Who the computer thinks I should vote for

Via A K8, a Cat, a mission, Select smart.
What we have here is a C- from the fruitcake parties, a D and a D- from the Republicans, and a D- who isn't even running from the Dems. Then there's a whole bunch of failures. I'm looking forward to this election.

Apologies for formatting snafus.



Your Results:

	1.	Theoretical Ideal Candidate   (100%)
	2.	Kent McManigal   (71%)  Click here for info
	3.	John McCain   (66%)  Click here for info
	4.	Ron Paul   (62%)  Click here for info
	5.	Al Gore   (60%)  Click here for info
	6.	Bill Richardson   (55%)  Click here for info
	7.	Joseph Biden   (55%)  Click here for info
	8.	Mitt Romney   (55%)  Click here for info
	9.	Rudolph Giuliani   (52%)  Click here for info
	10.	Wesley Clark   (52%)  Click here for info
	11.	Newt Gingrich   (51%)  Click here for info
	12.	Tom Tancredo   (51%)  Click here for info
	13.	Barack Obama   (50%)  Click here for info
	14.	Chuck Hagel   (50%)  Click here for info
	15.	Hillary Clinton   (50%)  Click here for info
	16.	Dennis Kucinich   (49%)  Click here for info
	17.	Fred Thompson   (48%)  Click here for info
	18.	Tommy Thompson   (48%)  Click here for info
	19.	Christopher Dodd   (47%)  Click here for info
	20.	Sam Brownback   (44%)  Click here for info
	21.	Duncan Hunter   (43%)  Click here for info
	22.	John Edwards   (39%)  Click here for info
	23.	Mike Huckabee   (37%)  Click here for info
	24.	Mike Gravel   (36%)  Click here for info
	25.	Jim Gilmore   (32%)  Click here for info
	26.	Alan Augustson   (31%)  Click here for info
	27.	Elaine Brown   (8%)  Click here for info

Why sanding back is a bad idea

One project I was sort of interested but never really had time to tackle was the quantitative analysis of the metal content of paint. The following is a depth profile of a paint chip from our home renovations last year. As time progresses, the back ground gives way to the signal from the surface layer, and the next two coats of paint beneath.


Figuring out how to standardize is a royal pain, but a qualitative glance at the measurement shows that the various highly toxic metals have much higher concentrations in the older paint layers than the most recent layer. This is why health professionals recommend that home renovators simply paint over old paint, instead of sanding it. Sanding the paint off releases all these goodies into the air, where they can be breathed, eaten, or otherwise ingested.

Our house was built in the early 70’s. I don’t know how many times it was painted since then, but even without rigorous standardization, it is obvious that paint has become a whole lot less toxic over the lifetime of the building.

Lounge of the Field Lemming

I have accepted a job with an exploration company, and will be flying out on Thursday for three weeks in the Northern Territory. I’ve approached a couple of guest bloggers for that period, but don’t hold your breath.

The short story is that I started applying for industry jobs when the university kept delaying my transition from contract to permanent work. When I asked my PhD supervisor (who has been in exploration since I graduated) if he’s write me a reference, he asked me to come work for him. So that is what I’m doing.

I’m not sure how much presenting the long story about deciding between the relative merits of the two offers would add, so I won’t.

Where on (Google) Earth #18

Sagan has no blog, so I'll post 18. Next one is somebody else, though. No hints. Please also list the order in which the various features cross-cut.

Where on (Google) Earth? #17

This one might look a bit intimidating at first, but applying geologic principles instead of pattern recognition should make it easier than it appears.


A world geologic map might help too.

If former winners could give the public a 24 hour head start, that would be great. As always, an explanation of the method used and the geology featured is a welcome bonus. And everyone is welcome to talk to each other in comments to get on the right track.

Original Where on (Google) Earth series here.

Homeland Security bans reality

Today, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce a total ban on the use of, possession of, or residence in reality. Following on their prohibition of liquids in air travel and chemicals in chemistry sets, this ban is designed to ensure that the dangerous, unpredictable universe does not fall into the wrong hands.

Says DHS spokesman Norman Tonguesgroove, “In today’s modern world, there is really no valid reason for private citizens to inhabit reality. There are a variety of safer, more sensible alternatives freely or commercially available to the American public. We expect this prohibition to only impact on those radical realists who cling to outmoded ideals.”

The spokesman was quick to add that, where valid research purposes necessitated its use, university and government labs could be licensed to use reality under carefully controlled conditions. All relevant staff would require security clearance before any such work could proceed.

The department downplayed any suggestions that this new regulation was overly broad. “The federal government is expressly charged with providing for a common defense, so there are no constitutional or jurisdictional issues. Reality is simply too hazardous and erratic, even here on Earth. And the rest of the universe is downright lethal,” Tonguesgroove stated. “The only responsible course of action is to simply bar people from interacting with it.” The spokesman also assured key interest groups that their rights to fictional guns, speech, religion, and abortions would not be infringed.

The department expects only minor objection to this plan, as most ideological, religious, and political leaders have only tenuous connections to reality anyway. If anything, they find it more inconvenient than does the department.

This announcement will be made simultaneously on the DHS website and the Second Life Secret Police command center. There will be no physical press conference.

SPOILERS for Where on (Google) Earth #16

The original post is here.

If you are still working on it, stop reading now.

I recommend going to Ron's site, and having a go yourself before reading the spoilers.

If you know geology, it is actually fairly easy to deduce where the answer has to be.

Go ahead. Have a look.

I will talk you guys through the process below.

My first gut feeling was the Tarim Basin, but before running off to Asia, I decided to look at the pic analytically.

Ron's fatal mistake was adding the oblique view. While this looks mostly like a gimmick, it gave crucial information- namely the presence of snow-capped mountains to the East of the view area.

Also, there are no folded strata visible. Finally, the mountain looks like an eroded volcano. The obvious place to look for arid volcanic landscapes with higher mountains to the East is the Atacama desert. So, I started around 24 deg south, and worked my way up the coast into southern Peru, where the shore starts getting much less arid.

I had no joy, but I was confident in my reasoning, so I came back down along the dividing range, and look what I found...



22^o54'S 67^o13' West

I have no idea what the groundwater eroding ash canyons are called, but the meandering thing is a river.

Where on (Google)Earth #15?

Brian has kindly offerend to share the joy of his "Where on Google Earth?" series, so I figured I would step up to the plate. This entrant is dedicated to billabongs*:


Veterans of the series will note that I added a scale bar. I did so for three reasons:
1. It is good practice.
2. It will hopefully level the playing field for mortals against GoogleEarth gods like Ron, who can asertain the scale through diabolical means.
3. It might even help the educational value of these pictures, by giving people a feel for the size of the features shown.

* Known to Americans as ox-bow lakes