Samizdata

There has been quite a bit of press coverage in the last couple of weeks about the discovery of an object in the outer solar system, which has been given the astronomical name 2003 UB313, but which has been popularly dubbed “Xena”. In some circles this has been described as a new planet, and in others its discovery has been given as comprehensive proof that Pluto is not a planet and that there are only eight planets in the solar system. Personally I have two opinions here. Firstly, I think it should be “Rupert” and not “Xena”. And of the two viewpoints given, I tend to agree with the second, which is that the new discovery reduces the number of planets to eight. Although thinking about it some more, I am not sure that either viewpoint is right. A better interpretation might be that it reduces the number of planets to four. Or perhaps to zero. It all depends on your point of view.

Why do I think this? In order to properly understand the question, an astronomical primer is in order. Many of our readers will already know this stuff, but this is all quite interesting and is nice to put it all down in one place.

Let me describe the solar system. For the moment, I am going to leave Pluto out, as it does not fit into what I am to initially describe. The solar system is generally considered to contain two types of planet. One is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars). These orbit the sun at distances between 50 million kilometres and 250 million kilometres, and have radii of between 2500km and 6500km. They have surfaces made of solid materials (ie rock) . The second type of planet is the “Gas Giants” (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). These orbit the sun at distances of between 0.75 billion and 4.5 billion kilometres, and have radii of between 25000 and 70000 kilometres. They basically consist of atmospheres that get denser and denser as the altitude gets lower and lower, and which gradually thicken until at some rather indeterminate point they go from being a gas to a liquid to a solid or to even more exotic things that defy simple classification. These planets are orbited by many small rocky moons, and planetary rings. Three of them (Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune) are also orbited by larger moons that would count as planets in their own right if they orbited the sun and were part of the inner solar system.

The orbits of these planets (of both kinds, but with one exception that we will get to) have two notable facts about them. First, they all circle the sun in approximately the same plane, known as the “plane of the ecliptic” or just “the ecliptic”. As a consequence, if there are a number of planets visible in the sky at the same time, they tend to be in a fairly straight line. Secondly, the orbits of the planets are approximately circular.

But they are not exactly circular, and they are not exactly in the same plane. Mathematicians have ways of quantifying both these things. The first of these is relatively simple. Simply measure the angle between the ecliptic and the plane of the planet’s orbit, and quote this number as the orbital inclination. With the exception that I will get to in a moment, the planets discussed already have small orbital inclinations of up to about three and a half degrees. See here for detailed planetary statistics of various kinds, including inclination.

While Copernicus was the first modern scientist to recognise that the Earth and other planets went around the sun, his theory did not quite successfully explain the movements of the planets in the heavens. That took someone with better mathematics. → Continue reading: There are more things in heaven than were dreamed of in the philosophy I was taught at school

In the debate on software patents, the defenders of patents use moral and theoretical arguments, but avoid using data or facts. Different people are good at making different types of arguments. I am a believer in the division of labour. So not everyone will use empirically-rooted arguments. But it seems a bit odd to me that I cannot find anyone who writes things like:

Because Microsoft did not have a patent on the graphical user interface, it made a decision not to invest in operating systems, but because it had a patent on X it increased R&D in that area by 582%.

Instead, the supporters of software patents concentrate on theoretical arguments. As an example, take this article by a patent lawyer writing about software:

In a market where inventions cannot be protected in order to yield a return on the invested resources, very few would be prepared to make those investments available.

I like theoretical arguments, and the argument in the paragraph above is a perfectly reasonable position to have. But if patents really do have a beneficial effect in software, shouldn’t someone somewhere be able to give us some figures to back up that idea? Where is the empirical evidence?

The UN rears its ugly head again as an international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet. By ugly I mean those members of the UN whose rule at home has nothing to recommend them such as Syria, China or Ghana. They claim that the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.

One of the things at issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming.

But this is the bit that opens the knife in my pocket.

Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, “consumer protection,” and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for “universal access.”

I know that there is not much love lost for ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, established to handle some of those topics, but these kind of noises from the UN represent a political challenge as they come from predictable corners. CNET news.com provides excerpts from a transcript of a recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the UN’s Working Group on Internet Governance that offers clues about the plot to dethrone ICANN. Please note the sophistication and understanding of internet and the related issues by the participants:

Syria: “There’s more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit…The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable.”

Brazil, responding to ICANN’s approval of .xxx domains: “For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let’s be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names.”

China: “We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework…For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace–we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body.”

Ghana: “There was unanimity for the need for an additional body…This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N.”

So the usual ‘control-and-destroy’ approach of the UN scum. Can they do anything about it? Apparently there is the nuclear option .

Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN–but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.

Declan McCullagh, the author of the article, believes that such an outcome remains remote, but possible, which turns an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become surprisingly important. I hope the US does not let go…

I am glad they caught this guy.

Sven Jaschan is charged with computer sabotage, disrupting public services and illegally altering data.

The 19-year-old is being tried as a minor behind closed doors as he was 17 when he wrote the worm.

Sasser wrought havoc in many companies when the Windows worm struck in May 2004, swamping net links and making computers unusable.

How much high explosive would you have to let off to do as much damage as this little monster unleashed? And before you say that explosives kill people and all he did was screw around with a zillion computers, my guess is that actually, one way or anther, he did kill quite a few people. That much stress and grief must have ended a few lives.

I find myself thinking along these lines. And failing that, onwards and outwards to all those planets out there, so people like this can be transported to them, like in Alien 3.

An attempt by two men from northern Minnesota to cross the Arctic Ocean to call attention to global warming ended this morning because of poor weather conditions.

Lonnie Dupre, 43, and Eric Larsen, 33, were forced to abandon their planned 100-day, 1,200-mile trek after encountering unexpectedly heavy snow storms, strong winds and unusual ice conditions, according to Jane Kochersperger, a media officer with the environmental group Greenpeace, which co-sponsored the trip.

Some things just speak for themselves.