus is set to…well…do something. It’s not clear what, but with so many millions of computers will do it. The report concludes:

We present an analysis of Conficker Variant C, which emerged on the Internet at roughly 6 p.m. (PST) on 4 March 2009. This variant incorporates significant new functionality, including a new domain generation algorithm and a new peer-to-peer file sharing service. Absent from our discussion has been any reference to the well-known attack propagation vectors (RCP buffer overflow, USB, and NetBios Scans) that have allowed C’s predecessors to saturate so much of the Internet. Although not present in C, these attack propagation services are but one peer upload away from any C infected host, and may appear at any time. C is, in fact, a robust and secure distribution utility for distributing malicious content and binaries to millions of computers across the Internet. This utility incorporates a potent arsenal of methods to defend itself from security products, updates, and diagnosis tools. It further demonstrates the rapid development pace at which Conficker’s authors are maintaining their current foothold on a large number of Internet-connected hosts. Further, if organized into a coordinated offensive weapon, this multimillion-node botnet poses a serious and dire threat to the Internet.

Yikes! Whoever wrote this thing is not a very nice person…or persons. The C variant apparently managed to upgrade itself over the network, and disables security anti-virus software. If I were you (and I am apparently not because I use only OS X and Unix) I would update my antivirus software every day and scan my machine. And leave it off next Wednesday if possible.

Pass the word…

I went and watched Jill Tarter’s acceptance speech for her TED Prize earlier this month. I’ve been aware of Jill’s work for a long while now, and have been a (somewhat silent fan). But I was unaware of the TED prize until it came up in xkcd.com. (Kudos to xkcd for that!)

I really liked the grand view she takes of the universe and our place in it. She eloquently points out the fact that swirls of gas and dust have collapsed and developed into a form which is aware of itself and wonders where it comes from, and whether it’s alone. When you think about it like that, it’s a little unnerving.

It really is hard to imagine a more profound discovery than to definitively prove that there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe, perhaps relatively close to our little spot in the suburbs of the Milky Way. Science fiction has for decades explored the many possibilities of the forms that such life might take. Movies and TV have focused mostly on the humanoid forms since the costumes are easy. One might make arguments about the typical strength of materials relative to the gravity of habitable planets, etc., and about convergent evolution. But to me it seems exceedingly unlikely that intelligent life elsewhere has two legs, two arms, or even a head like ours. It would seem to me to be a long shot that they are RNA/DNA based, or even based on amino acids and proteins. It could be they they are tiny, and have a hive-like culture. Or they could be vast stadium-sized creatures who live for millennia and float in their densely gaseous outer planetary layers. The possibilities are endless. The chance that they are anything like us, though, seems truly remote.

But here are a few things we can say relatively confidently about intelligent/sentient/technical beings elsewhere that we may some day detect:

1. They are made out of the same kinds of atoms and molecules that we find here, possibly including
iron/cobalt/nickel, other metals, and lighter atoms like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, silicon, and on and on. These atoms came from the explosions of the first stars in their final death throes, and that’s what’s out there to make life from.

2. They need energy to survive, and may have learned how (as we have) to access alternative sources of energy to drive their technology. Some of these sources may be entirely unknown to us (yet – that’s one reason why we need to keep pushing the high energy frontier) but available all around us if we just knew what to do.

3. They almost certainly use ordinary electromagnetism and the nuclear forces in their technology, which is based on the ordinary matter from #1. Clearly light, and all the other forms of electromagnetic radiation are so ubiquitous it is hard to imagine they’ve overlooked it. Similarly for the nuclear forces. This is our doorway into ordinary matter at reasonable temperatures. (This having been said, humans on earth only recently started to learn how to control these forces. And, given #2, maybe the aliens have moved on to better things.) Their electromagnetic emanations, anyway, are just about our only hope of detecting them.

4. They are almost certainly either far older, and more developed than we are, or far younger and more primitive. Humanity has only been truly self aware, and headed toward advanced technology, in the very recent past, perhaps the last few hundred thousand years. Compared with billions of years, this is a tiny slice of time.

5. They are very, very far away and it would take an excessively long time for them to cross the vast distances between stars. (I view faster-than-light travel or communication as a non-possibility, practically speaking, for even the most advanced life forms. I know this is not going to make me popular with the alien fans out there, but outer space is really, really big.) It takes light many thousands of years to cross the vast stretches of space. You have to really want to go interstellar if that’s what you’re about, and you have to abandon the rest of your society and all the support you get from it once you leave.

For me the bottom line is that even if we found aliens by peering out into space with our detectors, we may realize they are out there, but they are probably not coming here. Somehow that makes me feel more lonely, not less. And if they did come here their technology is so advanced that they would hardly regard us as worth of any sort of interest or notice. Our planet might have some interest for them in terms of resources to exploit, but that is probably about it. We’d just be in the way, at best. We can forget about communicating with them…let’s just hope they don’t want our protein.

Anyway, give Jill a listen she is very eloquent on the subject.

Yesterday President Obama signed the stimulus bill. With the stroke of a pen, $789,500,000,000 has been “spent”. The bill includes roughly $18B for science research, and over $50B for education. The National Science Foundation receives $3B, of which $2B goes directly to peer-reviewed science. Given that the total budget for NSF is $6B a year, this is a significant increase. The Department of Energy Office of Science receives $1.6B, while energy programs at the DOE receive over $30B. NASA receives $1B, of which almost half goes to Earth science climate research.

If you sent email or made phone calls, please take a moment now to thank your Senators and Representatives. Many people worked very, very hard to ensure that science was adequately funded.

This is a lot of money, all of which needs to be spent on a very short timescale. But it sends a clear message that science is important to the future of this Nation, and this Planet.

I’m sorry, but I cannot seem to get this stimulus package off my mind. For my whole life I have watched the federal government bounce along with a few hundred billion dollars of non-military discretionary spending, give or take. Mostly take – this portion of the federal budget is the part most under pressure, year to year. Of course the largest portion of federal spending goes into servicing the national debt, and into Medicare and Social Security. But I digress.

Now, under extreme economic duress brought about, ultimately, by the collapse of the housing market and with mortgage-backed securities added as an accelerant, the economy is in free fall. The government is seemingly on the verge of an absolutely massive, $900 billion spending spree, most of which is for the sorts of discretionary spending that would have taken years, or decades, to happen. If ever. It’s among the most extraordinary things I think I have seen in my life.

Many in Washington appear to be very, very, nervous about doing this, but just about all are convinced that the government needs to do something, whatever it can, to avert what would amount to a very long, deep economic depression. Opinions abound, and there is a lot of crazy stuff being said on both sides. A lot of it comes down to the old partisan bickering about how the Dems want to tax and spend, and all the Repubs want is to stop spending and cut taxes (though all they did when in power was cut taxes, for corporations and the already rich, and dramatically increase spending). There has been a lot of noise about this or that item in the various versions of the bill, with detractors invariably questioning its “stimulatory” value. (For example, check out what the GOP thinks is non-stimulatory here.)

So what’s the best thing for the government to spend money on? Where does one get the best bang for the buck? Lost in the main stream media discussions has been any mention of the velocity of money. If the government spends a dollar on something, how likely is it that it will be spent again, and again? How likely is it to generate revenue? Create jobs? Increase GDP?

If money has velocity, then its mass must be its value. The product of the two is the momentum of the economy. And, as good physics students, we all know that to change momentum you need a force. That, I assume, would be prices: the less the price the more likely you are to spend it, increasing the velocity. But, then, the lower the price the more value the money has – here the analogy with Newtonian physics breaks down. It’s non-linear.

Over at MotherJones.com there is a very interesting, if short, article by James K. Galbraith. But even more interesting is the graph accompanying it:

They say this comes from Moody’s Economy.com, though I have not found it yet…I am not a subscriber. It purports to show the economic return enjoyed for each type of dollar spent, though I am not quite clear on just how economic return is defined.

Anyway, taken at face value this graph would seem to squelch definitively the incessant chant for tax cuts, and give strong motivation for spending on infrastructure and the economic safety net. Come on, MSM, cover this story! Galbraith’s main point is that the government ought to be taking a much longer view, and I think that at least part of the $900 billion stimulus does exactly that: the portion devoted to research and development can lead to the sorts of new technologies that will truly sustain the next economic expansion.

I would love to see added to the graph above a bar corresponding to federal support for basic scientific R&D. Even if you just figure that if you give a professor money she spends it all on hiring a postdoc, how does that impact the economy? One of my main worries is that all the science money in the stimulus package will go to “one-shot” big-ticket items, when what we need is people, too. But that kind of money is not represented by a one-off stimulus, but a sustained year to year program of spending on science. What we need is a long-term increase in federal spending on science. A long term commitment, in other words, reflecting basic science policy.

Indeed, also lost in the discussion has been this: just what the hell is the federal budget for 2010? Ordinarily, the administration’s budget request would be rolled out the second week of February or so. Like, next Monday. Not to mention that there would usually be a State of the Union address; all we know for the past 10 days is that Obama will address Congress some time in mid-February. If I were him I would like to do it after passing the stimulus package…

We do live in interesting times.

Two weeks ago the US House released their nascent version of the $825 billion stimulus bill, which later passed in committee and was introduced to the House floor yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Senate unveiled its version of the stimulus package, with a much more terse summary. Oddly, the section specifically mentioning science only talks about NSF and NASA:

Science:

National Science Foundation (NSF) Research: $1.4 billion in funding for scientific research, infrastructure and competitive grants.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): $1.5 Billion for NASA, including $500 million for Earth science missions to provide critical data about the Earth’s resources and climate.

What about the DOE Office of Science? NIH? NIST? NOAA? I surely hope that the next summary will call out items to the level the House summary did. But, further down, under Energy, we find

$40 billion to the Department of Energy for development of clean, efficient, American
energy.

Whoa. Suddenly, the DOE is not your daddy’s Atomic Energy Commission any more! (Or your grand-dad’s Office of Naval Research…) In fact, I winder just how many congresscritters really know the history of the DOE, that its 2008 $24.6 billion budget included

• - $8.7 billion for energy programs, of which $4.4 billion is for science, and most of the rest is for actual energy projects, and
• - $15.5 billion for weapons activities, of which $5.4 billion is for nuclear cleanup.

By my calculation, therefore, the non-weapons, non-basic-research part of DOE’s budget is less than 20% of the whole DOE program.

So what will this mysterious $40 billion for in the Senate plan be for? Do they seriously envision giving ten times the present budget to that portion of the DOE and say, “here, invent clean, efficient American energy”. I am going to guess that the “$40 billion” is going to augment the DOE Office of Science programs in basic research by something like the $1.9 billion in the House bill (of which $400 million was specifically tagged for energy research). But what about the other $38 billion?

Anyway it all boggles the mind. No doubt the so-called “Clean Coal” people will be all over this, as will the T. Boone Pickens compressed natural gas types, those who want enormous (and I mean freakin’ enormous – do the math) wind farms and the supporters of first- (ick) and second-generation biofuels. (I say “ick” because corn-based methanol is simply a big waste of resources). To me it seems that that “energy” is clearly the buzzword these days. (It will certainly be in the title of my next proposal, but with “high” in front of it.)

Two main areas of debate and discussion spring to my mind here. Firstly, I think that it is high time to merge the disparate funding agencies which support basic research into a cabinet-level Department of Science, rather than a dozen little agencies. This was discussed (and eventually dismissed) in the early Clinton years, the argument essentially being that “the more spigots the better.”

Secondly, we have the much more difficult question: Where will all this new, efficient, clean American energy actually come from? Presently we have in place systems for nuclear, hydro, solar, fossil, wind, and geothermal. Fossil fuels dominate by far in the US. It is interesting, in fact, to look at the DOE’s Energy Information Agency’s chart of where it all comes from and where it goes (as of 2007):

As you can see we are rather heavily dependent on coal, oil, and gas. I wonder if the average person on the street quite realizes just how deep we are into carbon based energy…

I am all for research into new approaches to energy, but we are going to have to be realistic about the basic underlying physics. And we had better fund basic research in physics in our universities if a new generation of physicists is going to emerge to develop new energy sources, and spend all these taxpayer dollars effectively.

We live in amazing times.

I’ve spent the last week or so making my big move; dealing with movers and our new apartment, getting the inevitable administrative details of a new department dealt with, and trying to make sure my graduate students are settled. Consequently, I haven’t been posting. I have, however, been reading here and there, and thought that, in lieu of a full post, I’d drop in some links to some of the things that caught my eye:

In celebration of Darwin’s bicentennial, The Guardian is publishing abridged extracts from the first edition of “On the Origin of Species”

Writing in Salon, Nancy Goldstein let’s Obama have it for thinking that inviting Gene Robinson to play a role in the inauguration makes up for the insult of having Rick Warren there. One prominent gay bishop doesn’t cancel out choosing a bigot.

In February, Comet Lulin will pass close enough to Earth to be visible with the naked eye.

The Canadian Light Source synchrotron is getting a Sci-Fi writer in residence.

The English take on Galileo

There’s also apparently something big going on in Washington next week, and while it isn’t clear what it’ll mean for the role of science, at least the initial quotes are good.

Well, I’m off to work on a talk I’m giving in Aspen, at a conference I’ll tell you about soon.

As the year breaks, the internets are abuzz with deep thoughts!

What will change everything? is this year’s Edge Annual Question. Many interesting answers, as you might expect. Choose from Massive Technological Failure (David Bodanis), Breaking the Species Barrier (Richard Dawkins), Coordinated and Expanded Computational Power (Lisa Randall), Faster Evolution (Jonathan Haidt), Happiness (Betsy Devine), Synthetic Biology (Dimitar Sasselov), and more. The book of last year’s question is out soon.

The blog posts to be reprinted in the Open Lab 2008 anthology have been announced — only 50 selections from over 500 nominations, I’m glad I wasn’t responsible for making the tough choices. Also glad that they chose one of my posts, The First Quantum Cosmologist. You can also read about The Igneous Petrology of Ice Cream (Green Gabbro), Expect the Unexpected (A canna’ change the laws of physics), How do cave bats know when it is dark outside? (Pondering Pikaia), and perhaps the most courageous blog post of all time: Liveblogging the Vasectomy (Terra Sigillata). Some sort of new journalism” going on there.

Finally, if all those ideas are weighing you down, play with the David Lee Roth ‘Runnin’ With the Devil’ Soundboard (via Cynical-C). Deconstructed from this classic track.

The complete version is here, but it only detracts.

We’re not talking kids in their basement ripping DVDs. We’re not talking Johnny Depp wearing too much make-up. We’re talking honest-to-god, high-seas ambush, gun-toting pirates. Here we are in the 21st Century, and yet international waters are in some ways just as lawless and perilous as they were 300 years ago.

The pirates lairs are in the craggy coast of Somalia. They are perfectly poised to capture ships heading through the Gulf of Aden (gateway to the Red Sea), one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The first boats they boarded were minor vessels, and nobody really took notice. They would hold the crew hostage, threaten to sink the vessel, and demand a ransom payment. It was easy and cheap and relatively risk-free to just pay them off, and that’s what happened. Again and again. Each time there was a payoff, however, the pirates were enriched and emboldened. It proved that piracy was easy money. And they amassed the resources to outfit themselves, improve their weapons, and swell their numbers. After a few years, piracy has become a full-fledged economic juggernaut; Somali pirates have made over $150 million in the past year.

At this point the pirates have developed an extremely sophisticated enterprise. They have “mother ships” which can bring them out into the high seas, far from the coast. The mother ships carry many smaller zodiac-type boats, full of men with guns and rocket launchers. The smaller boats swarm their prey, eventually boarding by force, and taking control of the ships and their crew. Delicate ransom negotiations ensue. Eventually there is a big payday, the crew and ship are released, and everyone goes their merry way.

Of course, if the first ships had refused to pay the ransom, then this whole business would never have gotten off the ground. But after a few years of payments, the pirates have sophisticated communications gear, fast boats, and top-of-the-line weapons. Recently the pirates have become amazingly brazen. Last month they captured a Saudi supertanker. The ship, fully loaded with oil, is worth over a quarter billion dollars. Not a bad haul. The ships in general have very little protection, at best just non-lethal water and sonic canons; if you’re sitting on a supertanker full of oil, you’re not really interested in a full-fledged exchange of live ammunition. The pirates are still holding the supertanker. In a unfortunate turn-of-events for the pirates, one of their recent captures was a Ukrainian vessel which turned out to be loaded with tanks and machine guns, ostensibly bound for Kenya, but probably ultimately headed to Sudan (breaching the UN arms embargo). Immediately the pirates were on everyone’s radar. Instead of just giving up the vessel and slinking away, they’ve remained steadfast. They’re surrounded by international military, with both American and Russian destroyers keeping a watchful eye. Nonetheless, they won’t give up the ship until they receive $20 million (special holiday price, down from an original demand of $35 million). In the end, someone will almost certainly pay them off, and this money will feed yet further piracy.

It is absolutely astounding that, in this day and age, a small group of ragtag Somali pirates can confront the entire world, and win. The next time you’re paying to fill up your vehicle at the gas pump, don’t forget that some of that money is going to pirates in Somalia. Isn’t the global economy amazing?

Hey Raccoons!

You suck.

the internets will miss you so!

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday — I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially… They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

– Soon to be former Senator Ted Stevens, June 2006