Disqus - Latest Comments for Carl M

Re: The Pen Of Doom

Carl M — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:25:50 -0000

Nice idea. I've never used a Monteblanc pen, but I think I can afford $20 for a really nice pen. I like the humor in the instructions too.

Re: Nanotech Musings

Carl M — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:57:49 -0000

In a way, _some_ designer drugs are nanotechnology. They do more or less what you describe in your HIV example. They go through the body and destroy only the "bad" cells. There are a couple of techniques used for this .. one is targeting a particular shape (much as in your example). They bounce around in the blood and only FIT on the bad cells. When attached, the bad cells are rendered ineffective. There will be enormous advances in this technique when we can design drugs with particular SHAPES. I'm guessing that we'll see (or hear about) big advances fairly quickly (within the next 10 years).

As for your vaccinations, there is a slight problem. When babies are vaccinated now, they are given a dose of the "bad cells" usually dead ones. This triggers an immune response and our bodies learn to recognize the invaders and learn to create (on demand -- sort of) an agent that will kill those particular cells. The original invaders injected into the body are gone fairly quickly. Things don't generally stick around in the body for long periods. The beauty of our immune system is that the necessary defense is manufactured locally (inside us) and continuously. It's a pretty cool system. I've no doubts that nanotechnology will make HUGE advances and that some of the most amazing and beneficial of those advances will be in medicine, but I'm not sure that a nano-immune system of the sort you envision will be one of the early advances.

But then again, who can tell? I'm certainly not one to make silly claims like nobody will ever need more than 640 K of memory.

Re: Nanotech Musings

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:03:41 -0000

Well, the issue I have with the nanorobotic defense system is that the nanobots must stay in the bloodstream to continue to be effective. The problem is that stuff doesn't generally stay in the bloodstream long. So, the bots would have to escape the varous ways that things are removed from the blood. Perhaps this is not as big an issue as I imagine, I'm not a biologist, but it seems to me to be a pretty serious issue. Of course eventually these bots will be self-replicating (that is, they will be able to take building blocks from their environment and use them to create copies of themselves). This would have the potential to overcome the body's cleansing mechanisms.

Who knows. It's certainly going to be fun watching the advances over the next decades.

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:10:26 -0000

But, Daniel, I will guess (and it's not really a guess) that when you took classes you were not satisfied to know how to crank through the methods to get to the answer. You wanted to know WHY things worked as they did. True understanding of WHY things work (even on a basic level) is very important in effictively adding the techniques to your mental toolbox. It doesn't do someone any good to be able to multiply numbers correctly (or compute integrals or solve differential equations or ...) if they don't know WHEN multiplication is the appropriate operation to use or WHICH numbers to multiply.

It is true that there is MUCH value in repetitive tasks. But it is not enough. Rote memorization is useless without some understanding.

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:33:21 -0000

I knew you weren't making that claim, and I agree that the teaching of underlying concepts is a separate issue. I happen to think that education is incomplete without both. In any case, as long as I've known you, you've wanted to know WHY and not just HOW. That's admirable.

I agree completely that education should include an expectation of consistent, high-quality output, even if some of the work required is monotonous. But, the fact that this reflects the real world is not the main reason I think this (though that is a good point). Those who become exceptionally skilled at a particular physical task (tennis, golf, table tennis, whatever...) do so in part by repetition. They repeat the CORRECT movement so often that the body develops what is called muscle memory (though this term is not technically correct). The idea is that the body (as a unit) learns to do things right automatically -- WITHOUT thinking. The same is true of certain mental tasks. We all know that 5x7 is 35. And, most of us have simply memorized this fact. We do not have to work it out every time. If we worked it out every time, we'd make mistakes every once in a while. If we have correctly memorized it, we will get it right every time.

I realize that most who will read this do not know me, so I feel the need to emphasize the fact that I am a mathematics professor who ABHORS memorization of mathematical facts and techniques. It is USUALLY far more efficient to learn and understand the underlying concepts rather than try to memorize the enormous number of tools, techniques, and facts. However, there is a basic CORE set of tools and facts that should be both understood AND memorized. For example, we all understand that 5x7 means 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 or 7 7 7 7 7 and we could work out that the total is 35 either way. Nonetheless, we have the fact that 3x7 = 35 memorized. Why do I (the guy who generally ABHORS memorization) think that it is in fact VERY important that we all memorize the basic multiplication table?

Well, I think that one of the most important basic mathematical skills is mental estimation. If we took frisbees and packed them as closely together as possible without overlapping them, how many could we fit on a football field? OK, this is probably not something that any of you will EVER have to estimate, but we all estimate things every day. Being able to make these sorts of mental estimations requires that we have some basic facts within reach. If they are memorized, it is much more likely that we can do the estimation in our head with relatively few errors.

Of course the answer to the question I asked depends on some things that were unspecified. How large is each frisbee? How large is the football field? (Most of us probably know the length of a football field ... what about the width? Are we to include the endzones?) Just for fun, assume that we are using a disc with a diameter of 1 foot. Get a "ballpark" estimate for the number required to cover a football field (including endzones). Got it?

OK, now, estimate the number of people who could stand on a football field (including endzones). Let's assume we're packing people in there pretty tight. Think world record .. not comfort. Did you change anything in your estimate? The number of people is probably a bit less than the number of frisbees, but it's the same order of magnitude. Are you surprised at the number of people who can stand on a football field? Are you impressed that you could get the rough estimate in your head? Thank your grade school teacher who required you to memorize the multiplication tables.

Re: White House Flu FUD

Carl M — Thu, 04 May 2006 08:18:51 -0000

Well, let's be fair. The guy who wrote the quoted text is not the one spreading doom and gloom. He (or more likely a team of scientists) was asked for a prediction of whether this current potential flu threat will lead to a pandemic. He answered in the only way possible. "Who knows. But, if history is any guide, then you can be fairly sure that there will be a pandemic SOMETIME in the future."

And probably what he didn't say (but was probably thinking) is: "For YEARS we've been telling you knotheads in government that a flu pandemic has the potential to kill millions of Americans and millions more around the world. We've begged you for the resources to develop the necessary tools and infrastructure to minimize the impact of that pandemic if and when it strikes. To be honest, we're delighted that there is this scare now because, frankly, it might enable you to get your heads out of the sand long enough to appropriate some funds."

So, I don't blame the report writer for the doom and gloom. The direct cause of the doom and gloom is the media, but really it is government that is to blame. The fact is that our government is largely in crisis management mode. That is, we seem to react to things only when a crisis is (or seems to be) imminent. We simply don't seem to have the ability to look at the long term. We've known for years that our dependence on oil was a problem. When does Bush push for alternative energies? Only when a crisis (of sorts) is here. Scientists have been pushing for development of alternative energies for at least 30 years. Of course they were not cost effective, but perhaps if we'd invested in their development they might have been sooner than now. And, in any case, they'd perhaps be ready now. Scientists have been talking about global warming for years (there was SOME disagreement, but not the widespread disagreement that some in government would have you believe .. the disagreement among scientists was almost entirely about the details rather than about the fact that humans influence global climate). Now that the evidence is becoming impossible to deny, we may start to see the government start to take action. (It may take a different bunch in Washington.) So, is it any surprise that the government reacts only to a (potential) crisis to do something about the possibility of a flu pandemic? Perhaps the media needs to fan the flames a little to get the public worried enough that polls indicate that they care about this. Only then will the government spend the necessary money.

Hmm .. maybe it's not even the government to blame. The public (largely ignorant of risk analysis) might have rebelled if the government tried to spend money on a flu threat that the public didn't perceive as being real. The government, sensing this, didn't press the issue. But now that the public has been stirred into a little bit of worry, the politicians can do their jobs and protect the public. Hmm .. maybe we have a convoluted system .. but perhaps it works.

Re: The Painfully Slow iTunes Music Store

Carl M — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:10:20 -0000

As an Apple shareholder, I'm hoping that peak hours run 24-7. :)

Re: The Pen Of Doom

Carl M — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:25:50 -0000

Nice idea. I've never used a Monteblanc pen, but I think I can afford $20 for a really nice pen. I like the humor in the instructions too.

Re: Nanotech Musings

Carl M — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:57:49 -0000

Re: Nanotech Musings

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:03:41 -0000

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:10:26 -0000

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Carl M — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:33:21 -0000

Re: White House Flu FUD

Carl M — Thu, 04 May 2006 08:18:51 -0000

Re: The Painfully Slow iTunes Music Store

Carl M — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:10:20 -0000

As an Apple shareholder, I'm hoping that peak hours run 24-7. :)

Disqus - Latest Comments for Carl M

Re: The Pen Of Doom

Re: Nanotech Musings

Re: Nanotech Musings

Re: Why School Lessons *Should* Be Boring

Re: Why School Lessons *Should* Be Boring

Re: White House Flu FUD

Re: The Painfully Slow iTunes Music Store

Re: The Pen Of Doom

Re: Nanotech Musings

Re: Nanotech Musings

Re: Why School Lessons *Should* Be Boring

Re: Why School Lessons *Should* Be Boring

Re: White House Flu FUD

Re: The Painfully Slow iTunes Music Store

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring

Re: Why School Lessons Should Be Boring