[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]

From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: December 31, 2009 4:28:22 PM PST
To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, dewayne@warpspeed.com
Subject: The Ones that Mother gives you don’t do anything at all

A Pill for Psychological Pain?

Allison Elliott
College: Arts and Sciences

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Dec. 22, 2009) – Headaches and heartaches. Broken bones and broken spirits. Hurting bodies and hurt feelings. We often use the same words to describe physical and mental pain. Over-the-counter pain relieving drugs have long been used to alleviate physical pain, while a host of other medications have been employed in the treatment of depression and anxiety. But is it possible that a common painkiller could serve double duty, easing not just the physical pains of sore joints and headaches, but also the pain of social rejection? A research team led by psychologist C. Nathan DeWall of the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences Department of Psychology has uncovered evidence indicating that acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) may blunt social pain.

“The idea—that a drug designed to alleviate physical pain should reduce the pain of social rejection—seemed simple and straightforward based on what we know about neural overlap between social and physical pain systems. To my surprise, I couldn’t find anyone who had ever tested this idea,” DeWall said.

According to a study due to be published in the journal Psychological Science, DeWall and colleagues were correct. Physical and social pain appear to overlap in the brain, relying on some of the same behavioral and neural mechanisms.

DeWall and colleagues investigated this connection through two experiments. In the first experiment, 62 healthy volunteers took 1,000 milligrams daily of either acetaminophen or a placebo. Each evening, participants reported how much they experienced social pain using a version of the “Hurt Feelings Scale” – a measurement tool widely accepted by psychologists as a valid measure of social pain. Hurt feelings and social pain decreased over time in those taking acetaminophen, while no change was observed in subjects taking the placebo. Levels of positive emotions remained stable, with no significant changes observed in either group. These results indicate that acetaminophen use may decrease self-reported social pain over time, by impacting emotions linked to hurt feelings.

“We were very excited about these initial findings,” DeWall said. “The next step was to identify the neural mechanisms underlying the findings.”

[snip]

<http://uknow.uky.edu/content/pill-psychological-pain>
<http://snipurl.com/txp7j>

Is aviation security mostly for show?

By Bruce Schneier, Special to CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Incident on Detroit-bound plane led to tightening of airport security
• Bruce Schneier says politicians react to incidents by imposing “security theater”
• Trying to predict what terrorists will do next is futile, Schneier says
• He says it’s better to put resources into investigations
Editor’s note: Bruce Schneier is an author and technologist who specializes in security. His books include “Applied Cryptography,” “Beyond Fear” and “Schneier on Security” and his other writing can be seen at <http://www.schneier.com/>

(CNN) — Last week’s attempted terror attack on an airplane heading from Amsterdam to Detroit has given rise to a bunch of familiar questions.

How did the explosives get past security screening? What steps could be taken to avert similar attacks? Why wasn’t there an air marshal on the flight? And, predictably, government officials have rushed to institute new safety measures to close holes in the system exposed by the incident.

Reviewing what happened is important, but a lot of the discussion is off-base, a reflection of the fundamentally wrong conception most people have of terrorism and how to combat it.

Terrorism is rare, far rarer than many people think. It’s rare because very few people want to commit acts of terrorism, and executing a terrorist plot is much harder than television makes it appear.

The best defenses against terrorism are largely invisible: investigation, intelligence, and emergency response. But even these are less effective at keeping us safe than our social and political policies, both at home and abroad. However, our elected leaders don’t think this way: They are far more likely to implement security theater against movie-plot threats.

A “movie-plot threat” is an overly specific attack scenario. Whether it’s terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists contaminating the milk supply, or terrorists attacking the Olympics, specific stories affect our emotions more intensely than mere data does.

Stories are what we fear. It’s not just hypothetical stories — terrorists flying planes into buildings, terrorists with explosives strapped to their legs or with bombs in their shoes, and terrorists with guns and bombs waging a co-ordinated attack against a city are even scarier movie-plot threats because they actually happened.

“Security theater” refers to security measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security. An example: the photo ID checks that have sprung up in office buildings. No one has ever explained why verifying that someone has a photo ID provides any actual security, but it looks like security to have a uniformed guard-for-hire looking at ID cards.

Airport-security examples include the National Guard troops stationed at U.S. airports in the months after 9/11 — their guns had no bullets. The U.S. color-coded system of threat levels, the pervasive harassment of photographers, and the metal detectors that are increasingly common in hotels and office buildings since the Mumbai terrorist attacks, are additional examples.

To be sure, reasonable arguments can be made that some terrorist targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because of the numbers of people who commute daily.

But there are literally millions of potential targets in any large country — there are 5 million commercial buildings alone in the United States — and hundreds of potential terrorist tactics. It’s impossible to defend every place against everything, and it’s impossible to predict which tactic and target terrorists will try next.

Security is both a feeling and a reality. The propensity for security theater comes from the interplay between the public and its leaders.

When people are scared, they need something done that will make them feel safe, even if it doesn’t truly make them safer. Politicians naturally want to do something in response to crisis, even if that something doesn’t make any sense.

Often, this “something” is directly related to the details of a recent event. We confiscate liquids, screen shoes, and ban box cutters on airplanes. We tell people they can’t use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight. But it’s not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack. These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning.

If we spend billions defending our rail systems, and the terrorists bomb a shopping mall instead, we’ve wasted our money. If we concentrate airport security on screening shoes and confiscating liquids, and the terrorists hide explosives in their brassieres and use solids, we’ve wasted our money. Terrorists don’t care what they blow up and it shouldn’t be our goal merely to force the terrorists to make a minor change in their tactics or targets.

Our current response to terrorism is a form of “magical thinking.” It relies on the idea that we can somehow make ourselves safer by protecting against what the terrorists happened to do last time.

[snip]

Find this article at: <http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html>

[Note: This comment comes from friend Charlie Brown. DLH]

From: Charles Brown <cbrown@flyingcircuit.com>
Date: December 29, 2009 10:56:11 AM PST
To: pozar@lns.com
Cc: Brown Charles <cbrown@flyingcircuit.com>, dave@farber.net, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Subject: FCC Brings On “Distinguished Scholar in Residence” shakes up the broadcasters…

Tim,

Mr. Benjamin uses a First Amendment argument to undermine the constitutional authority of the FCC, for the express purpose of assigning private property rights to the radio spectrum. This appears to be part of the continuing effort to build a legal framework to implement the economic arguments laid out by Mr. Coase (economist) to monetize the radio spectrum via market mechanisms. It seems reasonable to describe this phenomenon as “deterministic”, in the sense that the legal theories are designed to fit the “perceived” political imperative.

I interpret this as technocratic preparation for moving spectrum from the broadcasters and sell it to the cellcos. “Decisions based on facts”, as our fearless leader likes to say. Mr. Benjamin also states that auctions are the most efficient process, among other specious assumptions.

In considering the potential outcomes, The Supremes have always backed the FCC in these matters and we can count on Congress to continue its wanton desire for auction proceeds. This one could easily go over $1 million per member of Congress, not counting gratuitous local air time for political campaigns, legal/lobbying fees, and myriad forms of soft money.

However, there is another perspective: the common law rule of “priority-in-use” to govern spectrum allocation. Those who do the best job of productively utilizing the spectrum get the rights, whether it be a neighborhood, city, town, rural community, or other non-boundary definition. Before the FCC and the broadcasters there was common law.

Consider the case of wireless microphones as representing the “priority-in-use” legal theory under common law. The recent “white spaces” ruling provided wireless microphones with default, primary status as incumbent services. To my knowledge, these devices were never licensed by the FCC. Also, consider that the database requirements for white spaces devices enable a “command and control” system; privately owned and operated geolocation services. In effect, authorization services.

Since the public interest groups are too busy missing the point with Net Neutrality, they don’t seem to understand how to use spectrum politics to achieve a “bit commons”, the most efficient and politically acceptable outcome in my view. IANAL, but there seems to be a cogent, defensible legal theory based on the First Amendment and common law. It seems a straightforward argument that the radio spectrum as a “public good” and “communications medium” is vectored directly to the First Amendment. E.g., the public service obligations of the broadcast licensees.

The First Amendment was always relevant in this debate, if not for the reasons Mr. Benjamin has stated. It’s the elephant in the room.

Charlie

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>
Date: December 28, 2009 4:47:32 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net, ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com

Subject: FCC Brings On “Distinguished Scholar in Residence” shakes
up the broadcasters…

Not sure if folks saw this announcement:

<http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/12/fcc-distinguished-scholar-in-residence-1.html>

Brett Glass on Lessons from Laramie: Broadband Innovation on the Wireless Frontier

18 years ago, Brett Glass — an electrical engineer, inventor, and technology columnist — established LARIAT, the first terrestrial wireless Internet service provider (WISP), in Laramie, Wyoming. What’s it like to roll up your sleeves and roll out high speed connectivity to underserved and unserved areas with, literally, one’s bare hands? What are the logistics? What are the challenges? In this talk, Brett explores these questions and others.

Produced 22 Dec 2009: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheons/2009/12/glass>

[Note: This item comes from reader Brett Glass. DLH]

From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
Date: December 22, 2009 9:19:30 PM PST
To: “Dewayne Hendricks” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools

At 07:43 PM 12/22/2009, John Quarterman wrote:

Bob is right about the right’s story, and that works for the right, because the right is about tribal us against them.

This isn’t a “right vs. left” issue. People on the political left have every bit as much to lose — if not more — than those on the right if the Internet is regulated.

But to win on matters like net neutrality a more inclusive story is needed, non-zero-sum, participatory, about community.

No, it is not. To make an effort to “win on network neutrality” is, in fact, to enlist in a tribal war — in which the billion dollar content providers are attacking ISPs of all sizes (and not just large ones; it would harm small ones like me far more). You’d be fighting on the side of Google, and Amazon, and Microsoft. Who are far more dangerous than even the largest telecomm companies, because they are completely unregulated.

By supporting their cause, you would be their fool (as described in the article mentioned in the subject line above), manipulated by their propaganda into doing their bidding.

Because that’s what the Internet enables: participation on a scale never before seen, fueling innovation that increases the size of the pie for everyone.

Unfortunately, as Dave Farber has said many a time, “network neutrality” regulation would choke off the very innovation which is most important to increasing the size of the pie: innovation by service providers.

This is all relevant to net neutrality. What industry spends even more lobbying Congress than health insurers? Telecoms.

And what company has far outspent the telecomms in contributions to the current administration — giving nearly a billion dollars to the Obama campaign and enlisting many so-called “public interest” groups to do its bidding via large contributions? Google.

Hell, we’re even trying to help the telecoms!

And all telecomm companies are obviously evil. Sure.

On the path they’re on, they’ll end up being like GM when NTT comes in and sells 100Mbps FTTH that actually works for a reasonable price. 50 years ago Motown was the industrial leader of the world; now Detroit is a ghost town. On Internet time it won’t take that long for the duopoly to gut themselves and us if we let them.

There is not a duopoly, and will not be — unless the “network neutrality” regulation you advocate is passed. If it is, it will destroy the small competitors which are trying to grow to compete with the telephone and cable companies, leaving a duopoly.

You are working against your own cause.

So let’s use the Internet to stop them.

…because we’re all evil, right?

Perhaps we should use the Internet to expose the REAL truth about this matter, which is that network “neutrality” regulation (which is not, in fact, neutral at all) would do great harm to innovation and hence to everyone on the Internet except for a few large content providers.

–Brett Glass

[Note: This comment comes from reader John Quarterman. DLH]

Subject: Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:21:13 -0500
To: dewayne-net@warpspeed.com
From: “John S. Quarterman” <jsq@quarterman.org>

Bob is right about the right’s story, and that works for the right, because the right is about tribal us against them.

But to win on matters like net neutrality a more inclusive story is needed, non-zero-sum, participatory, about community. Because that’s what the Internet enables: participation on a scale never before seen, fueling innovation that increases the size of the pie for everyone. This “we” which really is all of us does deserve participation because we really do all work for it, even if we’re only chatting on facebook. We are bigger than the right wing we: we are large, we contain multitudes.

This is not to say such stories can’t include enemies. Barbarians at the gates would work well against teabaggers, and clueless dupes even better. Fox makes hay claiming Congress has been bought off by health insurers, but neglects to mention that opponents of health care reform are among the biggest recipients of health insurance company contributions. Proponents could have (and still could) play up those angles.

This is all relevant to net neutrality. What industry spends even more lobbying Congress than health insurers? Telecoms.

And net neutrality and Internet freedom and participation and innovation, and even more the sorts of radical rethinking that Bob proposes, getting rid of the telecommunications mindset and getting into radically decentralized participation; all these are about the mutually-benevolent community against fat cat corruption.

Hell, we’re even trying to help the telecoms! On the path they’re on, they’ll end up being like GM when NTT comes in and sells 100Mbps FTTH that actually works for a reasonable price. 50 years ago Motown was the industrial leader of the world; now Detroit is a ghost town. On Internet time it won’t take that long for the duopoly to gut themselves and us if we let them. So let’s use the Internet to stop them.

There’s a story I don’t see told often enough.

-jsq

PS: See Robert Reich about the Four Stories of American Life: <http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-vs-mccain-and-four-stories-of.html>

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:55:40 -0800
From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks)
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools

[Note: This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: December 20, 2009 1:24:32 PM PST
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] No One Is Going To Save You Fools

The problem is that organization is not enough. You need a story that people
want to believe. As the Palinists and Fox TV have shown it matters little
whether it makes sense. All that matter is that it be simplistic and
comforting and unites “us” against “them”. After all, if it’s their fault
then “we” have no burden nor any need to make tradeoffs. And if it’s their
fault “we” can do no wrong by definition. Even better when we know that “we”
are just like the rich — well, as soon as we are blessed by the great
lottery in the sky because “we” deserve it.

No One Is Going To Save You Fools

by thereisnospoon
Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 04:28:17 PM PST
<http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools>

Before I explain the generic insult, let me first make something perfectly clear: I am your enemy. That you don’t know this is understandable: after all, people like me prefer it that way. But until you understand just what you’re up against and why, you’re going to continue to lose, and look like fools in the process.

Barack Obama has indeed sold you out. He and many of his Democratic colleagues have sold you out on healthcare, and they’ve sold you out on financial reform. You were looking for a savior, and you’ve been had–not an altogether atypical result for those looking for a strong leader to “save” them.

He hasn’t done this because he’s a bad guy. In fact, he’s a great guy. I think he’s doing pretty much the best job he can. He’s sold you out because he’s not afraid of you. And really, if I may be so bold, he shouldn’t be afraid of you. You don’t know who really runs the show, and you’re far too fickle and manipulable to count on.

The first thing you need to understand about healthcare reform is what Jane Hamsher identified long ago:nothing–absolutely nothing–is going to trump the White House’s deal with PhRMA and the insurance industry. The question you need to ask yourselves is: why? If you’re intellectually mature enough to get past “personal betrayal” as your best answer, you’ll be on the right track.

While you ponder that one, you might want to also consider why nothing has been done–nor will anything serious actually be done–about financial industry reform. Standing up to the financial industry in the current political environment should be a no-brainer. So what in the heck is going on here? If you can think past shadowy conspiracy theories and possible personal enrichment for the Obama family, you’ll be doing the kind of thinking that will help actually solve the problem.

[snip]

[Note: This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: December 20, 2009 1:24:32 PM PST
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] No One Is Going To Save You Fools

The problem is that organization is not enough. You need a story that people
want to believe. As the Palinists and Fox TV have shown it matters little
whether it makes sense. All that matter is that it be simplistic and
comforting and unites “us” against “them”. After all, if it’s their fault
then “we” have no burden nor any need to make tradeoffs. And if it’s their
fault “we” can do no wrong by definition. Even better when we know that “we”
are just like the rich — well, as soon as we are blessed by the great
lottery in the sky because “we” deserve it.

[Note: This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: December 16, 2009 11:03:00 AM PST
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Ronald Coase and the radio spectrum

I already responded <http://rmf.vc/?n=SpectrumDirt>. Why are we do we continue to try to wrangle spectrum into shape when we can move past the idea to what I’m now calling a “bit commons”?

I do wonder what “unlicensed bands, but they have proven ineffective for the most valued wireless applications” means. What are the “most valued wireless applications”? And what failed and why? Sure the cellular system is a success but how much better would it be if we didn’t allocate bands to those who forced us go through the constrictions of distant towers just to generate a billable event?

So economists are trying to do less bad but is that good enough?

(I couldn’t get past the FT registration mechanism — perhaps eventually they’ll send me the acknowledgment message so I can login).

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]

From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: December 13, 2009 6:04:05 PM PST
To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, dewayne@warpspeed.com
Subject: Carbon Dioxide to fuel

Bacteria Engineered to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) — Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.

In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.

The research appears in the Dec. 9 print edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology and is available online.

This new method has two advantages for the long-term, global-scale goal of achieving a cleaner and greener energy economy, the researchers say. First, it recycles carbon dioxide, reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Second, it uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can be used in the existing energy infrastructure, including in most automobiles.

While other alternatives to gasoline include deriving biofuels from plants or from algae, both of these processes require several intermediate steps before refinement into usable fuels.

“This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production,” said team leader James C. Liao, Chancellor’s Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA and associate director of the UCLA-Department of Energy Institute for Genomics and Proteomics. “Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach.”

[snip]

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm>
<http://snipurl.com/to4jn>