The Last Lecture

It’s a tradition at Carnegie Mellon to give “Last Lecture’s”, where professors are asked to contemplate their demise and think about the wisdom they wish to impart upon their audience.  Thing is, when Randy Pausch, a professor of computer science, was asked to give his own “Last Lecture”, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.  After giving his lecture, he wrote this book, detailing his thought processes before and during his lecture, and writing a few more lectures down, so that his children may have something of him, may know him long after he is gone.  
This isn’t a lecture about death and how to handle it.  Randy makes it quite clear starting from his introduction that his lecture will celebrate life, that is for his children and wife, and for dreams.  This strange juxtaposition of the life and dreams of a dying man make his words more powerful, and when Randy jokes it brightens the mood, so that his audience knows to laugh and celebrate, and that his children may someday know too.  With words chosen for an adult audience, yet simple enough that younger generations may understand, Randy tells his tale of his dreams, and how his supportive parents, and how he has achieved his dreams.  His lecture, and this book, have inspired millions of his audience, and so he has left behind a great legacy to his family, and his students.  

Meteor in Russia

First question: What exactly is this image?  Well, let’s look at the clues first before discussing the answer.  There’s a bright light in the sky, but it can’t be the sun, because the sun is currently past the horizon, setting, or rising.  The setting appears to be the road, and it is 9:20 on the 15th of February.  So what is that bright light? It looks like a rocket, but rockets have long streams of fumes and dust from burning fuel behind it.  So what is it? It’s a meteor that hit Russia, whose impact shockwave blew out over 4000 windows.  This the the photograph that covers an article on how scientists will prevent impact of other asteroids sure to come in the future.  
But why is this picture used?  At first glance, it’s rather ambiguous.  There’s obviously some significance, it’s presented with an article, but taken by itself, it just looks like a startlingly bright light or bomb in the sky.  The date stamp and rate in the corner of the picture offers no help except when this picture was taken.  It seems as if the only use for this picture is to act as a short glimpse of the meteor in the sky before impact, so that viewers may get a chance to see it before continuing on to read the article.  It’s effectiveness seems only due to its caption, which explains what the picture is and where and when it was taken, as well as the circumstances surrounding it.  .  


A link to the actual article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/16/scientists-earth-asteroid

Kick That Can!

Kick that can! An interesting analogy for the stalling of the fiscal problem facing Americans today.  As Paul Krugman, a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, he refutes the statement made by John Boehner, the speaker of the House that  “At some point, Washington has to deal with its spending problem, I’ve watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years since I’ve been here. I’ve had enough of it. It’s time to act.” He does this by mentioning that the government was doing fine and that the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. was a third lower when Bill Clinton left office than it was when he came in.  
The point of course, is not that Boehner’s apparently wrong according to Krugman, but that now is not the time to act upon the rather pressing issue of the fiscal cliff and growing government debt.  How exactly does he manage to present his argument?  Using statistics and historical trends, as well as current ones (specifically Ireland), he argues that cutting government spending actually hurts the economy.  Then he moves on to look at historical post-wartime and post-Depression economies and the policies that worked then.  It is an effective method and is convincing, though it may not sway all readers.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/opinion/krugman-kick-that-can.html?_r=1&

Will Deep-sea Mining Yield an Underwater Gold Rush?

“A mile beneath the ocean's waves waits a buried cache beyond any treasure hunter's wildest dreams: gold, copper, zinc, and other valuable minerals.”  There are trillions of dollars worth of minerals beneath the ocean floor, and one company, Nautilus Minerals, wants to start the world’s first underwater mining operation.  Our informant is Meghan Miner, a science outreach specialist, who decided to also include a video on how exactly Nautilus Minerals will be mining these minerals so deep under the sea.  The video is a step-by-step animation on how robots will be used to mine the minerals and detailing the basic processes, wonderfully clear and concise.  It seems a perfectly viable option, as presented by Nautilus Minerals, using perfectly sound arguments that t ocean floor mining is safer, cleaner, and more environmentally friendly.  Miner shoots this idea down rather abruptly, “at least that’s the plan” serving as the platform for discussion on the unknown impacts underwater mining may have.  The article points out that scientists weren’t able to prove the existence of underwater thermal vents until 1977.  

The article is presented in sections, introducing the wonder and gains of this project, then presenting reservations against it.  In the end, it is the drive that closes the article, an economic drive for money.  Initially presenting underwater mining as a promising new industry, the article takes a turn to explain scientist reservations against it, such as the fact that the mineral deposits “eyed by the mining industry” (not very nice wording, the connotation gives an idea of what Miner thinks about this) play host to teeming communities deep underwater.  Scientists especially wish to study these new communities which they had never before thought nor expected to have existed.  

The wonderful thing about this article -and indeed, of National Geographic articles in general- is that it does not expect the reader to be scientifically inclined.  Therefore, its message is portrayed in layman’s terms, expecting that people will not understand scientific jargon.  I think the point the article is making gets across clearly -that underwater mining should be a venture approached with caution, due to its potential environmental impacts upon underwater communities.  

Here's the link to the article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130201-underwater-mining-gold-precious-metals-oceans-environment/