Tag Archives: economist

TV can’t represent all visible colors

gamutDo you know what “the gamut” is? Until I read this article on laser digital-cinema projectors I didn’t either.

Apparently “the gamut” is the range of colors visible to the human eye.

Modern TV sets can only produce about 50% of the colors that we are able to see! Traditional cinema film comes in at 60% of visible colors – a big improvement but with plenty of room for further improvement.

The image alongside shows a representation of the gamut and the subsets of that space that we routinely see. There are plenty of colors that can’t be represented on our screens.

The article discusses an ingenious system using laser film projectors that is able to produce images with up to 90% of the gamut. Very cool – I can’t wait to watch a movie using that system.

Internet traffic statistics

This is an Economist article about whether the internet can survive rocketing traffic or not. It argues (well) that in fact infrastructure easily keeps up with increasing traffic requirements.

However, there were quite a few cool facts and statistics peppered around the article:

  • YouTube alone generated more traffic in 2006 than the entire internet in 2000! Imagine what it’s like now…
  • It is estimated that 50-60% of all internet traffic today is video. That has already been the case for three years
  • Global internet traffic is between 5 and 8 exabytes. An exabyte is 1 billion (1,000,000,000) gigabytes!

That’s a lot of 1’s and 0’s. It’s going to be fun

ANC gets nailed in the Western Cape

The Economist has this article summarizing for the rest of the world what is going on with ANC and COPE. Specifically what kicked off the article was the ass-kicking handed to the ANC by COPE and DA in the Western Cape.

One of my point-form summaries:

  • 27 Western Cape seats were recently contested in the Western Cape
    • The ANC had held all of them, but lost all but 3
    • The ANC didn’t contest 12 of the seats (through incompetence) so they outright lost 12 of the 15 that they did contest
    • COPE won 10 of the seats and the DA won 9
  • The formation of COPE has much to do with “personal interests and ambitions”
    • It is observed that COPE was formed by those who were squeezed out of power when Zuma came in
    • These are the same people who thought the ANC was fine until they lost power
  • Either way, COPE should benefit South Africa by:
    1. Offering black voters more choice
    2. Weakening the hapless ANC

Hands-free: not so safe after all

hands-freeThe Economist has an article outlining an experimental result that I found surprising: using a hands-free for chatting in the car significantly impairs driving ability.

What makes this surprising to me is that an earlier study had shown that chatting to a passenger in the car does not impact driving ability.

Why would chatting to someone in person be OK but chatting on a hands-free have a big impact on your reactions?

I think that this may have something to do with context. A passenger understands a break in conversation when the driver needs to concentrate on something. More experiments are needed…

Another experiment showed that listening to someone talking has no impact on driving ability – even when subjects knew they would later be tested. So the problem clearly arises when drivers must think of responses.

PS. The researchers found that having a passenger was safer because the passenger would comment on things happening on the road.

Feral hogs: not cute

The Economist has an interesting article on feral hogs in the states. Apparently there are between 4 and 5 million formerly domestic pigs living wild in the States.

They are brutal, fertile, adaptable and intelligent so they spread quickly and leave a wake of destruction. Some get truly enormous – you may have heard of Hogzilla, a monumental individual weighing several hundred kilograms (pictured).

The problem started when the Spanish conquistadors released some of their herds while traveling across the Americas.

Since then problem has become so severe that many States have a shoot on site policy. Other States encourage trapping, poisoning specially trained “Hog dogs” and even hunting from helicopters!

Being dirty makes you more ethical

The Economist has this article about a recent study showing that washing makes people view unethical activities as more acceptable. In other words being physically clean makes you more morally relaxed!

Judging moral strictness
The ‘moral strictness’ of the test subjects was tested by asking them to rate a series of acts on an ethical scale (from perfectly okay to very wrong). The activities being rated ranged from “taking money found in a lost wallet, via eating a family’s dead dog to avoid starvation, to using a kitten for sexual arousal.”

Experiment 1
In one experiment test subjects were given sentences to unscramble. Half were given neutral words only, and half were given words like “washed”, “clean” and “immaculate”.

Experiment 2
In the second experiment all test subjects were shown a 3 minute clip from Trainspotting to “incite feelings of disgust”. Half of the subjects were then told to wash their hands while half were not.

Results
In both experiments the test subjects who were clean (or thinking about being clean) rated activities as more morally acceptable.

My theory
If you read my post on the truth about morality (it’s long but I highly recommend it) then you will know that humans have a group of ‘moral instincts’. Five moral areas that come instinctively to almost all humans across all cultures.

One of those moral instincts is purity (avoiding being dirty). So when the test subjects were dirty or thinking about being dirty the purity moral instinct was triggered thereby heightening activity in the moral centers of the brain.

So when the other moral instincts (like fairness) were tested during the rating phase of the experiments the moral centers of the brain were already active and the subjects were morally stricter.

Swaziland – not ideal

King Mswati IIIThe Economist has this short article on what a circus Swaziland is. The tiny country (population 1m) that we hardly ever even notice is badly run by King Mswati III who wields absolute power.

Here are some facts from the article:

  • All political parties are banned in Swaziland
  • The leader of the opposition (People’s United Democratic Movement) is behind bars
  • Most of the country is dirt poor and ravaged by AIDS but the King and his family live a fabulously lavish lifestyle

The place is an absolute dog show, but you won’t hear a peep of criticism from our leaders.

Stones in glass houses perhaps?

Confirming the broken windows effect

The Economist has this article about a study confirming the ‘broken windows effect‘ Basically the idea is that “observing disorder can have a psychological effect on people”.

The “tendency for people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened depending on what they observe others to be doing.”

This makes intuitive sense to me. I even see it with dirty dishes. If a few dishes accumulate in the sink then we are more likely to let more accumulate there. Before you know it, leaving a couple of dirty dishes in the sink has lead to a sink full of dirty dishes.

When applied to policing, the idea is that by getting on top of petty crimes like graffiti, littering police can prevent other crimes. It makes intuitive sense but had not actually been proven – until now.

Read the article for details on the experiments (which were quite clever).

The first experiment involved observing people passing through an alley. Some littering was observed when the alley was freshly painted but littering was more than doubled in the same alley when the walls were tagged with graffiti.

Another experiment showed that letting off fireworks during a time when they are prohibited increased littering substantially.

In the final experiment people were twice as likely to steal €5 from a postbox if the postbox was covered in graffiti. The same increase was even observed when the postbox was clear but there was litter around it!

Amazing.

Another example of evolution in action

Dung Beetles on the road to speciation

Dung beetles – evolving

One of the lies frequently used to refute evolution is that it can’t be seen happening. That argument is, of course, both irrelevant and untrue.

Evolution is routinely observed in action and a recently published paper (reported in The Economist) has illustrated yet another case. What I like about this case is that it illustrates speciation.

Speciation is more than an animal evolving a trait (like a longer tail, or bigger teeth) but rather a single species evolving into two different species. The resulting species are unable to interbreed and will go on to evolve completely separately – just has humans and chimps have evolved separately since their own ancient split.

The object of the study was the humble dung beetle, or rather a specific species of dung beetle which has recently split into four species. The beetles in question were introduced into eastern Australia, western Australia and North Carolina within the last 50 years.

Since then (through a fascinating mechanism that has to do with the relationships between horn, penis and vagina sizes – read the article for more detail) the different populations have developed to the point where they are (or very nearly are) completely different species.

Well within a human lifetime. Take that.

Diagnosing by smell

The Economist has this interesting article on an emerging field called ‘olfactory diagnostics’. Basically diagnosing ills by analyzing the air exhaled by patients. It has already been shown that more than 3,000 compounds are regularly exhaled, excreted or exuded from the human body.

By analyzing these compounds and their relative quantities a surprising amount of information can be gained. For example specially trained dogs have been diagnosing bladder cancer for years. However, advances are now being made in order to automate and increase the diagnoses possible.

It is plausible that in future incredible amounts of information could be gleaned through analysis of the air we exhale. Imagine the privacy concerns if, for instance, your employer could learn about your eating habits and possible health problems by analyzing the air you exhale at work.