Science is Cool!

The seething star forming this nebula is 45 times more massive than our sun. Gas on the star gets so hot that it escapes away into space as a "stellar wind" moving at over 4 million miles per hour. This outflow sweeps up the cold, interstellar gas in front of it, forming the outer edge of the bubble much like a snowplow piles up snow in front of it as it moves forward.

Read more and see the amazing video here.

The seething star forming this nebula is 45 times more massive than our sun. Gas on the star gets so hot that it escapes away into space as a "stellar wind" moving at over 4 million miles per hour. This outflow sweeps up the cold, interstellar gas in front of it, forming the outer edge of the bubble much like a snowplow piles up snow in front of it as it moves forward.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-hubble-star-inflating-giant.html#jCp

The seething star forming this nebula is 45 times more massive than our sun. Gas on the star gets so hot that it escapes away into space as a "stellar wind" moving at over 4 million miles per hour. This outflow sweeps up the cold, interstellar gas in front of it, forming the outer edge of the bubble much like a snowplow piles up snow in front of it as it moves forward.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-hubble-star-inflating-giant.html#jCp

The seething star forming this nebula is 45 times more massive than our sun. Gas on the star gets so hot that it escapes away into space as a "stellar wind" moving at over 4 million miles per hour. This outflow sweeps up the cold, interstellar gas in front of it, forming the outer edge of the bubble much like a snowplow piles up snow in front of it as it moves forward.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-hubble-star-inflating-giant.html#jCp

Nature is Cool!

Kudos to this particularly well lived albatross!

Heheh

My favorite game of gender swap in scientists' bios form: click here.

h/t Beth

History is cool!

I think I need to visit Denmark and Turkey.

Hello, Pluto!

The Great Sleep

Scientists having fun. :)

Science is Cool!

I expect better!

I recently read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat (pub. 1984) and was pretty astonished at the language used by a scientist and non-fiction writer regarding individuals with severe mental impairments. (Lucky for me, a friend read it at just about the same time so we were able to vent in a flurry of email exchanges.) Initially, I was only annoyed at the lack of scientific detail. I chalked that up to it being pubbed in the 80s, the scientific literacy of laypersons has increased enormously since then so I can't exactly blame an author/publisher for being aware of the contemporary landscape. But that offensive (and inaccurate!) language was just inexcusable. So, ok, pass on that author and moving on...

And, bam! It happens again!

I just finished Isabella (pub. 2005) and the author was at pains to explain some of the differences between current and 14th Century English (and Welsh, Scottish, French:) cultural norms. She, like many historians, believes that Edward II was gay or bisexual. There's some explanation about how that wasn't an accepted lifestyle at the time (if only it was 100% accepted now! dare to dream!) and its relevance to the events of the book. She later says that he was capable of (or not revolted by?? can't find exact sentence) "normal sex" since he had not only 4 children with his wife but at least 1 extramarital child. Um, "normal" sex? Looks like maybe you just gave yourself away on that one.

In another instance she describes Isabella as "highly sexed." Hunhhh????? Isabella is thought to have been a woman interested in sex (omg, alert the presses) and so she's "highly" sexed? WTF???? By the author's interpretation, Edward II had two long-term extramarital lovers, a wife with whom he had children (and so, presumably, sex), and numerous (brief) liaisons with lovers before he was married and some after. Where is his description as "highly sexed?" Looks like maybe you just gave yourself away on that one.

And there's this: "Reginald, a widower, was dark of colouring and character." Some of the main players had their physical descriptions relayed but not over many and certainly not such a minor dude as this one (he was featured in ~4 paragraphs) but, dang, it's fun to lump "dark" coloring in with character because it just sounds great and, hell, there isn't a significant portion of the population that still suffers from stereotypes of "dark" being bad! Looks like maybe you just gave yourself away on that one.


So, yeah, it appears that 21st Century historians are as likely as 14th Century historians to say that gay/bisexual individuals have "abnormal" sex, women who like sex are unusual*** and to be described differently than other women (and men, natch, who are clearly always up for it), and "dark" characters are bad and match the "dark" color nicely. Ugh! Ugh, ugh, ugh!!!! There goes another author.

The shame about all this is (I mean, other than the obvious), these academics/scientists write on some really interesting topics. I want to know these things. I want to learn these things. However, I am past the point of being willing to sift through offensive garbage to get to the good stuff. It's unacceptable anytime but certainly in works of academic rigor.


Come on, people, I expect better!

***ETA: or more likely in the 21st Century??? Just read a very edifying passage in The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England (thanks for that, Beth!) and it seems the flack that Isabella was catching for her behavior was more because she was a queen rather than because she was a woman. (Though they weren't exactly shy with the "woman is the root of all evil" stuff, be she a queen or no.)

Science is Cool!

Sadly, I did not see one of these when I was in Australia last week. I did see one of these.

Science is Cool

When You Mix Scientists and Bookworms

I recently loaned a book to a colleague. Previous to passing the title along, I had been raving about the book having a really cool, unexpected element (not exactly a twist but still very cool). My enjoyment of the book declined precipitously and so then I felt my previous recommendation wasn't quite right. To make all this clear, I drew a little graph on a post-it note and stuck it to the book. I figured we'd get a good laugh out of my silly graph and then it would be recycled. But, to my delight, she returned the book to me today, post-it note intact but with one small addition.

Figure 1. Enjoyment of book vs. page number.
sgwordy in black, colleague in red.

Scientists are the best!

More Quotable

It is important for scientists to be aware of what our discoveries mean, socially and politically. It's a noble goal that science should be apolitical, acultural, and asocial, but it can't be, because it's done by people who are all those things.

-- Dr. Mae Jemison

Truth in Headlines...

Would be a refreshing thing.

Check out this funny link for what that might look like.


hat tip: Dr M

Litmetrics

Sabermetrics: not just for baseball anymore...

Compiling a few totals for that Reading Report inspired me to finally update my BooksRead file. And I should say a quick thank you to goodreads because if their year end list could have been viewed by anyone I might have abandoned the file for good. But I'm so glad I didn't because you never know what you'll get when you mix this scientist with a spreadsheet/database. Perhaps a four year reading comparison expressed graphically??? How did you guess?

Random notes:

• I wish I had not included mystery/thriller within 'fiction.'
• I seem to jump all over my genre designations from year to year.
• I very rarely read memoirs, poetry, short stories, or travel books.
• If I had managed to finish the Janet Frame book of short stories I started last year I would have had 10 different genres in my reading list for every year (2013 had only 9).
• I define 'historical fantasy' as fantasy stories set in recognizable locales and time points in history.
• It's pretty clear that I think most books I read are average (or 3 stars).

Whilst updating, compiling, and bar graphing I decided to create a reading metric.

And that metric is Good over Bad or GoB. It reflects the ratio of above average to below average books I read in a year. So, the higher the GoB the fewer bad books I had to slog through to get to the really good ones.

Now, the interesting thing about this (yes, I did just type that with a straight face) is that if you had asked me before I started working on this to name the worst reading year I've had in the last four I would have emphatically answered 2013. Much to my surprise, GoB clearly shows that 2011 was my worst reading year in the last four. As I'm sure you can see from the data, GoB's weakness is that it doesn't take into account that a reader might feel it's worth it to slog through a lot of crap to experience more good books. 2012 shows just that situation. GoB-wise, it looks like the second weakest year, but it was the year I had the highest percentage of above average books as compared to total books read.



What's the lesson in all this?
(Besides don't leave sgwordy alone too long with a spreadsheet.)
If your year gets back loaded with crap books (as mine did in 2013) you just might think it's been a bad year for reading but, on the whole, you might have had more reading fun than you thought.

Reading Report

I think I'm in the midst of the longest reading slump of recent memory (my recent memory, not general world living memory or anything). Here are some stats:

24 - Books started in the last three months
 8  - Of those 24 books not worth finishing
 3  - Of those 24 I would describe as good but pretty forgettable*
 2 - Of those 24 I would describe as very good but deeply flawed
 3 - Of those 24 I enjoyed enough to actually recommend but one with reservations (see previous deeply flawed bit)
 2 - Of those 24 I quite enjoyed but they were re-reads

*we've all been there. you're reading/watching something, totally content, but 2 days later (hell, sometimes even 2 hours) you can't manage to dredge up the title.


So I'm sitting here after 3 months with 3 out of 22 books that were new reads for which I will actually remember the titles and am likely to recommend to other readers. Shown another way, that's 13.6% books read and enjoyed. Maybe I should call this a reading fail rather than a reading slump. I just want out already! Any suggestions?

Science is seriously cool!

New feature for the fire swamp?

Death Sticks

*snicker*

Very fun comic. Educational, too!

hat tip: Dr M

High Speed Cams are Sweet

Let's Be Careful, USA

It's bad enough that we in the US have decided we don't value education and science enough to pay for it but now, in addition to decreasing scientific research budgets, our policy makers want to decide what is good science rather than letting scientists decide what is good science? That is fucking scary!

"In the history of this committee, no chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by NSF," Johnson wrote in a letter obtained by ScienceInsider. "I have never seen a chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the chairman does not believe them to be of high value."

In her letter, Johnson warns Smith that "the moment you compromise both the merit review process and the basic research mission of NSF is the moment you undo everything that has enabled NSF to contribute so profoundly to our national health, prosperity, and welfare." She asks him to "withdraw" his letter and offers to work with him "to identify a less destructive, but more effective, effort" to make sure NSF is meeting that mission.

That excerpt makes me want to shake Johnson's hand. 

The essence of scientific research and progress is peer review. It's the basis for the entire process. From the first science report you submit in grade school to the top tier grants you apply for as a full professor, it's all about peer review. Research doesn't happen in a vacuum (even privately funded, patent protected research findings go through regulation testing/departments before they can be used in an open market) and it shouldn't happen in a vacuum.* Rigorous peer review improves the quality and the impact of research that is funded and performed.

And it's called PEER review for a reason. I wouldn't send a scientific paper to a lawyer for feedback just as I wouldn't expect to be asked to edit a law brief. If we take trained scientists out of the equation of reviewing science and place it into the hands of politicians we would be taking expertise out of the equation and that's complete nonsense.

Let's be careful!

* obviously research studying the effects of vacuum environments (like this for example) should happen in a vacuum. :-)