Why do ants walk a geodesic path back to their nest?

Here is why: they optimize in the following way: they leave a smell when they go out by various paths. The smell is strongest in the path that took the least amount of time to traverse. So that is the path they return on. For details, read Jerry Coyne’s blog.

Think of it as a calculus of variations problem which is solved by trial and error.

Oh yes…it isn’t because Jesus loves the little ants.

26 February 2011

Workout notes 6 mile “run” on the treadmill in 1:03:30. Too damned slow, though my first 30 minutes were very easy. I used my home sport tech and the inclines wore me down.
Note: in the morning, I got a big cramp in my left calf; it is still just a bit sore.

Other notes This has been making the rounds: a 73 year old woman has worked up to a 150 pound bench press and a 5:14 marathon. She started late in life (late 50′s?).

If I could finally get this shoulder cleared up maybe I could work on my bench press. It is better; I can sleep the night sans pain and NSAIDS but it is still tender at times.

Commentary
On my local running club board, some are concerned about the Boston Marathon Qualifying standards (basically, if your qualifying standard is X and you bet X by 10 minutes, you compete for entry against everyone who beat their standard by 10 minutes). Meh. But then you have some who are going off on the BAA for letting charity runners in or them giving “slots” to this group (running club) or that group.
Then some were upset that people can buy Boston Marathon gear (jackets, etc.).

A couple of remarks:
1. It is the BAA’s race, period. THEY decide who gets in. Frankly, I think that it is great that they reward their local clubs that help out with slots.

2. Don’t be so anal about things like jackets. I’ll demonstrate this with a point: the other day I was hiking with a friend when a local runner (formerly national class, and still pretty darned fast) came running by with a buddy. They waved. When they got out of earshot (they did so very quickly) I joked: “I always beat those guys in local races”. My friend said “suuuuuure, you do” and laughed.
Bottom line: when you go for a run, people can tell what you really are, no matter what attire you are wearing. So don’t sweat the jacket stuff.

Note: this lady is wearing a Boston Marathon jacket…

(note: clicking on each thumbnail takes you to the photo at the site). Anyway, SHE is wearing a Boston Marathon jacket; not sure if the tights are official.

25 February 2011

Workout notes
5 mile treadmill walk in 1:00:50; I did some 2-1 in the last 30 minutes which sped me up some. Then I did rotator cuff stuff.
Note: my shoulder felt fine last night and most of the day today; in terms of injuries it was a good, relatively pain free day.

Personal notes
We started with snow last night, but it is mostly gone; no shoveling needed. Then the women’s team had a rare afternoon game. We lost but the action on the court was rugged; there were lots of hard picks and checks. The ladies will need ice bags tonight!
Note: they are letting lots of kids teams in the game so next time I am bringing earplugs. Having dozens of girls screech EEEEEEEEEEEEEE during time-outs is just too much.

Posts
The current debate over social security is interesting. Many Democrats claim that social security is not adding to the deficit. Here is why: it is true that recently, social security started to pay out more than it took in payroll taxes. But over the past many years, more money was collected in social security taxes than was paid out; hence this excess money was called the “trust fund”. So the pay-outs from the trust fund plus what is coming in is enough to keep social security solvent for the next 25 years or so.

But there are those who argue that the “trust fund” is some sort of accounting fiction; this money isn’t there (and it really isn’t) because the excess collected was used just like regular taxes were used. Others said “yes, but those outlays were really IOU’s issued to the social security trust fund.”

So here is a discussion of the trust fund and what fact check says about it. Here is Robert Reich’s take (and he was a trustee):

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican presidential hopeful, says in order to “save” Social Security the retirement age should be raised. The media are congratulating him for his putative “courage.” Deficit hawks are proclaiming Social Security one of the big entitlements that has to be cut in order to reduce the budget deficit.

This is all baloney.

In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight.

Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.

Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.

Anyway, that is where the dispute is. What everyone agrees on is that social security now collects less than it pays out.
Of course, if the government “owes social security” then…well, the debt just went up.

Paul Krugman Explains that all of these public worker pension benefits are really delayed salaries that were negotiated to begin with.

Robert Reich again: the Wisconsin situation is really a shakedown of the middle class by the rich. The cliche gets it best: Republicans find it less odious to cut a 50,000 dollar a year salary by 10 percent than to raise taxes on the rich by 3 percent.

So that is what is going on up north. What about down south?
Here is a sample of southern Republicanism:

An audience member at a town hall hosted by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on Tuesday asked the Tea Party congressman who was going to shoot President Barack Obama.

The unidentified town hall attendee’s question got a big laugh from the audience, reports Blake Aued of the Athens Banner-Herald.

But Broun didn’t exactly condemn the remark, according to the newspaper report.

“The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year,” Broun said in response to the question. “Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Broun had asked the audience who had driven the farthest to be at the meeting and let the winner ask the first question, according to the newspaper. The reporter couldn’t hear the question himself, but Broun’s press secretary confirmed that the question was about when someone was going to shoot the President.
[...]
Late, Late Update: Witnesses tell TPM that Broun laughed along with the audience when he heard the question, but his office has issued a statement calling the the question by an elderly man “abhorrent.”

Note that the Congressman did NOT correct the questioner.

Religion Mano Singham continues on his interesting series of posts:

I have no reason to doubt Parson’s claim that the above books are philosophically more sound in their arguments for atheism than the current crop of atheist best sellers. But note that these are all heavy-duty philosophical books aimed at other philosophers, both religious and atheistic. It is a safe bet that most ordinary religious people have never even heard of these authors, let alone read their works. That is true for me (I have read one essay by Mackie and that’s about it) and I have been a serious atheist for some time.

The point of the books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, and others is that they are not targeted at philosophers of religion but are taking direct aim at ordinary religious believers and the bases of their beliefs. These people constitute almost the entirety of the religious populace and for them religion is not an abstract philosophy but requires a real god who acts in this world to influence actual history. This is why these authors have riled up the religious establishment in a very short time (new atheists books have been around only since 2004 when Harris published The End of Faith) in a way that atheist philosophers of religion haven’t, even though the latter have been around for much longer and, as Parsons says, may have made much more cogent arguments.

The fact that the works of sophisticated philosophers have had little impact on popular religious beliefs while those of the new atheists have is why I think that the strategy of the new atheists is the correct one.

I’ll add this: the war against superstition needs to be waged in public. The theologians will find ways to cling to their word-salad gods while claiming to be “believers”. From my point of view, that is unimportant. My interest is in deities that interact with this universe. If they don’t do that, why bother with them?

Some video rants:
The first is a “let ‘em have it”. The second: well, the guy’s style is a bit “too much” but his words and ideas are right on. Note that he catches Fox News in a blatant lie (they reversed poll numbers)