Coming: A Digital Library Network

Digital Library Gets $1 Million to Open Online Access

InnovationNewsDaily Staff
31 July 2012

Both summer reading and serious scholarly research could get a lot easier with the Digital Public Library of America. That visionary project has received $1 million to help make library materials freely available online to anyone.

The open-access digital library plans to use the $1 million award from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to build a single "sky-way with global access ramps" that reaches digital library collections across the nation. The project would also free up resources for local libraries to focus on community needs and activities catering to neighborhood kids and adults.

"The Digital Public Library of America is an ambitious effort to create a national digital library system that will make the cultural heritage of the United States available to anyone with access to the Internet," said Jim Leach, chairman of NEH.

The digital library faces huge challenges in giving everyone equal access — people speaking different languages, netizens with faster or slower Internet connections, and even the visually impaired. A mobile-friendly version would also make the library accessible to the growing swarm of smartphone Internet surfers.

Any plan for the digital public library must also figure out possible copyright issues if it wants to lend materials not in the public domain, Leach said.

Online library collections in Europe and Asia provide some ideas for how much the U.S. digital public library costs. The Europeana project has operating costs of about $5 million to $10 million each year, but that figure could rise by as much as ten times depending on the amount of text, video or audio that requires digital scanning.

The National Digital Library of South Korea represents another high-tech model for the U.S. with a physical building located in Seoul that has touch-screen tabletops and a computer lab accessible in five languages.

The $112 million facility opened with 390,000 digitized books, and plans to expand its collection at a cost of $1.2 million per year.

Dreams for the U.S. digital public library remain far from certain, but the $1 million award goes a long way toward getting beyond the talking stage and pushing it closer to reality.

http://www.technewsdaily.com/4628-digital-library-million-open.html

The Problem with Solar Power

Natural Gas, Not Corporations,

Killing Solar Power

Posted by Tom Hartsfield [writer of the "Newton Blog"]

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 (RealClearScience) -- Why aren't the deserts and prairies of our country plastered with solar panels? Why don't we turn on all of our appliances knowing that we are relying only on the billions of years of constantly replenished light that our sun will provide us? Isn't the price of solar power going down? What is going on?

Indeed, every year since solar photovoltaic (PV) cells began to be manufactured, they have dropped in cost and increased in performance. The ultimate measure of a PV cell is the price you pay to generate a certain amount of electricity with it.

The measure commonly used for all energy sources is cost per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh), which is the cost of producing 1000 watts of power for one hour. This is not the total price that you as a consumer pay for electricity (unless you make your own power), but the price that the power company pays to make it. They make their profit by selling it to you at a higher price.

                     Approximate Current Energy Costs

Right now, producing one kWh of electricity via solar energy costs the power company somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.20. This is an improvement over five years ago, when the cost was closer to $0.30-$0.40 and certainly an improvement over 20 years ago when the cost was around $0.60 per kWh.

There is a problem however. Energy produced from those giant propellers that dot the landscape of Wyoming, Texas and the California coast can produce electricity for $0.09/kWh. This is currently the cheapest widespread renewable energy resource.

So what are the fossil fuel prices? Here lies the real rub.

Burning coal to produce energy costs only $0.05/kWh. The real kicker though, is natural gas, which can be used to produce electricity for even less than $0.04/kWh. The bottom has dropped out of natural gas prices over the past four years. Gas costs less than one quarter of what it did in 2008.

So long as natural gas stays this cheap, and with the advent of advanced hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") techniques it may remain cheap for years (and maybe even decades). Thus, it will take solar a while to become competitive in the free market.

As much as we would all love to see solar power become the primary source of domestic energy, it will be at least several more years before this becomes cost-effective. When might this time be reached?

Well, the price has been dropping continuously for three decades, and it is reasonable to assume that it will keep doing so. Solar cell technology relies on the semiconductor industry, which has a stellar record of progress: cheaper and faster every year like clockwork since 1970. 
However, exact predictions are very hard to make and many "experts" have predicted that we would have reached this point already. Optimistic predictions say that by the end of the decade we may arrive. Is this true?
Impossible to say.

Whether solar ever reaches market price will depend as much on the cost of other energy sources as on progress in the field. With natural gas so cheap, I would not bet on it for 10 more years.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/08/natural-gas-not-corporations-killing-solar-power-1.html

Comments by the Blog Author

The post above is unedited from RealClearScience. But it is worthwhile to go to the link anyway to carefully read at the comments. The responses to this Newton’s Blog topic have to be coming from engineers, and the picture that they paint makes it seem that solar power has a huge, perhaps impossible, hurdle to jump in order to become competitive with natural gas for the commercial production of electricity. As a collection of remarks, the comments make a strong, commonsensical argument for using natural gas and nuclear power to generate electricity.

Some Cancers May Have Stem Cells

Experiments with mice are looking into the possibility of cancer stem cells. Though stem cells are the basis for growing healthy cells in the human body, there are researchers who think malignant stem cells exist as well. It is speculated that these cancer stem cells create tumors and can grow back after resisting treatment. Lisa Esposite of HealthDay reports that three experiments with mice indicate the progress made in this area.

One study, reported in the August 1^st edition of Nature, involves mice with glioblastoma, a lethal malignant brain tumor. A gene was developed that is only active in healthy adult brains and market it with a florescent protein so it could be observed. A specific virus gene was added – one that self-destructs if treated with acyclovir, a drug.

The transgene was placed in mice engineered to develop glioblastoma, and for every mouse, part of the malignant brain tumor cells were green Then the mice with tumors were given acyclovir – and the tumors stopped growing.

In another experiment, the drug temozolomide was given to mice with tumors. The drug got rid of all currently dividing tumor cells – but when the therapy stopped, the cells resumed dividing. The tumors marked with green to show they behave similar to stem cells were not eradicated.
In a third experiment, temozolomide was administered to eliminate highly dividing cells and ganciclovir was also administered to get rid of stem cells. When both drugs were used, tumors were unable to form.

So the theory has been formed that for a solid tumor formed by cancer stem cells in a hierarchical fashion, it is critical to provide themotherapy to the cancer stem cells, a researcher has noted. This research is in its early stages and is not applicable to cancers other than glioblastoma.
Another study in the same issue of Nature found that, in Brussels, a subset of tumor cells in mice with squamous skin cancer seemed to function in a manner similar to the stem cells of normal tissue.

And Dutch researchers examining the intestinal tumors of mice, in a study found in the August 1^st issue of Science, found indications of possible cancer stem cells.

Unlike some earlier studies, the research above has been examining tumors in their natural environment (not tumors transplanted into the animals). Some studies are already under way to target new drugs to cancer stem cells.

Summarized from:

http://news.yahoo.com/evidence-grows-cancer-own-stem-cells-180411937.html?_esi=1

A New Brady Bunch TV Show

The Brady Bunch looks like it is coming back to American television:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/-the-brady-bunch--reboot-produced-by-vince-vaughn-in-development-at-cbs.html

Comments by the Blog Author

Just over thirty years ago, around 1981, there was an article in Esquire magazine that included the profound statement: "Life imitates both art and schlock." This means that life mirrors art, but it also mirrors bad art, corny art, in a word – schlock.

So it is easy to state that CBS, greedy for a large audience, will resurrect a show from forty years ago and put it on in spite of the inartistic nature of the situation behind the situation comedy. That is the kind of business television is, and everyone knows this, so it isn’t worth commenting on.

Yet this is too glib and too quick. The Brady Bunch was a trite show about a widower with three sons who marries a divorcee with three daughters. This shallow comedic situation lasted for five years on the air! It stayed shallow in spite of the talent of the lead actors.

Florence Henderson began her career on Broadway, playing significant roles.

Ann B. Davis was nominated for four Emmys and won two of them for her work with Bob Cummings on his television show in the late 1950s.

Robert Reed was a serious Shakespearean actor who had worked for four years with E.G. Marshall on The Defenders TV show as well as appearing in Neil Simon’s play, Barefoot in the Park.  He was not always happy with the shallow show where he played the father from 1969 to 1974:
"From the beginning of The Brady Bunch, Reed was unhappy with his role of Mike Brady. He felt that acting in the often silly sitcom was beneath his serious Shakespearean training. Despite his discontent with the show, he genuinely liked his co-stars and was a beloved father figure to the younger cast members. In his efforts to bring more realism to the show, Reed often locked horns with the show's creator and executive producer, Sherwood Schwartz. Reed presented Schwartz with hand-written memorandums detailing why a certain character's motivation did not make sense or why it was wrong to combine elements of farce and satire.

"Reed was particularly appalled by show's series finale, "The Hair-Brained Scheme". He sent Schwartz a memo picking apart the episode, but Schwartz did not receive the memo promptly enough to change the show as Reed wanted. As a result, Reed refused to appear in the episode altogether. Though Schwartz fired Reed from the series, the show ended up being cancelled shortly thereafter."-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reed

Wikipedia also notes that Reed never abandoned his occasional appearances as a police lieutenant on Mannix, a show with a longer run on the air (1967-1975).

Henderson and Davis weren’t as combative as Reed, but all three of them knew what they were doing as professional actors. They stuck with a silly sit-com because it was working and it kept them on the air as stars.

They were on the air together at the exact time, 1969 through 1974, when
Richard Nixon was president. They entertained America during the last years of the Vietnam war, the incident where the Ohio National Guard shot dead protesters at Kent State in May of 1970, the Cambodian incursion, the 1972 presidential election and the Watergate scandal. The show went off the air a few weeks after Nixon resigned. I think we can make an inference here that The Brady Bunch was intentional shlock, intentional fluff, in a word, escapism.

And this leads me to jump to another snap judgment. The Brady Bunch is being considered by CBS as a new show four decades later because it is tailor made for escapism. CBS has a history of masterful escapism (I give you three Paul Henning 1960s creations: The Beverly Hillbillies, spin-off Petticoat Junction and double spin-off Green Acres as examples).

Why would CBS dive into escapist comedy in 2013?

• America is running annual deficits over $1 trillion with no end in sight

• 2012 is providing a tedious and ruthlessly uninteresting presidential election

• A lower percentage of adult Americans are working than at any time since the inception of records for this statistic

• Network television is in trouble and continues to lose audience share

• The nation has been in Afghanistan for eleven full years and counting

• The conflict of uniting a family through a new marriage has become normal

So I think CBS is willing to bet that it will get enough chuckles to win the time slot.

Justin Bieber's Brilliant Backhanding

By the blog author

I’ve never met Justin Bieber and I probably never will. He’s more than a full generation younger than I am. Further, he, personally, listens to hip-hop, which I am cool-to-cold about. But he makes a lot of money, which is the connection, because I know how to count money unemotionally. I’d tell him to "lock up a couple of million a year that you can’t touch until you’re 50. And get into motion pictures for a piece of the gross – and start with comedies!" I’d also tell him not to sin (with drugs and misconduct) against his unique and genuine talent.  Finally, I'd stare at him and tell him never to drop his boyhood friends from Ontario.

Young Justin Bieber is a huge success in the entertainment business. Not only is he grossing $50 million a year, but he is a household word, his picture is on the news stands constantly, and he is an idol to tween and teenaged girls, a market segment that buys more music than any other group. He’s swamped by the paparazzi. He can only give concerts in halls filled with seats, as a bare floor might provoke a stampede.

He also provokes heroic examples of resentment. A young woman invented a seduction to claim her fetus was Justin’s and should be supported by his music income. Many young men are green with envy about Bieber, invent all kinds of stories about him, and diss his name all the time. Some would like to see him taken down, humiliated, or beaten up.

One could almost – but not quite! -- say the same things about young Elvis Presley. Presley was idolized by girls and young women, and a substantial number of young men and boys disliked him. There was even a musical about America’s love/hate relationship with Presley, "Bye Bye Byrdie." Yet this is a dead end, because the analogy doesn’t hold up.

Presley strutted and used his vocal personae in front of a large professional band. Bieber has a range of three octaves (he works on it with daily practice) and the Beeb plays four instruments himself.

Bieber’s hero was and is Michael Jackson; he even copies some of Jackson’s famous choreography and dance moves. But his voice range is wider than Jackson’s. He sings dead on key without wavering, unlike Jackson.   And Bieber sings with vulnerability and grief in his voice when he deals with the subject of love.

Further, and impressively, Bieber has a professional attitude about music.  He's surrounded by pros and he asks a lot of  questions.

Lastly, he’s a fighter, like a brawling French Canadian lumberjack throwing chairs and tables around the bar to stop a crooked poker game. He didn’t lie down or ignore the young woman trying to extort paternity money from him. Beeb went on David Letterman and talked about it on the air and then wrote a song about being manipulated by this young woman.

The ill will of resentful teenage boys and young men is a touchy subject Bieber hasn’t left alone, either. Think about this current story and review of his latest video:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Justin Bieber’s New Video Takes Violent Turn

By Wendy Geller, Video GaGa

August 1, 2012 -- Can't stand Justin Bieber? He drives you so nuts, you'd love to punch him in the face?

Well, here's some good news for all you haters out there--the 18-year-old actually does gets beaten to a pulp, in his brand-new video released this week!

Yep, that's right: Fans and foes alike will have the pleasure (or agony, depending on which side you fall on) of seeing the Biebs bruised, bloody, and battered in the clip for his latest single, "As Long As You Love Me."

Those who don't quite despise--or adore--the superstar that much will nevertheless enjoy the video, which is shot in "short film" style and features actor Michael Madsen, whom movie buffs will recognize from Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill.

Madsen plays an overprotective father of a comely young lady that Bieber--naturally--is head-over-heels in love with. The clip opens up with a terse conversation between the two men: "I know what type of guy you are...I used to be the same thing," Madsen growls, before suggesting Bieber hit the highway and stay away from his baby. "Don't come back, 'cause if you do, it's not gonna be good for you."

Oh, boy. Better not cross this daddy--right?

But, of course, that's exactly what Bieber does, courting certain danger by convincing his lady love to run away with him. Shots of the singer sporting progressively darker bruises are cleverly interspersed with the action, until everything comes to a head and we actually get to see Madsen beating the stuffing out of the young punk who tried to steal his daughter away.

This is undoubtedly a dark turn for Bieber, which will certainly be construed by many as a message he's ready to leave his more innocent days behind him. It's probable that some of his fans may find the violence a little too much to take. However, the video also includes an awesomely choreographed sequence with a full cast of backup dancers in a parking lot, which is worth watching even for those who don't care for their teen heartthrobs...well, you know, like, dripping blood.

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/video-gaga/justin-bieber-video-takes-violent-turn-194341123.html

Mars Rover Lands in Five Days

Strange but True: The Sky Crane for Mars Rover "Curiosity"

By Dauna Coulter, edited by Dr. Tony Phillips

NASA, July 30, 2012 -- On August 5th at 10:31 p.m. Pacific Time, NASA will gently deposit their new, 2000-pound Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars, wheels-first and ready to roll.

Quite a feat – because it will come screaming through the Martian atmosphere at 13,000 mph.

Curiosity, aka the Mars Science Laboratory, will be the largest mission ever to land on another planet. It's big because it has a big mystery to solve: was Mars ever or is it still capable of harboring life?

During its grand entrance, the lander must slow to 1 1/2 mph to touch down safely. That kind of braking action for a one-ton payload demands the nail-bitingly precise unfolding of an intricately choreographed sequence of events. Key players: a red-hot heat shield, a huge parachute, 76 explosive bolts -- and a Sky Crane.

"The whole ballgame transpires within 7 minutes, from atmospheric entry to touch-down," says Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Steve Sell, Deputy Operations Lead for Entry, Descent, and Landing. "The onboard computer calls the shots. And if any one maneuver fails, it's game over."

Here's the game plan.

"Atmospheric friction slows the capsule containing Sky Crane -- an eight-rocket jetpack attached to the rover -- from 13000 to 1000 mph. [Mars' atmosphere is too thin to slow it more.] The friction burnishes the capsule's heat shield to a glowing 3800 degrees Fahrenheit (2100 degrees Celsius). Then a 60-foot diameter parachute deploys and inflates above the capsule on 160-foot lines. What's left of the heat shield jettisons, giving Curiosity its first look at its new home below."

This is the largest, strongest parachute ever flown to another world. It has to be a super-chute to handle the 65000 pounds of force produced when the rover snaps to attention below it.

"After the payload slows to about 200 mph, explosive bolts free the chute and Sky Crane free-falls for a second. Then its retrorockets fire."

The rockets slow the descent to 1 ½ mph and power a sideways parry to avoid the faster falling chute. As Sky Crane descends to 60 feet above Mars' surface, the rover inches down from underneath it on three nylon ropes like a spider spinning strands of its web. With Curiosity dangling 20 feet below, Sky Crane continues its downward progress until the rover is resting on the surface. Explosive bolts cut Curiosity's last physical attachments to the outside world, and Sky Crane flies away to death-plunge into the red sands, its incredible job done.

It might sound frighteningly complicated, "but what appears to be a complex system actually simplifies the landing greatly," explains Sell.

Previous missions such as Vikings I and II and the Mars Phoenix Lander used retrorockets to lower spacecraft all the way to the surface atop a legged lander. Others have used airbags. Neither method is feasible for Curiosity.

"With a payload this size, the rockets could kick up enough dust to compromise the rover and its instruments," explains Sell. "And the rockets could excavate craters Curiosity would have to avoid as it drives away. Add to that the risk of a big, heavy vehicle driving down off the lander via an exit ramp to reach the surface."

Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity used airbags to eliminate these concerns. But Curiosity is too large for airbags.

"Bags big enough to soften its landing would be too heavy or too costly to launch. Besides, you'd have to drop the payload so slowly for the bags to survive the load, you may as well place the rover right on its wheels."

Sky Crane, says Sell, makes sense for Curiosity. But it still keeps him up at night.

"I leave myself voicemails in the middle of the night about things to check in the morning. We've run thousands of tests and simulations, thinking of ways to 'break' the system so we can build in comfortable performance margins. We're still testing. There's always one more test we can run. We're always afraid we missed something."

In the control room at JPL the night of August 5th, it will be too late. It takes 14 minutes for signals to travel from Mars to Earth. When the team receives the signal 'I am entering the atmosphere,' Curiosity will be alive or dead on the surface.

Says Sell: "I'm already holding my breath."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/30jul_skycrane/

Pop Music Became Louder and Simpler

Researchers in Spain examined certain qualities of musical songs released from 1955 to 2010. Across the rock, pop, hip-hop, metal and electronic genres, the chord transitions, note combinations, tone and instrument choices were examined and all were found to become less diverse over time. Additionally, the recorded songs became louder with time.

In a paper published July 26 with the journal Scientific Reports, Joan Serra of the Spanish National Research Council noted, "In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations has consistently diminished in the last 50 years."

An internet summary of the results, reported on the internet by Natalie Wolchover of LiveScience.com, states that "startling chord transitions, unfamiliar instruments and variations in the volume over the course of a song played on the radio, runes today restrict themselves to the ‘fashionable’ set of chords and not combinations and maintain a uniformly high volume from beginning to end."

Many in the music business refer tot his as the "loudness war." Wolchover’s article noted that the researchers speculate that an old tune could be rerecorded with modern, increased loudness and with simpler chord progressions and instrument sonorities and be viewed as novel and fashionable.


Summarized from:

http://news.yahoo.com/pop-music-sounds-same-nowadays-171714762.html