Alan Kay rocks.

To those that are unfamiliar with the blue plane-pink plane concept, the concept may sound like an optics notion.

Fortunately, the idea is simultaneously more interesting, straightforward and yet complex.

The different planes are used as a visual model to describe the two major "planes", or ways of thinking, existent today.

Let us explore the meaning of the pink plane. It represents a more black and white way of portraying the universe. It declares that things are either right or wrong, they work or fail; it applauds discrete knowledge over reasoning and derivation of concepts. It is a plane of thought where math and science are memorized facts and equations.

The blue plane, on the other hand, can be described as perpendicular to the pink plane. The two planes might coincide on a line, where the same rules apply in the physical universe, and hence results can be the same, however the means is completely different. In this plane of thought, visualization of concepts and creativity can be used to accomplish what is accomplished in the pink plane by trite memorization.

It can be therefore shown that most advancement in any field has been accomplished by thought in the blue plane -- thought that in the pink plane would be deemed impossible or ridiculous.

You might agree, or disagree with the previous statements and arguments and ask, so what's the point of it all?

The questions I seek to answer are:

How can we learn to switch our universe into the blue plane? Can we learn to be "bi-planar" and support both schools of thought?

If the children are being instructed in the pink plane, can we teach them to think in the blue plane and live in a pink-plane society?

What is to become of those of us past schooling, who are aware of these planes? Are we to dredge on with pink shades over our blue eyes? What other choice do we have, become hermits and form our own seceded blue colony?

Blue Plane, Pink Plane

Suspecting that the problem might be with the flash memory, flight controllers radioed instructions for Spirit to start up in what Mr. Theisinger called the cripple mode, using only the RAM and not the flash memory. For the first time since Wednesday, the rover's software did not crash.

This is the first clear explanation I've read of the problems with Spirit.

Restoring a Red Rover's Spirit

Europe's Mars orbiter has detected evidence of water on the planet.

Scientists Say They Have Discovered Ice on Mars

Laying a broad basis for possible future prescriptions, the President's Council on Bioethics yesterday issued an analysis of how biotechnology could lead toward unintended and destructive ends.

I must express some suspicion of this given that we already understand what the administration's perspective of this is. Is this a search for answers, or a hammer looking for a nail?

Some of the NYT's quotes reveal a mixed bag:

For example, this makes sense to me:
"By medicalizing key elements of our life through biotechnical interventions," the report says, "we may weaken our sense of responsibility and agency."

We already do this in many different ways.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a more foolish luddism then this statement:

It concludes that "the human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement.' "

While the wording here is carefully chosen, the message is clear. Obviously there are risks. Everything has risks. It is important to understand risks and avoid them. But by waxing about the perfection of the human being and placing the word improvement in quotes, the author is not really referring to risk management. He stops short of arguing that all activity in this space would be counterproductive only because he can't prove that. He is saying that biotechnology is bad.

What this perspective ignores is that every single technological development in the history of man, from the first wooden spear to the space shuttle, has been an attempt to escape the boundaries of what nature has given us. That is, in fact, fundamentally what makes us human and what differs us from most other animals. We invent technologies which help us adapt to environmental pressures that other species cannot adapt to because they adapt at random and without will.

To claim that we have no reason to continue to expand the boundaries of our capabilities is the same sort of narcissistic bullshit that lead Fukuyama, who made large contributions to this paper, to conclude that we are at the end of political history. This perspective is absolutely ignorant of human nature.

Bush's Advisers on Biotechnology Express Concern on Its Use

The analysis indicates that language, on the evolutionary time scale, is a very recent development, having evolved only in the last 100,000 years or so.

NYT covers the Nature publication.

Language Gene Is Traced to Emergence of Humans

If research could prove useful in making biological weapons, does it belong in the public forum, or should it be suppressed by scientists or the government?

Sept. 11 Strikes at Labs' Doors

Don Kennedy, editor at _Science_, argues against such a proposal.

For the record, the computer security industry has already covered this problem. There may be some lessons there.

1. People often publish for the purpose of recognition. When you are dealing with sensitive subjects some responsibility must be taken. Publish your results to those who need to know, and make them more public if you feel the public needs to know.

2. When publishing to the public, make sure that you alter your directions in such a matter that experienced scientists can replicate your results, but inexperienced scientists won't be able to figure them out.

3. Uphold ethical/moral standards in your profession.

4. Do not create unreasonable barriers to entry for people who just want to learn.

5. Do not allow capable, creative people to wind up in a situation where the easiest path to economic security or intellectual freedom is by working for the enemy. Cases in point: Bolivian virus writers, Russian nuke scientists, the Canadian guy who built long range cannons for Iraq after the U.S. fired him...

It is possible for us to act responsibly, and this IS a two way street. There is a balance that can be obtained which provides barriers to terrorists without creating barriers to free thought. The difficulty is in getting everyone to agree on what enlightened self interest consists of. Frankly, scientists are more likely to "get it" then many other communities. However, this will be hard.

Scientists Worry Journals May Aid Terrorists

RICHARD F. MOLLICA, M.D.
Boston, July 14, 2002
The writer is director, Harvard Program in Refugee Trauma, Massachusetts General Hospital.

The new U.S. federal guidelines for proper and legal thought will be published next Wednesday...

Scientists and Terrorists

The observations of Albert-Laszlo Barabasi about networks have broad applications in business. In an interview, he explained a few of the implications.

How One Decision Affects Many Players

This conclusion, described in Professor Barabasi's new book, "Linked: The New Science of Networks", could alter the way we think about all the networks that affect our lives.

I've already recommended this book, but today's NYT interview provides some additional background in case you haven't already bought the book.

Lessons From Networks, Online and Other