NASA’s Kepler mission has discovered over 1,200 possible planets outside our solar system. The tally includes 54 planets in the “habitable zone” of their star – the area where conditions for life as we know it are present. Of those 54 potential planets, five are about the size of Earth. Here is a very nicely done animation of all the planet candidates found mapped to our own solar system.

I say possible planets here because of the way Kepler detects potential planets. The space telescope measures very small decreases in the brightness of stars as the object passes in front of them (that is, in between the star and Kepler). The potential candidates for planets are all of these decreases in brightness, but they have to be checked using other methods to make sure there isn’t some other explanation for them. One method of verification is to wait for three transits of the planet in front of the star, but this could tak as much as three years, since it depends on the length of the planet’s year.

This is extremely exciting stuff (NPR called it “historic“) because Kepler was only looking at a small portion of the sky (see the “field of view” animation on the NPR page) and it can only see a small portion of the planets that might be in that little portion (since the planets have to be in an orbit that puts them between the star and the telescope). The following comment by MeFite eriko sums up the significance of this nicely:

What Kepler has done is told us, quite simpl[y], that planetary systems are not rare at all. It’s estimate[d] that Kepler is watching 145,000 main sequence stars, and in four months, has candidates around 997 of them. That’s .6% of the stars in view. If we assume that percentage, it means that there are 600 million to 2.4 billion planetary systems in our Galaxy.

Just amazing. And we can be certain that Kepler won’t see all of the planetary systems in its field of view — any system where the planets don’t eclipse the star from our point of view is completely undetectable by Kepler. If a copy of our system was placed in the field of view, with only the Earth in it’s normal orbit, there’s a .47% chance that the ecliptic would be in plane enough for us to observe the transit and detect the Earth. This chance varies some by the size of the planet and a great deal by the distance — close in planets will be much more likely to have visible transits. Assume that 5% of the systems with planets are correctly aligned so that we see transits.

That means, now, that those 600M to 2.4B systems represent 5% of the total, and we’re now looking at 12 billion to 48 billion planetary systems in our Galaxy — out of a total of 100 to 400 billion stars. Assume half the lower number, 6 billion planetary systems per galaxy. Current estimates of number of galaxies in the observable universe is on the order of 150 billion, so at 6 billion planetary systems per, that’ s 900 billion planetary systems in the universe.

And that’s a lower bound!

I can’t help but think about what news like this means to people who think we are alone in the universe, or specially created. Even without further proof, it is like maintaining the idea that you “know” you are going to win the lottery, and then win again several times in a row.

The NYT has a curiously titled article on the adoption of iPads by schools as a teaching device. It seems that school administrators are rushing to include the devices in their schools, but some people have their doubts about them. On the one hand you have educational experts questioning the efficacy of iPads versus traditional teaching methods and on the other hand there are people questioning why schools are buying Apple’s product rather than the raft of cheaper options out there. (2011 is already being touted as the year of the tablet after the preponderance of the category at CES, so perhaps the brand dependence will shift in the future)

I predict that the use of iPads, or other tablet computers, will make the job of educators easier, but won’t in and of itself improve educational outcomes. In other words, I’ve reached the (rather boring) conclusion that tablets have potential in the classroom, but only if they are used in the proper way.

What I expected to read in an article entitled “Math That Moves…” was something more along the lines of this TEDxNYC talk by Dan Meyer. [ted id=855]

In his talk, Mr. Meyer rails against the dumbed-down, by-rote, and thus entirely unappealing, didactic strategies that are in almost every math text used in our schools today. He focuses instead on getting students to think about real-world problems and how they can find out answers. Hint: use math. Notice how Meyer uses video to illustrate a concrete example of where math is useful in real life. This is exactly the place where iPads or similar devices could be a boon, providing rich, multi-modal educational experiences. How many of those thousands of apps actually do that?

In a recent blog post on NetSquared, Joe Solomon imagines the course of non-profits, social media and activism in the year ahead. His vision is really a call for people to make a shift from online organizing to offline in-person activism. In effect, Mr.Solomon is echoing the sentiments of Malcolm Gladwell, whose recent article in the New Yorker, Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted, pointed out the need and precedents for real social change happening in offline movements. In other words, the big social movements of history happen in real life, not on social networking sites.

I think there is a great deal of truth behind this statement, but it also belies a bit of old-fashioned fussiness over the sudden popularity of social media. Mr. Gladwell makes the case that online social networks involve low-strength connections – some to people you’ve never met- while actual revolutions involve smaller numbers of very strong connections – to best friends, family or tribe. Both writers take issue with the hype over social media as a force for change. Gladwell shows a study that proves that there was no “Twitter revolution” after the elections in Iran and Solomon criticizes a bevy of start-up “social networks for good” that fizzled.

There are two things wrong with this discussion, despite its necessity. One, hype is and always will be hype. A lot of social network startups are for-profit enterprises. They need a certain amount of boosterism to create the interest in, and the clients for, their products. We shouldn’t believe everything they tell us about how they are life-changing,course-of-history determining phenomena. Nor should we paint them with broad strokes as only weak connections of little worth. Two, some of those social networks, notably Change.org, have adapted to the needs and expectations of the activist social network sector. Change.org, and any other organization that is smart enough to know how to actually effect change, knows that there is a time and a place for online and offline activism and that one can sometimes bolster the other. They are changing their models to be able to provide non-profits with the right set of connections to drive their activist agendas. Mr. Solomon may want to revisit what some of those organizations are currently up to because they’ve either evolved into something that embraces real world change supplemented by online tools or they’ve fallen by the wayside.

I’m not entirely convinced that social media needs to try to move into the world of in-person interactions (Change.org merging with Meetup). Rather, existing social networks should continue doing what they are doing – serving as tools that connect the right people to the right causes. Social media does an amazing job as a communication platform, not so much as a revolutionary leader. The revolution will be tweeted – but only after it happens, by the activists who want to broadcast their offline success to their online supporters.

It was heartening to see the Clinton-era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy repealed this weekend. I just don’t understand how such tacit, irrational discrimination could have existed for so long.  I’m happy to see one small step toward social justice made; it renews the spirit to keep pushing for the myriad more steps that need to be taken. Not surprisingly, old guard privileged white men, like John McCain, still maintained opposition to it. (The more I learn about McCain’s” beliefs“, the closer he approaches Palin in my increasingly lower estimation. I’m so glad we collectively dodged that bullet.) Thankfully, Congress ignored this minority of bigots in favor of the large majority of almost every pertinent group, including top military brass and even people against gays in the military,  that wanted to get rid of this broken policy.

Jason Linkin at the Huffington Post had an eloquent and moving response to the repeal. One thing that I learned from that article was that DADT was originally implemented after a gay U.S. Navy radioman was killed –beaten to death – by his fellow servicemen. This happened almost two decades ago and yet people are only now waking up to the very real danger of hate crimes against homosexuals – in the military and the general populace.

Now that a policy that the vast majority of people wanted repealed is gone, Congress will rest assured that it carried out the will of the people and get on with its other pressing business with lucid rationality, right? Oh, wait, I forgot we’re talking about Congress here.

Shortly after I changed the brake pads and rear rotors (I’m planning on soon writing a walkthrough of that process) of my beloved Volvo 740 station wagon, she has kicked the bucket. It happened as I was accelerating to speed on a freeway on-ramp. The engine suddenly went “limp” – there was no power when I pushed on the gas. Later I was to find that this was due to a loss of compression. I managed to get safely off the freeway (fortunately,  it was the middle of the night and there was no traffic) and into a gas station at 51st and Telegraph (unfortunately, it was the middle of the night).

May car has the non-turbo 16-valve engine (B234F version). The engine is built in such a way that the pistons and the valves operate in the same space. This is called an “interference” engine because the pistons and the valves can interfere with, that is hit, one another. They don’t hit each other,normally, because of the control of the timing (when the pistons are firing,when valves are opening to let things in or out). My timing belt was due to be replaced, and it was something I was thinking about doing because this is a notorious problem with these 740s. I didn’t and the timing went out of whack. What I felt on the freeway was a loss of compression because some of the valves are open when things should be closed for the combustion explosion and pretty quickly the valves were getting bent from hitting the pistons. I could swear I could actually hear this when I later stood outside the car as the mechanic turned the engine over a few times.

I had it towed to XYZ Motors. The very friendly and helpful mechanic there was a big fan of Volvos. He had even owned my particular model at one point. What he told me after he looked at it was that it would take $400 to replace the timing belt so that he could test for where the compression was being compromised- at which point we’d almost surely find that some of the valves were bent. It’s about  $1000 job to fix the bent valves. I bought the car for $1500. So, it was now not worth the money to fix it.

Someone mechanically inclined might have wanted it for parts, or they could even try to do the valve job themselves and sell it. I had to try to figure out a way to get rid of it. A somewhat sad task, but it presented some interesting options to choose from – sell it myself, donate it to charity or sell it to a salvage yard. After doing some research, here’s what I found my options were:

1. Selling it myself. I put it up on craigslist for $450 OBO. There was, obviously no guarantee as to when I would sell it or what the final price would be. I was advised by mechanic that the type of guy who would buy it in that condition and for that price, would haggle, waffle, and generally be a PITA. I had only one non-committal response before I actually got rid of it. Afterward, a couple of people asked some questions before I had a chance to take the posting down.
2. Offered $217 to let Pick-n-pull come tow it away. Paid by check.
3. Offered $250, again by check, if I delivered it to Pick-n-pull. I have AAA which gives me free towing within 5 mi. radius, but the local yard for PnP is 7.5 miles away. I’m unsure how they charge for the additional miles, but let’s assume it’s a per additional mile surcharge. Another unknown; will it be more or less than $33?
4. Offered $100 cash. I found the cash offers bemusing. It is either an admission of the salvage yard’s shady nature (you shouldn’t trust our checks) or an insult to the seller (you don’t have a bank account).
5. Offered $500 tax-deductible donation voucher and two stays of three nights at a four-star hotel of my choosing across the country. (added value: the car goes to some charity, which they didn’t name)
6. $75 cash money and one stay at four-star hotel. (from a towing company, not a charity)

I don’t really know about the hotel business, that was really surprising and what made me think the whole situation was interesting. I searched on the FatWallet forums and found that another place KarsforKids, offers a hotel stay with some pretty ridiculous conditions. Viz,

1. Activation form must be returned along with a $50
refundable deposit. The postmark date must be
within 30 days of issue date.

2. Upon receipt of your deposit and activation form, you will be mailed an activation welcome letter
providing information about booking procedures & contact telephone number
to call when you are ready to make your reservations.
…

8. Please be aware that if you choose to take advantage
of the Bonus Travel Offers, a $10 processing fee will be deducted from your refundable deposit.

It sounds not quite like a scam, but a process so convoluted that most people won’t follow through. It’s broken by design.

So, what was the best choice?

I pondered the options, but since I don’t expect a big tax burden this year, I went with the $217 check. I could have risked paying a bit more for the towing, but this was the least hassle. Best of all, I didn’t even have to produce the title (which is in L.A.).  When you’re selling a car, you can just fill out the transfer of title paperwork instead of getting a replacement title. The salvage yard looked up some information to verify that I did indeed own the vehicle.

Days later I watched as the car I’ve lovingly maintained and improved since early 2008 was loaded on a flat bed tow truck. I had a few emotional moments, mostly as I was cleaning it out, but I was surprised to find that I just didn’t get overwhelmed by sentimental feelings. I mean, in the end, it’s just a car – a car that took me places I’d never been, sheltered me in the cold and wet, brought me in contact with some wonderful people, made me some money and cost me a bunch more. But still, a car.