Apparently wine vs. beer is the story of the upcoming Democratic primary. Obama is wine, Clinton is beer. (Via MR.) And beer always wins! Glad that’s been settled.

I have nothing to say about this, I’m only posting to mock my lazy cobloggers. Do they have jobs or something? Feel free to join the mocking in the comments! And as a bonus, a cute kitten. (Via Chrononautic Log.)

I’m going to be too busy for real blogging over the next couple of weeks, but fortunately I’m not too proud to refrain from cutting and pasting entire posts from other blogs! This one from FemaleScienceProfessor:

Discussion at a faculty meeting:

Department Chair: Some of you may be interested in an upcoming visit to the university by a group from University A to share information about their program to increase the participation of women in science, engineering, and math. [hands around an informational memo, including the list of names of the visitors]

Young Male Colleague: Hey, I know X! [mentions name of one of the visitors]. What is HE doing going around talking about women’s issues? He’s a real scientist! And a guy!

Me: Men can be involved in helping solve the problem of the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and math.

Young Male Colleague: No, I mean, this guy isn’t effeminate or anything. He’s really a.. a.. a.. a guy!

Senior Female Colleague: Perhaps he is transgendered.

Young Male Colleague, missing the obvious sarcasm, and offended on behalf of the Real Guy: I can assure you that he is nothing of the sort.

Me: He must be a eunuch then.

[Chair steps in and changes the subject]

Although it hardly needs saying, I’d like to point out that my own occasional forays into “talking about women’s issues” are not evidence that I am not a real scientist, nor that I am not a guy. Quite the contrary, in fact; they are but a necessary corrective. My guy-ness is looming, unmistakable, and, frankly, intimidating. Take my word for it, hypermasculinity can be a curse as well as a blessing. So when I talk about how it would be nice if young girls were given the same opportunities and encouragement to pursue science as young boys, I’m doing it in large part to take the edge off of the fear that my unbridled manliness can strike into the hearts of lesser guys.

I’m not sure I’m going far enough, though. Perhaps I should start wearing more floral prints, or take up knitting.

If you are a blogospheric veteran, you will have been aware of one of its most prolific members - the multi-talented, deep, and laugh-out-loud funny Michael Berube, whose blog was one of the finest out there before he mothballed it in January of this year. If you are a newcomer to blogs, then you missed out big time, and you could have a fine time browsing the archives.

I am, however, delighted to report that Michael is joining one of our favorite group blogs - Crooked Timber. I’m waiting eagerly for his first post, and the familiar flowing prose and brutal takedowns.

Welcome back Michael!

Downtown Los Angeles is in the midst of a renaissance. (Partly because I live there, but I can’t claim all the credit.) Amidst the high-rises and cultural institutions, residential building is booming, bringing restaurants and nightlife along with it. But the vibrant core of Downtown is just a few blocks from the epicenter of homelessness in LA: Skid Row. This compact area (official six square blocks) is a magnet for poverty and dispossession, and intentionally so: the city has concentrated services for the homeless near Skid Row, in an attempt to provide relatively easy access for the city’s itinerant population. But the neighborhood is by no means a pretty sight: the vision of small tents and ratty cardboard boxes stretching along the streets is an indelible one. And reports continue of local hospitals and mental-health clinics simply giving up on their worst cases and dumping them on Skid Row to fend for themselves.

Ideally, you don’t want to contain homelessness in a tiny area, you want to eradicate it completely. (The condition, not the people who suffer from it.) One step toward that goal is a better understanding of actual conditions in the region: who the homeless are, how many of them are on the streets, how they live and move through the city. Eric Richardson, who writes the excellent blogdowntown covering everything about Downtown LA, as part of his day job at Cartifact has been working to map Skid Row’s homeless population. (Cartifact is also responsible for an interesting interactive map of Downtown.)

It’s an impressive project, described here, and the most recent update has just come out. The data come from regular counts undertaken by the LAPD; systematic uncertainties will, of course, be as much of an issue here as in any data-collecting process. By clicking on the lower left corner, you can see the maps change as a function of time, or run through an animation of all the maps for the last several months. The good news is that the most recent count is the lowest yet; this is much more likely to represent a seasonal fluctuation than a long-term trend, but it’s still heartening to see.

Just in time for St. Pat’s day, I got interviewed by Irish Public Radio, by Mary Mulvhill, the host of their science show Quantum Leap. My interview is posted as an audio file, to which I just listened, and, despite the poor audio quality of our phone at home, is fairly articulate, I think. She asked a few good questions and I gave some looooong answers, but I think I said what needed to be said.

Happy listening!

A very interesting lawsuit was handed a very interesting judgment the other day in Colorado, in the case of a woman, Suzanne Shell, who filed suit against an internet search engine spider which “crawled” her site, indexing, as these spiders do, its contents. As discussed over at Information Week, the suit alleges everything from breaking and entering, theft, racketeering, and breach of contract.

It all got thrown out of court, except the breach of contract part.

Huh? Well, she has a warning on her site, profanejustice.org that entering it and clicking on links etc. constitutes acceptance of her terms of service, which include not indexing it or downloading the contents, etc. You get the idea.

She sounds like something of a s**t diturber, anyway, refusing at one point to surrender a .38 in her carry-on, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I am gaining growing respect for the disturbers out there in this strange world. But, you know, pick your battles.

But to the issue: *do* internet search sites have the right, no matter what, to index you and send readers your way? Or index you and use the information for something else? Is it a bad thing to respect someone’s declared intent for you to not do that?

I think the whole argument about whether computer programs or agents or spiders or whatever are sentient is stupid. They are not, but someone hit that return key somewhere, and they are the ones responsible.

There is an informal agreement that robots should obey the restrictions in a robots.txt file on a site, but it’s no more than that, an informal agreement. So that’s not a good argument against the suit.

What happens if she wins this one all the way? Then, any time a site wanted to avoid being indexed, they could simply declare this on the page. The vagaries of our language being what they are, it would be hard to program a robot to be sensitive to any such disclaimers anywhere on a page. But, supposing that can be overcome, what uses might this be put to?

I suppose those might include online stores that don’t want their prices advertised elsewhere, because they are so high! It also might make it easier to protect copyrighted material. It certainly would put something of a damper, in the end, on the open and free nature of the web. But perhaps our diligent readers can think of other evil to do with such a new restriction.

Here’s a question for our highly mathematically talented readership: what does the following condition describe?

[(δU/δL) / (δU/δC) | Sp=0] ≤ w - [(δU/δr) / (δU/δC) | S = 0]

If you said

“An individual will start to sell prostitution if the price for selling the first amount of prostitution, minus the costs of a worsened reputation for doing so, exceeds the shadow price of leisure evaluated at zero prostitution sold.”

you were spot on. That’s right; according to Marc Abrahams’ Improbable Research column in The Guardian, this is the equation to describe when a prostitute finds it worthwhile to sell (typically) her services.

The story is a little unclear, but the very least you’ll need to make sense of the equation is a definition of the variables:

• U is the “utility”
• L is the amount of leisure you have.
• C is the amount of goods and services you, as a consumer, consume.
• S is the amount of prostitution you, as a prostitute, sell to your customers.
• W is the going price for prostitutes.
• R is a measure of your reputation.

And here I am working on particle cosmology when there are these huge open problems in other fields!

Tyler Cowen, following Dan Drezner, offers his thoughts on who is likely to be elected President in 2008. (A completely different question, of course, than who you think should be President.) Unusually, I not only disagree with all of Tyler’s conclusions, but also his reasoning. But it did remind me that all the internets are waiting on tenterhooks for my own handicapping of the race. So, without further ado, the Democrats:

• Hillary Clinton. The presumptive front-runner, although with obvious baggage. And no, her husband doesn’t count as a liability; he’s a masterful political strategist, a great campaigner, and extremely well-liked, as Al Gore would have realized in 2000 if his own political instincts were more highly developed than those of a mole rat. But Hillary herself is not a great strategist, is only a competent campaigner, and isn’t all that well-liked. Republicans would unite against her in a general election to an unprecedented degree. Overall, her skill set is much better attuned to being a Senator than a President, or a Presidential candidate. And she is a woman; overt sexism might not be the issue, but in the general election the Republicans will make sure that every misogynist stereotype is in constant media rotation. But she might win; she has the money, a great team, and the real Hillary-haters are a vocal minority, not a true majority. Tyler says that Americans are tired of dynasties, which I would find more persuasive if they stopped electing them.
• Barack Obama. Longtime readers know that I am down with Obama. He is the real deal: smart, committed, charismatic, and sincere. He doesn’t have much experience in national politics, but that’s not nearly the liability in a Presidential campaign that many make it out to be. He was unambiguously against the war in Iraq, which — contrary to the stale wisdom that foreign policy always favors Republicans — will be a big vote-getter. People really don’t like the war, and they will vote on the issue, and it will favor any Democrat who has the wit to take advantage. On the other hand, he is black. We live in a racist country, and there are plenty of people who will vote on that basis, even if they don’t tell pollsters. And his middle name is “Hussein,” which Fox news will never ever let you forget. The only reason why these aren’t deal-breakers is the hope that they only apply to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place; but that might be wishful thinking.
• John Edwards. A very plausible sleeper candidate, who would be a comfortable front-runner in an ordinary year without the Clinton/Obama celebrity factor to deal with. Gained invaluable experience during the Kerry campaign — hopefully, learning some difficult lessons about what not to do. Accrued serious points among primary voters by admitting he was wrong about the Iraq war (in stark contrast to Hillary), and has an actual substantive message about poverty. Comes across as too artificial and slick, which can be a big disadvantage, especially to Democratic candidates; also, a relatively weak debater, as was evident in his matchup against Voldemort Cheney. Originally, the primary calendar was tuned almost precisely to his advantage; now, with California and other big states moving up, money will be more important, which won’t help him. Definitely in third right now, but a come-from-behind victory isn’t out of the question.
• Someone else. None of the people actually running has a chance, although Bill Richardson is intriguing. Wesley Clark might have been an interesting possibility, but the top three are already sucking up all the oxygen, and it’s basically too late to jump in at this point (less than 20 months before the election!).

And the Republicans:

• John McCain. The formerly-presumptive frontrunner who has somehow frittered away his status. The McCain aura was always a bit of a mystery; despite being reliably conservative on most issues, he was able to pick and choose a public stance here and there to burnish his image as a “maverick.” So much so that some (crazy) Democrats wanted him on their ticket in 2000. But it’s no mystery why he isn’t running away with the primary race; over the last few years he has embarked on a single-minded campaign to completely undermine his hard-earned reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter. Where he used to stand up to the religious right, now he curries their favor, although he does so with such awkwardness that nobody is really fooled. And he has become the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside the White House and the Connecticut for Lieberman party. McCain has managed to transform himself from a figure who was widely respected, even by people who didn’t agree with him, into someone who nobody trusts. Nevertheless, given the weakness of the rest of the Republican field, he still might back into the nomination.
• Rudy Giuliani. The fact that Rudy Giuliani is currently leading in Republican polls, and that smart people occasionally opine that he could win the election or even be a good President, is a source of unlimited amazement to me. Yes, he gave a couple of stirring speeches after 9/11. Something tells me that this will not be enough to overcome his penchant for dressing in drag, his support for funding abortions for poor women (always a winner among Republican primary voters), and the fact that he is hated by firefighters, by New Yorkers, and by his own kids. He’s already lost his own campaign book, and is weighed down by his association with Bernard Kerik. Personality-wise, he’s a thin-skinned autocrat who can’t handle criticism — something that, I’m taken to understand, occasionally comes your way during a Presidential campaign. If Rudy Giuliani wins the 2008 general election, I promise to never again make a political prediction in public for the rest of my life.
• Mitt Romney. Oh yeah, a pro-choice pro-gay-rights pro-gun-control Mormon from Massachusetts is exactly what Republican primary voters in South Carolina are looking for. His chances look good in the Utah primary, though. Why are we even talking about this? Of course, Romney has conveniently changed his positions on nearly every hot-button social issue since he shifted his sights from the Massachusetts governor’s mansion to the White House. It won’t help.
• Someone else. Unlike on the Democratic side, it seems completely plausible that a latecomer could swoop in to change the complexion of the Republican race. The names being bandied about thus far, however — Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich? — aren’t inspiring anyone. But this field is not yet set in stone, and there’s plenty of room for intrigue to come.

And the winner is: I don’t know. The Democratic primary race is too close to call, but I’ll be happy to predict that whoever wins it will waltz into the White House. On the Democratic side: three solid contenders. On the Republican side: a cross-dressing autocrat, a New England Mormon, and an old guy whose entire schtick is sincerity but who has abandoned all pretence of having any. All of whom are running on the legacy of one of the least popular Presidents in history. Are you kidding me? Not since 1976 (post-Watergate) have Democratic chances looked this good this far before the election.

But, since there’s no accountability in this game, I’ll go ahead and translate my gut feelings into a quantitative prediction for the chances to become President in 2008: Obama 35%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%, McCain 10%, any other Republican 10%. Subject to change without notice. It’s early, but I’m happy to think that there’s a better than even chance that our next President will either be a woman or an African-American. Either would be a watershed moment in our history, something of which we could (quite belatedly) be proud.

It’s that time of year when eager young students are deciding where to embark on, or to continue, their higher educations. You can see our advice-giving posts on choosing an undergraduate school and choosing a graduate school.

But there are a lot of options out there, and it would be a shame to overlook any of them. So we’d be remiss not to mention the unique opportunities offered by the Maharishi University of Management. Founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, spiritual advisor to the Beatles, and led by John Hagelin, highly-cited theoretical physicist and occasional Presidential candidate, the MUM offers a — did I already mention “unique”? — set of experiences to the enthusiastic student. And that’s not even counting the Yogic Flying!

Here, for example, are some of the course descriptions for the undergraduate major in mathematics.

Infinity: From the Empty Set to the Boundless Universe of All Sets — Exploring the Full Range of Mathematics and Seeing its Source in Your Self (MATH 148)

Functions and Graphs 1: Name and Form — Locating the Patterns of Orderliness that Connect a Function with its Graph and Describe Numerical Relationships (MATH 161)

Maharishi Vedic Mathematics: Mathematical Structure and the Transcendental Source of Natural Law (MATH 205)

Geometry: From Point to Infinity — Using Properties of Shape and Form to Handle Visual and Spatial Data (MATH 267)

Calculus 1: Derivatives as the Mathematics of Transcending, Used to Handle Changing Quantities (MATH 281)

Calculus 2: Integrals as the Mathematics of Unification, Used to Handle Wholeness (MATH 282)

Calculus 3: Unified Management of Change in All Possible Directions (MATH 283)

Linear Algebra 1: Linearity as the Simplest Form of a Quantitative Relationship (MATH 286)

Calculus 4: Locating Silence within Dynamism (MATH 304)

Complex Analysis: Transcending the Real Numbers to a Simpler and More Unified Numbering System (MATH 318)

Probability: Locating Orderly Patterns in Random Events to Predict Future Outcomes (MATH 351)

Real Analysis 1: Locating the Finest Impulses of Dynamism within the Continuum of Real Numbers (MATH 423)

Set Theory: Mathematics Unfolding the Path to the Unified Field — the Most Fundamental Field of Natural Law (MATH 434)

Foundations of Mathematics: The Unified Field as the Basis of All of Mathematics and All Laws of Nature (MATH 436)

Now, sure, any old university will be offering courses in real analysis and set theory. But will they learn about the unified field, and locate the finest impulses of dynamism? “Vector calculus” sounds kind if dry, but “Unified Management of Change in All Possible Directions”? Sign me up!

Nobody ever said the Maharishi wasn’t a good salesman.

Our current task, as Serious Bloggers, is to pass judgment upon whether the Muffin Joke is funny. Here is the joke itself:

So there are these two muffins baking in an oven. One of them yells, “Wow, it’s hot in here!”

And the other muffin replies: “Holy cow! A talking muffin!”

John Tierney (New York Times) thinks the Muffin Joke is not funny. Brad DeLong (Berkeley) disagrees, claiming that the Muffin Joke is, in fact, funny, although he offers no argument to support his conclusion. Jack Balkin (Yale) also finds the Muffin Joke funny, and does offer a rationale:

The muffin joke is funny because it is self-undermining. The punch line undermines the suspension of disbelief that the joke’s narrative presumes. It is kind of like breaching the fourth wall in drama. It’s like the line in Dr.Strangelove “You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!” or the Atheist Hymn we came up with in high school: “There is no God, there is no God, He told me so himself.”

He admits, however, that by offering this explanation, he has thereby wrung all of the funniness out of the Muffin Joke. That’s as may be.

I come down on the pro-Muffin-Joke side of the debate. To me, it’s quite funny. Is this some sort of Ivory-Tower Academics vs. Hard-Nosed Journalists thing?