When we programmed computers wearing bear skins and using flint knives

The Scene is Dead.

It's a little lame (except for the water reflection part) until 50 seconds in. Then heavy techno music and graphics.

Okay, it gets my little geek engine running.

This is the third place entry in the PC | Revision 2012 64K Intro. The entry specs (for next year) are here. That video was created with only a 64K runtime app. Not 64M or 64G, 64K (65536 bytes). No libraries. No calls.

64K. One, that was almost an amazing amount of memory when I started programming (and we started seeing demos like this). And two, these days that's an amazingly limited amount of memory. It does this little hacker's heart good to know the kids can still program this way ('cause, frankly, most kid programmers these days don't know shit about condensing and streamlining their code - shut up, I've read your HTML).

You might need to be a total computer nerd to understand that what they're doing there is some pretty amazing stuff with only 64K.

(Pointed to by John)

Signs and portents

The live blogging of the solar eclipse on facebook. This is really what the internet was invented to do. I love living in the future (some times). As of this posting we're about 1/3 the way to totality. The Panasonic Eclipse Live group is using solar panels to power their telescopes and broadcasting. Um, guys, I see a flaw in this plan. (yeah, they have batteries that were charged by the solar panels).

One small step

Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has left the building.

One of these days we'll go and see your footsteps and remember the first human to step out onto the surface of another world. And when that happens, kids everywhere will begin dreaming of adventure again.

Godspeed Neil. The stars won't be as bright without you.

You imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure

In case you find yourself wondering why so many people are so happy this morning that we have a 1 ton, US$2.5b robot on Mars, this is why:

Actually, that's not the best quote from that particular episode, but I can't seem to find the end of the show when President Bartlet tells CJ that she finally said it right. This is the opener where the joke starts:

Good luck, Curiosity, we'll be watching.

Dr. Sally Ride

Say, you know all that flack over getting girls interested in science? Maybe you should actually tell kids about Sally Ride. Hell, maybe you should have consulted her company who was doing the same thing. She will be remembered for being the first American Woman in space. And while I'll always remember her for that, that's a minor part of her amazing career.

Thank you, ma'am. God speed, Dr. Sally Ride.

More fun with biochemistry

Tobias brings up a good point in the comments of today's linkee-poo about drinking "throw-back" pops (which use cane sugar) versus their high fructose cousins. To explain why he's seeing the effect he is, I basically explain the other part of how your body responds differently to fructose. So I thought I'd bring my comment up to the top level.

Hey Tobias, that (feeling sated faster with sugar based pops than with corn syrup based pops) is because of how you digest the different sugars (liver process), and how your hypothalamus monitors the bloodstream and the resulting reactions. First up, you have to know that the preferred form of sugar for your body is glucose. It's what insulin is geared to help facilitate. So when your liver has a choice of either processing glucose (or glycogen, which is the polysaccharid of glucose) and fructose or galactose, it will process the glucose first (it has to process the other two, which requires more energy, so it "decides"1 to hold off on the other two to prefer the form of sugar your body can use right away). You liver will actually store fructose in glycogen before processing it through to your blood stream (leading to fatty liver).

So, when you drink that "throw-back" pop, more glucose gets into your blood faster. (Just a note here, processed sugar contains both glucose and fructose with a little galactose). Whereas when you drink the high fructose corn syrup you liver first processes the fructose to glycogen, stores it as fat, and then cuts up the glycogen to release the new formed glucose.

Now, why that makes you feel sated faster has to do with your hypothalamus which rides shotgun over (many functions including) your levels of suspended glucose in your blood. More glucose sets off a cascade of events including increased insulin release (as well as other hormones and proteins). Part of that cascade includes "telling" you (through chemical markers) that "too much glucose = you're full." Again, satiation is a whole cascade of events.

Your hypothalamus doesn't check for fructose. So even the bits that spill over the first past of the liver won't trigger your brain to say, "Whoa, I'm full." It's only after your liver 1) runs out of glucose to process that it will 2) look to your glycogen stores to make and send out glucose.

That explains the delay to feel sated. It also explains why if you drink fast enough, after you feel sated and stop ingesting pop, you will then feel as if you over ate (because your glucose levels are spiking before your insulin can crash your blood glucose levels, which is the "sugar crash")

1 If this is through competitive inhibition or other functions like blocking RNA transcription, I don't know.

That pesky CO2 debate

The other day, the Mittster decided to get dumb about carbon emissions. I did a little on how CO2 is actually very bad for you individually (since his point was it didn't affect humans, so shouldn't be considered a pollutant). But I wanted to also point to something more disturbing about our CO2 releases that isn't directly related to global climate change. See, CO2 +H2O makes H2CO3, an acid. Where do we have a lot of H2O? Why, in our oceans, of course.

And the oceans absorb a lot of the CO2 we're producing. They act like a buffer. That sound great, until you know how buffers work. There's a tipping point that is eventually reached. But even up to that point, buffers can't absorb all the free H+ floating around. So pH drops. Not as fast as it should, but still it drops.

But the ocean acts as more than a carbon sink. Phytoplankton/algae, besides being the base of the food pyramid, produce prodigious amounts of O2 (from CO2). But they don't produce enough to keep up with all the CO2 the ocean is absorbing. The numbers are still being debated but it's clear the ocean accounts for nearly 50+% (some reports say 70%) of our atmosphere's free oxygen (not to mention suspended O2 in the water).

Guess what doesn't grow so well in acidic oceans.

Sleep tight.

The limits of science.

I think I've mentioned before that there are limits to science. It was a basic limit, that is if there is no study or data regarding a subject, science (typically) says it doesn't exist or isn't so. If the scientist being interviewed is generous, they'll go with the bland, "We can't speak to that because there is no data," answer. Both sound authoritative and because it is usually spoken by a person in a white lab coat, most people nod their heads sagaciously and swallow the pablum, and label the question in the "No" column.

However, it's complete bullshit.

While it feels we are in the "end times" and all is falling into ruin, people speak authoritatively like we have figured everything out and know a lot of what there is to know. We are in fact at the very beginning of scientific inquiry. As the quote goes, "The more we learn, the more we learn just how much more we need to learn."

Here's the thing, science is a process. Science is political. And many things are considered "scientific" when, in fact, they aren't "science" at all. All of those things put boundaries on science and all are critical faults. Here I will make the caveat that science is fabulous and certainly beats (hands down) faith based assumptions. However, you would be very surprised at just how much "science" out there are really faith based assumptions (carnivores feeling "remorse", the sexual reproduction of herd animals gong to the "biggest and strongest males"). There are the "frontiers" of science (this means, "nobody has ever really studied this" or "this issue isn't settled"). There is the "contradictory data" issue on both a macro and micro scale (of which climate deniers and intelligent design proponents like to use as proof that the theories they're going against are wrong, however what they point to are controversies over minutia, not evidence that contradicts the main theories). There are things that are beyond scientific inquiry (well, mostly things that you really can't do with science, such as "disprove God" or "prove a negative").

Science is a process of percentages. With the way the politics of science (internal to discipline areas) currently work, you really can't "prove" anything with one experiment anymore. If you read the papers, even if the evidence is overwhelming, the writer (typically the last name on the paper) will use the phrase, "seems highly likely, although it warrants more research," or something similar. Even though there is plenty of "established" science that was shown to be "true" because of only one experiment that was never repeated let alone replicated. Some of these are now being disproven as new researchers try to base new experiments using the data and conclusions of the past only to find their experiments go awry (because what they're basing their experiment on, the previously published material, turns out to have been incorrect). Not many places give grants to redo someone else's research. And if you can't get a grant, or secure some other funding, nothing is going to be done. And it's an embarrassment (not often discussed) about just how much "research" out there is bogus (either cooked data, bad procedure, or experiments that just weren't conducted). Then there is the politics of getting research grants (there's really very little unsponsored research going on that doesn't have any conflicts of interest, even if we ignore the basic, "make it so we get another grant" temptations). Add in the politicization of science in the realm of actual real politic, and things get screwy very fast.

Finally we get to things that look like science, but aren't really. They can have the minimal trappings of science (like "Ghost Hunters") or they can be cloaked in heavy-duty tin foil science, like modern medicine. Yes, I can hear you howling from here. Modern medicine, as a professor once commented to me, "is the best lies we know." Why, because as a working physician he saw many "well researched" conclusions overturned. And not all of them were because of "breakthrough science."

You might remember the recent discontinuation of the NIACIN trials, or the more disastrous hormone replacement therapy trials. You may also remember that these therapies weren't new drugs or new uses for the drugs. Not to mention the various drug recalls (with drugs being removed from the market because they not only didn't perform as their earlier trials, but the side effects were quite worse than originally shown). These make more sense when you understand the underlying mechanics of drug research (hint, the tests are set up to succeed by statistical probability). YOu may have also heard that the placebo effect has been increasing lately. You could chuckle, shrug and say, "Well, that just shows the healing power of positive thought." It's a common riposte that sounds like it explains the problem. It's completely wrong, though. While the brain is a wonder (the origin of "placebo" was the use of "morphine" that had actually run out, but the field doctor knew he had to do something, and many of the patients who got the placebo felt better), what the placebo effect shows is just how ineffective some medicine is.

This is not to be taken as a criticism of vaccinations or any other prophylactic medicine practices. We have good research that those work (we also have good research that says they're not 100% safe, but the societal benefit outweighs the costs) and that they don't lead directly to autism. So, if a doctor says "You should…" you should take that seriously and follow directions.

Now, this isn't to say that modern medicine isn't good for a whole lot of things. Like broken bones for example. However, in my own case, my orthopedic doctor, citing that there were no long term studies on the internal use of metals, had all my screws and plates removed. Many doctors will cite there's no research that shows such long term exposures to metals causes any risk and so, leave them in.

But what I really want to point you to is the documentary, Under Our Skin. It's about Lyme Disease, and specifically chronic Lyme disease. It exposes the politics of medicine and research, and how those two problems combine. It talks about how something as common as Lyme disease is still not diagnosed correctly. And it also talks about how the insurance companies are really driving the process (remember all that talk during the HCR debate about how government shouldn't get in-between you and your doctor and those of use pointed out that there was already a worse actor there, your insurance company?).

As someone who has seen first hand the devastating problem of doctors either "just not keeping up to date," "failing to keep an open mind," or "not seeing what was in front of them," It's maddening. The patient knows something is wrong, and because whatever it is doesn't fit the test for the first thing the doctor thinks of, it's written off as "just in their head." I can only tell you that this isn't the only disease that is treated this way. Notice just how large the "antidepressant" market is. Not all of those people taking those drugs are really depressed. They have a disease that is not diagnosed, but still fell "malaise", and so the default position for most doctors is, "You're depressed. Here, take some of these." Do I need to roll out the list (fibromyalgia - still considered to be all in your head, chemical sensitivity - still considered bogus in many places, pollution related cancers - just turn on the news to see how this is treated). Why is this happening? Money. Plain and simple. There are even well known diseases that doctors just don't diagnose.

Also, make sure you catch that the majority of cases of doctors being brought before their medical boards for review aren't brought there because of patient complaints. The majority are brought there by insurance companies.

Notice the one doctor (involved in setting the standards for treatment for Lyme disease) and his stance on anything that disrupts his conclusions. Scientists, real scientists, don't behave that way when there is no data. Real scientists will say, "We have no data one way or the other, we should research that." He says, "There's nothing to show that there is chronic Lyme disease." Even though there are patients right in front of him. Because, you know, it's all in their heads.

Godspeed, Endeavour

The final liftoff of the replacement shuttle, the one named by Americas School Children. Good luck, NASA, crew, and all of us. Expected crowd is estimated to be near a half million. Not to mention all of us geeks watching online, on TV, and from a far.

Now You've Done It

Came home after a long day to find my scores for the NET/HOBET test had arrived. The new phone books are here, the new phone books are here!

And I'm pissed.

Very pissed.

See, I bought the test prep book and worked through the book. I even found two errors on the math section (one answer wasn't available, the other answer they though was correct was wrong). There were other issues with the reading section, but that's more subjective. Basically, I found that if I shaved about 30 points off my IQ I'd select the correct answer. Good test prep. Also, sent ERI an email explaining what they got wrong and were and that after spending $30+ for the test prep book (small book, cheaply produced), I was quite upset to find those errors.

Haven't heard back from them.

So I took the test, fairly confident that I would score above the 50% for Nursing and the 63% for Radiologic Tech. A brief side-note here, the Nursing program requires the NET test, Radiologic Tech the HOBET. They're the same damn test. Exactly the same test. Never did get a call back from the schools about it (the test is $40, I damn cheap, I want it to work for both). When I went to the test I worked with the proctor to mark the test accordingly to get the scores back for both schools.

And took the test.

There's a math, reading, writing, and basic science section that the majority of your score is based on. Plus, as a bonus, there's a Stress Level Profile section, a Learning Style Profile section, and a Test Taking Skills section. These last three, IMHO, are complete and utter bullshit. The very last one especially. We'll get back to that.

Now I have my scores. How did I do? Pretty well. On the Math Section I have a 100% (also, obviously, a 100% on all the sub-subjects). We'll also get back to that in a sec. Science Reading Comprehension, I scored a 286 words per minute, which was an 85%, but a 76th percentile at an "Independent Level." Okay, I'm not the world's fastest reader. Fair cop, already knew that. My individual scores (the actual part of the test) were Inferential Reading 86%, Main Idea of Passage 93% (this is the section I had problems with on the pretest, and where I knew I had to shave points off my intelligence to get the answer they were looking for, I guess my strategy worked), and Predicting of (sic) Outcomes at 73%. Okay, first WTF moment. But, okay, highly subjective, still good scores. Written Expression Score was 96% (I got two questions wrong here, one in "Recognizing Correct Sentence Structure", my guess it was the used of the colon or semi-colon as that is changing but they may not have gotten the memo, and the other in Spelling Demons, fair cop, I'm not the best speller, have you noticed?). Basic Science score (of which there were questions I had never been exposed to the material before) 80% (2 wrong on Biology, 1 wrong on Cellular Biology).

Then we're into the stress scores which I won't bore you with, basically I'm stressed about Money/Time first (70%), and Family next (at 50%). Everything else was 40%. I'm stressed. Have you noticed?

Next was the Learning Profiles which told me that I'm primarily a visual and solitary learner. Quel suprise. Also high score on Oral Dependent. But lowest index was at 50%.

Now was the test taking skills. Most. Bogus. Questions. Evar. Seriously. The ones that stand out in memory were along the lines of "If a T/F question is long/short/definitive/specific is it most likely a) True, b) False, c) indeterminate" and the one question I love (after two other questions like it), "On multiple choice questions, most often the correct answer is a) A, b) B, c) C, d) D." Seriously. That was the question. So, my score? I was at 37%, which is the "Instructional Level." Lower than even my Stress Scores.

To ERI, I fart in your general direction.

Why? My overall score was 93% which put me in the 99th percentile. Could I have knocked you over with a feather? Actually I think that's low, but I've always scored in that percentile (even for my Officer Candidacy Test - guess why the military really, really, really wanted me so badly). My ERI standard score was 941 (I haven't found a chart to let me know just what that means, yet, must be one of those internal metrics which really doesn't mean anything outside of the company that made the test, which, if you were paying attention, was ERI). So, I don't have good test taking skills, but I aced your damn test? Me thinks something is wrong here.

But wait, it gets better. On the back of the test sheet is the infamous "Needed Areas of Remediation" - which, you know, I only scored 6 out of 7 for the Correct Sentence Structure, but I think you want to say, "Areas of Suggested Remediation," but that's just me. (Yes, I'm being snarky, you'll understand why in a few sentences).

Guess what areas they think I need remediation on? Can you guess? Did you guess, "Essential Math Skills"? Because that's the only thing they say I need remediation on.

Essential Math Skills.

You know, the part of the test I scored 100%, which I'm thinking also puts me in the 99th Percentile (although they don't have a percentile ranking for this individually, just over all and the Science Reading Comprehension). And yes, higher is better (I thought of that) on these scores.

Essential Math Skills? I just aced your god-damned test. I passed Calc 2/Integral Calculus (okay, F first time - I was a screwup back then - but then an A for the summer retake, got an A in Calc 1 and scored an extra 3 bypass credits for Precalc - because I got an A in Calc 1) and was in Calc 3/Vector Calculus when I switched majors. I do math in my head to calm down (don't believe me, Dan and I went over some statistics today), and your testing program thinks I need a little remedial help with that?

Dear ERI, I'm saluting you, but with only 20% of my manus digits, or, if you like, the median one. I'll let your math wizards, the ones who got two questions wrong in the prep book, tell you what that means. Oh, and the horse you rode in on, too.

I don't want a pickle

Some of you know I love motorcycles. And for those of you who don't, well, I love motorcycles. I'm not in to all the extraneous crap (he who dies with the most chrome wins, the "bike bitch" culture, or the "I'm playing with death, here" philosophy), but put me on a bike and you'll see me smile. Unfortunately I don't own one currently (sold mine last year). And I really want one again. This is what my first major writing goal is, to make enough to afford a motorcycle.

And as I'm sure you all know, I'm a green proponent (again, not a fanatic, there are a few things I do that aren't the most helpful, but hopefully the rest balance me out - note to self, re-email neighbor on zoning board to find out what they're doing with regulation of windmills). I also like the resurgence of electric vehicles and always wondered why nobody made an electric motorcycle. After all, everything motorcyclists like can be better provided by an electric engine (other than engine noise, which I never understood the attraction, loud pipes just annoy the neighbors, they don't make you safer, in fact they reduce your safety by drowning out environmental sounds, like that honking horn). More instant torque, more durability, quicker time to full speed, ease of maintenance, all better with electric propulsion.

But hey, after catching a brief glimpse on the TV news last night, I did a new search and they're finally making them!

The Brammo Enertia (which after a quick look sounds the best)

The Zero Motorcycles S

Electric Motor Sports Electric GPR.

A DIY version (which I thought about before I sold my bike)

Another DYIer (cost about $1500 - cool).

Yamaha built an electric racer a few years ago for their team and the motorcycle was banned from the circuit. Why? Because it provided too great of an advantage over the gas powered bikes.

The thing, though, is that these bikes seem very cool, and if I lived closer to work I would think more of them. But their range and speed are somewhat limited. Okay manufacturers, here's what I'd really like.

The bike needs to go up to speeds of 75mph for highway driving (being on a motorcycle, you do not want to be the one holding up traffic, or stuck in the middle of the pack, that's the danger zone). It needs to travel at least 90 miles (we'll get to that in a second). And it should cost less than $8000. Again, at this point, in the specs the Brammo gets closest. It still would mean I would have to arrange charging here at work.

But here's the thing. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. Look at the Volt technology. For a motorcycle a small gas engine for recharging would be a really small gas engine (like a lawn mower or smaller). It would add to weight and maintenance, but it would give you a virtually unlimited range. Some motorcyclists love to ride and range is everything to them. It would also mean a larger (heavier) frame and or batteries with more energy density, but I think those are solvable problems. For such a hybrid I could see the cost rising to $9-10000. It would be worth it.

Given that Honda already owns this technology (except the more energy dense batteries, but they're working on them), I'm surprised they haven't leveraged this into their motorcycle line yet.

Until then I'll still be looking at the Honda Shadow Series or the Yamaha V-Star Classic (or Custom) for my needs. Man, need to finish book to get agent, to get publisher, to get contract, to get published, to get millions, to get motorcycle.

Ares is away!

Good job NASA. We have a new launch vehicle!

Now if I get to see video of it, that would be fantastic.

Math is not Magic

So, there are these guessing game websites where the computer guesses what number you have in your head. And, surprise, they always get it right.

It's because they cheat.

No, the internets don't have a direct line into your brain. Nor are they looking over your shoulder (that's the government's job, ha ha ha, just kidding, pay no attention to man behind the curtain).

Okay, here's one example: Re-gifting Robin.

Robin asks you to think of any two digit number (that's a fancy way of saying, "Pick any number between 10-99"). Then, from the number you're thinking of subtract the first digit (the tens) and then the second digit (the ones). Then they show you a grid of potential presents to regift (this is the trick, you've substituted answers here, this is important). Then once you get the gift in your head you click to have Robin "guess" your gift. And, low and behold, she gets it right. Every time.

Because she cheated. First is the basic mathmatics. Here is how the equation works: for values of X and Y from 1 to 9.
((10Y + X) - Y) - X = Z
(10Y + X) is your guessed two digit number, Z is your product from the subtraction.

Their example is guess = 25 so then you do the equation 25-2-5=18.

Then you find your gift on chart. This is where they stack the deck. Pay attention.

Notice a few things. One; the numbers go from 1-99, and the columns are 11 deep. This does two things. It confuses you (you're expecting columns of 10's) and gives you the impression there are more options than there really are.

See, no matter what two digit number you select, you can only obtain one of nine numbers: 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, or 81. Why? Okay, let's look at the equation again.
((10Y + X) - Y) - X = Z

This can also be written:
(10Y - Y) + (X - X) = Z or Z = 9Y

That's the mathematics part: a selection between 10 and 99 will only result in 9 possible answers. Let's look at that chart again.


Guess what Robin's guess is going to be.

Now. They mix up the guesses every time, but all those numbers will be the same guess every time. They mix up the chart with all the other blocks being random to break up your pattern recognition skills. They use the 11 deep chart to break up the fix. (Why they did 90 I'll never know, my guess is they messed up the pattern because they knew the fix - you can't get an answer of 90 with this test)

Hope that helps you out. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've won this European email lottery and they want to know my bank routing numbers and I've got to get it to them soon so I can get my money.

July 20, 1969. One Giant Leap.

Forty-years ago today, mankind landed a craft and stepped out onto a world that wasn't Earth*. While the space program to the politicians was another raising of the bar in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, to the rest of humanity it was a watershed moment. It was the frontier, and we had bridged it. Men had travelled beyond the Earth. We had not fully escaped the gravity well of our home planet (after all the Moon, while escaping, is still bound by the Earth's gravity), but it was enough to show we could. We have walked on another planet. We had crossed the technological Rubicon.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth.
High Flight - John Gillespie Magee, Jr

And now, because the Chinese have declared their intention to go to the Moon, we have a new program on the books. Robotics are fine, but when you look at the moon, you can point and say, "We were there." When you see the ISS streaking across the twilight sky, I know my heart beats faster knowing, "We are there." With robots there just isn't the same connectedness.

So, we're going back. Once again mankind will walk on the Moon.

Gods speed, Altair.

* Well, the current theory that the Moon, Luna, was part of the Earth and was ejected from the planet by a massive collision while the Earth was still forming.

How we see type

Some of you have heard me rambling on about how we actually read and see type (and if you haven't consider yourself lucky).

Here's a little primer which explains a lot of it and includes some good tips and rules of thumb. The page I linked to from this (on the same site) has some interesting manuscript layout tips which aren't "universal" so I'll stay away from that.

But, look there. See, I'm not so crazy as you thought. Also, this is definitely based on US preferences. It changes a little from country to country (like our preference to see type with serifs in the US, but in Europe they prefer sans-serifs).

A shout out to Astrid who sent me the original link.

Chicken Dance

Coolio Daddy Dan sends a link to some interesting technology. Now, I'm not one to buy into the "technology will save us" philosophy, but this is very cool. One of the problems with converting to a hydrogen economy is the storage of the fuel (hydrogen). People are working like mad on battery tech (hello Bolivia!) and trying to get fuel cells to be practical (they are, but they cost too much and are prone to breakdowns). And now most of the promising technology to store hydrogen safely and efficiently in a portable fashion (unless you want all our hydrogen cars to have to carry those "Flammable/Explosive" icons on them) has been hideously expensive (like the price of a BMW, one of the nice ones). Well, necessity is the mother of something and some enterprising people at the University of Delaware have come up with a very cost effective method. Chicken feathers. Baked chicken feathers.

Those scientists. They're always thinking. Even when making a late night KFC run.

Large fuels cells just became more practical.

Hail Atlantis!

Way up next to the Hubble, where I wanna be, she may be.

In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, go read. And before the gnashing of teeth happens five years from now, we installed the last of the parts we had for the Hubble. Even if we have a launch vehicle to go repair her, this is our last trip to Hubble. She's on borrowed time from here out. And, yes, there is a replacement planned. The Web may not make as spectacular images as the Hubble, but it will be a more scientific instrument.

So while we have both, hail Atlantis. Hail Hubble. Safe journey.

And since it's somewhat related, a video of galactic-core rise (groked from Jay Lake's link salad).

You didn't have a bet on if black-holes were real or not, did you?

I'm sure as you all know, Professor Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian (Newton) Chair of Physics at Cambridge and author of A Brief History of Time, is not doing very well these days.

Professor Hawking is one of those unique people in the world. Not only is he the longest surviving person with Lou Gehrig's Disease, he is also able to make complex physics understandable by us mere humans. And showing his sense of humor that most people thought wasn't possible from someone in his stature he did a few stints on Star Trek the Next Generation (most notably playing poker with Data and Sir Isaac Newton). He also recently was able to experience 0g in a flight on the Vomit Comet. He is soon to retire the Chair (tradition states at 67, the Chair will retire). For someone with advanced neuron motor disease (ALS), that's quite an accomplishment.

Before I had geek-love for Neil deGrasse Tyson (who also has a great sense of humor and populism), Stephen Hawking fit that bill.

Well wishes, professor.

Goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here

(greped from Jay Lake's link salad)

Okay, here's a Science Fictional concept, the spaceship is the engine. I'll let you read the whole thing (if you're interested in such things) and except to say, now that is a concept. Of course, at least for me, we're still talking generational arks here (proposed speed would be on the order of 0.1C, so even a short trip to a nearby star would take centuries) as I don't believe in some of the outside "human life expansion" theories (which, IMHO, are based on the mistaken cultural belief than humans are not animals).

Now, there are other ideas for starship propulsion that have greater capacity for speed, although their energy requirements are astronomically high (as they involve the manipulation of space density). This idea, on the other hand, use technology that is within actual near time reach (like within 50 years, except for the human life extension stuff, which, like I said, I don't think will really ever happen).

Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl

Friend and fellow stock-watcher Dan sends this link showing the first (possible) image of an exoplanet orbiting a functional star. Yeah, it's only a few pixels (not like there's a sign saying "Killroy Was Here!" to make out), but still very cool. Of course they're saying that the planet is way to far out for our current models of planet formation. So they'll need to see if it is orbiting the star before giving David Lafrenière, Ray Jayawardhana and Marten H. van Kerkwijk of the University of Toronto a whole bunch of awards. But still, even if it's, say, a brown dwarf in binary orbit (what would the difference between a brown dwarf and this, only mass), or a free floating planet (oo, so SF) it's still pretty neat.