Funk Babblings

Did you know that the world is almost out of gallium? Or that the supply of zinc may only last another 30 years?

Robert Silverberg tells us:

But now comes word that it isn’t just wildlife that can go extinct. The element gallium is in very short supply and the world may well run out of it in just a few years. Indium is threatened too, says Armin Reller, a materials chemist at Germany’s University of Augsburg. He estimates that our planet’s stock of indium will last no more than another decade. All the hafnium will be gone by 2017 also, and another twenty years will see the extinction of zinc. Even copper is an endangered item, since worldwide demand for it is likely to exceed available supplies by the end of the present century.

Though that was written by a science-fiction writer in a science-fiction magazine, it's not fiction, and other elements are disappearing as well.

Why care if some elements you've never heard of (and a few you have heard of but don't pay attention to) are disappearing? Because of what they're disappearing into -- modern electronics -- flat screens, microchips, and even power sources that some people are touting as the solution to our oil woes. And they're hard to retrieve from those things.

See more explanation by DarkSyde at Daily Kos.

Update: Ars Technica thinks the worries are overblown. I think their price-based analysis is a bit narrow-minded, but they make good points about the possibility of technology moving on to different materials.

Sometimes schneier reads more like an absurdist-humor blog than a security-issues blog. Today he linked to the tragic tale of an artist unable to ship his empty (but labeled) containers.

The labels on the empty containers include one for rocket fuel ("type: infinite improbability"), as well as some for nitrogen ("78.084% pure") and neon ("0.0018% pure"). The idea of shipping this sort of hazardous material frightened the FedEx courier.

There may be some hope for the courier, however. Philosophically, if not intellectually. He said the bottle of "certainty" just sounded too suspicious.

Thanks to featherynscale, I have now learned of potential proof that happiness leads to success, rather than just the other way around.

I think I sort of already believed that to be true -- happiness leads to self-confidence which leads to success -- and seems somehow related to the fact that I believe in good luck but not in bad luck. And I consider myself to be a generally lucky person.

It also seems to be support for the idea that being easily-amused is not a bad thing. As long as amusement leads to happiness, anyway.

You've just gotta love MIT.

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study

Abstract:

Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We theorize that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.

(seen on pandagon_net)

Update: In related news - BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC (his paper here). Any analysis should probably focus on the WTC-7 building, which wasn't hit by planes, but it's more fun to note his previous research, Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America.

This appeared a couple days ago, but I haven't seen any other mention of it since.....

Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones

WASHINGTON (AP) - The sexual area of a gay man's brain works a lot like that of a woman when exposed to a particular stimulus, researchers say.

There's even a possible biological explanation for "gaydar" in there.

The AP says that Congress may extend daylight-saving time by two months in an attempt to save energy.

The quote that has me puzzled: "The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use." - Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-sponsor of the measure


By the way, this would apparently provide a whole 0.05% energy savings. But hey, at least Congress is starting talk positively about saving energy again, for the first time in thirty years.

Update: They're questioning this over at Daily Kos too.

Do you need to build a hyperspace bypass? Or are you just feeling remarkably antisocial? Well, you might find this feasability study to be useful.

While looking futilely at Apple's trailer page for the latest Star Wars Episode III trailer (thanks to this guy for making it available since I had no desire to watch The O.C. to see it), I came across the trailer for Wallace And Gromit and the third trailer for The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. The latter is a wonderful sendup of action movie trailers.

Oh, Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride should be good....
And for nonfiction, maybe Aliens Of The Deep.

In the first episode of this season, Alias was apparently trying to reinvent itself by poorly imitating the first season.
Tonight Alias decided to try reinventing itself by taking a plot device from Kurt Vonnegut and weakening it so that it's not quite so potent, literally or literarily.

In this episode of Alias, we had bad guys developing and testing a substance called Ice-5 to use as a weapon. Oddly enough, we see Ice-5 only as a liquid. This substance "freeze-dries" a person it comes into contact with, so that the person can shatter. Apparently it takes direct contact with Ice-5 to be affected. Of course Sydney saves the day and gets the Ice-5 away from the bad guys. (But what happens to it now?)

In Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel Cat's Cradle, a scientist (who also worked on the atomic bomb) develops a substance called Ice-9, with no intent but the pursuit of science. Ice-9 is a form of water that (a) is solid at room temperature, and (b) instantly turns solid any water it comes into contact with. Let's just say irrevocable disaster results, the atomic-age point being that the world cannot afford for the scientific community to ignore the potential negative consequences of what it does.

Vonnegut's point was, of course, completely lost in Alias.

I suppose we can assume that Ice-5 is five ninths as potent as Ice-9, but the story of Ice-5 is far less potent than the story of Ice-9.

Yesterday we got to see a close friend of mine who I've rarely gotten to see since she moved to Michigan a few years ago. We first met nearly eleven years ago and there's lots of dramatic history with her, but now it's to the point that we're just comfortable with each other. It's a nice feeling. It helps that she's gotten her life to such a positive point, having rid herself of most of the negativity that had been haunting her for so long.

One of the things that we used to talk about a lot when we first met was the possibilities and implications of quantum reality and related philosophical issues. She would lend me such fascinating books as Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah and Space-Time and Beyond (which, according to Brian Greene, includes some quantum physics information no longer considered accurate, but hey, it was published in 1982).

So when nontacitare suggested going to see What the #$*! Do We Know!? Friday at the Drexel (based at least partly on braider's recommendation), I knew my old friend, also in Columbus for the weekend, would enjoy it too, so the three of us went together.

The film was pretty cool, though I occasionally found myself getting bored by the talking heads and wanting to get back to "Amanda's" (Marlee Matlin) story. The wedding reception scene was a hoot. But I'd be pretty frightened if Armin Shimerman (a.k.a. Quark and Principal Snyder) started haunting me.

I found that I was watching it with (at least) two minds simultaneously. On the one hand I already knew and/or believed in most of the things it was saying. (I have a shelf full of books on this stuff, including two written by one of the scientists appearing in the film.) On the other hand my skeptical side was feeling unconvinced, and a bit turned off by the crediting of one interviewee as "Ramtha, channeled by JZ Knight"; this may be one reason the interviewees weren't identified until the end credits. Often I was simultaneously agreeing with (most of) what they were saying and asking what credibility they have.

It's not often that my dual worldview is demonstrated to me so clearly. I believe that there's more to reality than any of us can possibly imagine, but also that saying "this is definitely the way it is" requires some rigorous proof. I believe in good luck and positive thinking but not bad luck, and that that keeps me lucky, but I don't claim to know the mechanism involved, and am skeptical of definitive explanations.

Watching the film, I also realized that it has the ability to give very different impressions to different viewers. Watching it with two women I know very well, I could easily see how it could provoke different thoughts in each of us because of our varying experiences and backgrounds.