Why the metric system isn't metric

Alright, so scientists like the metric system because it is consistent with itself, rather than being arbitrary like the "standard" system. In other words, 1 kilometer = 1,000 meters = 100,000 centimeters = 10,000,000 millimeters as opposed to 1 mile = 5,280 feet = 63,360 inches. Round numbers are nice, and easier to remember and convert between.

So it struck me as funny when I read this article today. Basically, there's a single block of metal in Paris that officially represents 1 kilogram, and scientists are concerned because it doesn't weigh what it used to, by a few billionths of a gram.

See the thing about measurement is that it's always relative. It just so happens that the entire system of metric weight is relative to this single chunk of metal in Paris. I mean, they had to pick something. But if their baseline is changing, what's a scientist to do?

Well, you reverse-engineer it of course. As the article points out, it's been done before, with the meter. The baseline for 1 meter used to be a stick next to the one kilogram chunk, but they decided to make it "less arbitrary" by defining a meter as the distance light travels in... wait for it... 1/299,792,458th of a second. Phew, thanks guys, glad you cleared that up.

I decided to hit Wikipedia to figure out where they came up with this number. It turns out that they based it on the fact that light travels 299,792,458 meters per second. You see what they did there? They used the speed of light, measured in meters, to define the length of a meter. Wow, impressive. In reality all they did was take two "non-relative" units of measurement - the speed of light, and one second - and figure out how much of each it would take to come up with the length we were already using. So if you know the speed of light, and you can remember the number 299,792,458, you can figure out how far a meter is.

That's all well and good, except a second is no less relative. 1 second is 1/60th of a minute, which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day, which is 1/365th of the time it takes Earth to orbit the sun. Fortunately, science reverse-engineered the second as well, and decided that it can be expressed as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom". And no, I have no idea what that means. However, it's just another example of taking "non-relative" units of measurement to define an existing "standard".

Does this seem a little ridiculous to anyone else? I mean, science has other systems of measurement based on "natural units", or dimensions based on nature. It seems like those would be the best systems to use for scientific endeavors while leaving inches and seconds and pounds to the rest of us. There has to be a way to convert from one to the other, I suppose, but still... at some point it just seems silly.

I hope there's intelligent life on other planets. I hope we someday meet that life. I want to watch our scientists explain to them that to get to the U.N. building, they just need to head towards the positive planetary magnetic pole for the distance that light travels in 1/299,792th of the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom, then take a left.

The Morality of Morality

A friend posted a link on Facebook to this article. It details the divorce proceedings of a man who has been an active and outspoken advocate for a ban on gay marriages, and makes a point of saying that he was opposed to gay marriage because of his Catholic background, which makes the divorce he is now going through ironic because the Catholic church also opposes divorce.

Okay, so I totally agree that it's a shame to see such "inconsistent morality", especially in someone who has taken political actions based on moral (or religious) inclinations. However, I also think that to make a public spectacle of someone simply because they've failed to live up to their own moral code is just as much of a shame.

Nobody can be 100% moral 100% of the time, no matter what their particular moral code happens to be. Of course, when you make public statements about specific moral perspectives, especially as they concern heated social debates, you're just asking to be strung up the second you do something contrary to those statements.

So that begs the question: is morality all-or-nothing? If I am incapable of being 100% moral 100% of the time, should I abandon morality altogether? After all, without morals I cannot be scrutinized for immoral behavior; the measuring stick would not exist. People may say that there are some "universal morals" to which everyone must hold themselves accountable, but every religion (or lack thereof) has its own set of "universal morals" which hardly makes any of them "universal". If there are no universal morals, therefore, and the only morals I am responsible for maintaining are my own, why not just make it easy on myself and live the rest of my life without scruples?

What's funny about this to me is how blind people can be to their own moral violations while lambasting other people for theirs. People who would otherwise state that lying is wrong wouldn't bat an eye at telling a "white lie" to spare the feelings of a loved one. Someone that complains to you about a stupid driver that tried to beat a red light is quite likely the same person that passed you going 15 miles over the speed limit the day before. We "pick and choose" our moral incentives all the time, every day, and we don't even think twice about it, but that doesn't seem to stop us from blowing other people's transgressions out of proportion.

Jesus puts it this way, in Matthew 7:1-5 (from The Message translation; other translations can be found here):

Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.

Now I can't make a post like this without finishing by saying: I'm not perfect either. I freely admit that I fail at following my own moral code from time-to-time. My religious beliefs are sometimes at odds with my social beliefs, and the issue of gay marriage is one of those areas that I can't always agree with myself on. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. Probably. At least I can admit it. Can you?

My Anti-Bias Bias

I am really, really tired of a society filled with bias.

More to the point, I'm tired of rhetoric, the propegator of bias. Rhetoric is the tool the leaders of any given cause or agenda give to lesser members of their flock so that they can enlist new members, who are also equipped with the rhetoric. You can easily identify rhetoric when you are engaged in a debate or discussion with someone and realize that you just heard someone on TV say the same thing with the same words less than 24 hours ago.

What bothers me about bias and rhetoric is that it's indicative of a society that doesn't think for itself. This is especially dangerous in a democratic society - the public determine its leaders, but the leaders are all too happy to keep them supplied with a steady stream of rhetoric to keep them in line. Basically, once someone has aligned themselves with a particular group of people, whether it's a political party, religion, or conspiracy theory, they allow the other members of that group to shape their opinions and beliefs in such a way that it becomes very hard for them to be open-minded.

Here are a couple specific forms of bias that really drive me crazy:

• Religious Bias. I'm a Christian, and this is one that I find I have to keep in check pretty carefully. The problem with religious bias is that it's essentially intertwined with the belief system. When your pastor or priest or imam says, "this is what our religion believes about that," it's really hard to try to see it objectively. You've been supplied with the answer, and if you start from the beginning and work your way up (i.e. scientific method), you feel guilty (and are possibly shunned) if you come up with a different answer. Religious bias is also dangerous because it can often lead to the violation of basic tenents of the religion all while trying to advance its agenda (suicide bombings, burning down an abortion clinic, hate speech, etc.).
• Political Bias. Republicans and Democrats have got to be the most sheep-filled institutions on the planet. People wait to be told what their political party believes, and then they all jump on board. Drives me nuts. One of these days, I'm going to perform an experiment. I'm going to walk up to a Republican or Democrat and tell them some story about a politician on the "other" side - some story that is completely fabricated. I'm going to make it juicy, so that they waste no time in jumping in to decry that person's foolishness, and when they're done, I'll say, "Oh you know what? I remembered the name wrong. It was actually [someone from their party]." I'd love to see how fast they backpedal.

Google Wave

Holy cow, what cave was I in?

Somehow, nearly a month and a half ago, Google announced a new product in development called Google Wave, and I didn't catch wind of it until today, despite it popping up on several of my RSS feeds.

So what is Google Wave? Basically, it wraps up all of the contemporary text-based forms of communication in to one tool. That hardly sounds impressive, I know, but it is. A Wave document is essentially an email message, IM message, and collaborative document all rolled in to one. There's no way I can do it justice in a short blog post, especially since I haven't gotten my hands on it yet, but you should really check out the link above and watch the video (or just check out the highlights).

I'm impressed, and personally, I can't wait.

How did I not see this earlier?

Ireless Wireless

As my first "real" post, I'd like to share some advice to anyone on Windows XP who might be having wierd problems with their wireless internet connection: disable the Wireless Zero Configuration service.

Anyone who's ever bought a new wireless adapter has undoubtedly noticed that they come with drivers, and when you install those drivers, they also install some sort of application that helps you manage the wireless connections. These programs always bothered me because Windows XP has a built-in wireless manager, so they seemed superfluous. However, it turns out that there is a strong case for using the manufacturer's software instead of Microsoft's (which is often the case).

The Wireless Zero Configuration service is the one that allows you to "View Avaialable Wireless Networks" and choose one to connect to. It also constantly checks to see if there's a better one than the one you chose. That seems like a nice feature (especially for mobile computers), but the act of checking can actually produce lag with some adapters. So, if you're experiencing 2-3 seconds of lag once a minute or so, you might see a big improvement by disabling the WZC service and using the manufacturer's software that came with your adapter instead.

Here are the steps I took to solve this problem when I experienced it this week:

1. Uninstall manufacture software, if it was previously installed.
2. Disable the Wireless Zero Configuration service by going to Start -> Programs -> Administrative Tools -> Services, find the Wireless Zero Configuration service and double-click it, and change the startup type to "Disabled".
3. Install the manufacturer software, and run it to configure your adapter.

Hope that helps somebody!

Intro

World, rejoice. I've started a blog.

Rejoice because herein I will present so much wisdom and helpful information that it will blow your mind.

Rejoice because herein I will present such deep and insightful thoughts on current events and issues, that you will find your mind opened to points of view you may have never before considered.

Rejoice because herein I will present musings that thus far I have been reluctant to share with the world due to their sheer power.

Rejoice because you don't have to listen to me do any of that in person.

Alright, seriously, I'm not that stuck up. I'm basically planning on using this blog as a mind-dump from time-to-time. You know, sometimes you see something or hear something or do something and you think to yourself, "Self, other people should see or hear or do this." Sometimes it's hard to find the right people to share this with, because they're either not interested in the same subject, not interested in debating the subject with you, or fixated on the fact that the way your hair is parted it really highlights the big zit on your forehead. Blogs don't have zits, don't care when people walk away, and cyber-people have a lot more opinions than actual-people, so debate is practically guaranteed, even if all you said was, "Hey, the sky is blue."

So sit back, relax, subscribe, enjoy, and don't take yourself too seriously. I mean, come on, look at you. You're wierd.