An interesting report on gold digging in Colombia. A country with many problems, but in the last decade it has made some impressive progress. Yet, gold and the position of gold in the global economy retains the power of creating problems. The larger an entity is, the more likely it seems to leach on the problem and exploit it. This is a great documentary in the Fault Lines series on Al Jazeera. Worth a watch beyond any doubt!
Colombia's gold rush - Fault Lines - Al Jazeera English
2011-08-04
Around world in 44 days or dancing
Some people take the world on. Save some money and go some places.
Recently 3 friends went for 44 days on a trip through 11 countries, requiring 18 flight, covering 38k miles. Not bad.
Then again, what if you take 14 months to travel to 42 countries and ask 1000s of people to dance with you. Crazy, right?
Anyone interested in providing funding for a trip around the world for 3? A crying/smiling baby in 45 countries, edited to 2m30s?
Recently 3 friends went for 44 days on a trip through 11 countries, requiring 18 flight, covering 38k miles. Not bad.
Then again, what if you take 14 months to travel to 42 countries and ask 1000s of people to dance with you. Crazy, right?
Anyone interested in providing funding for a trip around the world for 3? A crying/smiling baby in 45 countries, edited to 2m30s?
2011-08-03
Is speeding more dangerous than slowing?
Most of us will drive a car regularly and thus you will encounter fellow-motorists on the road. As I live about 100 km (~60 miles) from Davis, I have to commute to get to Davis. If only the train was affordable and reliable, I would use it, but it isn't. So I drive my relatively fuel-efficient Hyundai Elantra to-and-fro Davis. This means I encounter 100s of fellow-motorists on a daily basis. As I didn't grow up with California traffic, but with Dutch, German and Belgian traffic (ergo European road rules), I find myself both surprised and annoyed at the frequent and often pointless lane changes that my fellow-motorists make. Probably because my mind still tells me to stay right, unless I try to pass someone.
And I also did come by the CHP (California Highway Patrol) officer at one point. I was speeding, he told me. So he gave me a ticket for that.
This raises a question: is speeding really more dangerous then slowing (driver slower then the speed limit)?
The general consensus is that it is. Speeding is not only breaking the law, but also can cause serious harm. This is all true, but this does not mean that everyone who speeds is dangerous. In most cases it is the relative speed between you can your fellow-motorists that can make speeding dangerous. But rather then using logical reasoning alone, let's use some simple math.
Let say the speed limit is 100 kmh (~62 mph). To travel 100 km, it would take you 60m00s.
If you would 'speed' by 10%, you would be going at 110 kmh (~68 mph) and you would need about 54m32s to travel the same distance, a gain of 5m28s.
If you would 'slow' by 10%, you would be going at 90 kmh (~56 mph) and you would need about 66m40s to travel the same 100 km, a loss of 6m40s.
So time-wise, slowing has a more profound effect on time, then speeding. Often, the argument is made that because the time gain while speeding is limited, it is not worth it. Sporadically, if ever, the opposite argument is made.
But there is more to it then just time gain or loss, compared to the posted speed limit.
What effect does speeding have on time to respond vs slowing? How quick can someone who speeds respond to a situation, compared to someone who slows? In other words, can a car that slows speed up as quick as a car that speeds can slow down to the posted speed limit? Accelerating from 0 kmh to 100 kmh takes easily up to 10 seconds, whereas breaking from 100 kmh to 0 kmh requires about 120 meters or so. 10 seconds in a car covers more then 120 meters, so it would be fair to assume that slowing down takes less time then speeding up for the average driver.
Of course there is a lot more involved in driving a car, then just simply speeding or slowing or obeying the law (but who really does that on the road?). You rarely drive alone on the road, which means that you will encounter other vehicles who have to respond to what you are doing. Now let's take the consequences of speeding and slowing on the odds of having to deal with a fellow motorist. For this let's assume that everyone else is driving at the speed limit of 100 kmh. Slowing cars will encounter more fellow motorists then speeding cars. Now comes the crux. The slowing car has to either speed up to the average speed of 100 kmh or the fellow motorists have to pass the slowing car. The speeding car will encounter fewer fellow motorist, and has to either pass the fellow motorists or slow down to the average speed. If both the speeding car and the slowing car don't change their driving style, the slowing car will force fellow motorists to change behaviour to more people than the speeding car .
Here in California, CalTrans has made multilane highways and it is not uncommon to find 3 or 4 lane highways per driving direction. As in the USA people drive on the right, the natural tendency is to pass another motorist on the left. This means that slowing cars are presumed to stay in the right lane, whereas speeding cars tend to stay in the left lane. Now imagine that a slowing car moves 1 lane to the left. It will encounter even more fellow motorists and thus force more motorists to change driving behaviour. Often this result in fellow motorists slowing down for slowing cars, as the left lane is often already filled with other motorists. How do we know this is a realistic prediction. Look at the highways now and see what happens when a big-rig moves one lane over to pass a fellow big-rig. Yep, traffic will slow down.
So you might say: California has a law that says that slower traffic must stay right. True. But when was the last time you saw a CHP officer pull someone over for slowing? Yep, they pull over people who are speeding. Easy money over guaranteeing flow of traffic or traffic safety.
Then comes psychology. How do people respond to slowing cars over speeding cars. Well, if you are stuck behind a guy who thinks that the left lane is his lane, while going 70 kmh, you will get frustrated. Besides being under the influence of a restricted substance or mobile device or sleep deprivation, frustration is not very helpful in light of traffic safety. You are probably more likely to make an erratic move, while focussing on the slowing car in front of you. In other words, you are paying less attention to your fellow motorist. Not particularly safe if you ask me.
Are speeding cars more or less safe? Obviously, speeding cars who frequently change lanes and tail-gate are dangerous, but these drivers are most likely speeding more then 10%. But cars who drive above the speed limit in a limited manner are per se dangerous. They can lift the throttle and let the car role out to get back to the speed level of the car they are approaching.
The one group of drivers I have not mentioned: the speeding/slowing drivers. They combine the worst of two world for one of the most fundamental dangers on the road: unpredictability. This should be enforced by the police, but clearly they prefer to sit on the side of the road and just get a single moment event of a speeding car.
Maybe it would be worth fining people who drive a certain percentage above AND below the flow of traffic over a strict and set speed limit with a limited fluctuation of speed itself, unless you change lanes? This can be done by lane-specific speeds, with slower in the right lanes and faster in the left lanes. Is this tougher to enforce? Yes, but what is more important: traffic safety or being able to use the public for gathering enforcement 'tax'? Too bad we are currently in an economic recession, so we can only expect more speed-traps by the CHP. Of course this is all in the name of traffic safety and improving traffic flow.
And I also did come by the CHP (California Highway Patrol) officer at one point. I was speeding, he told me. So he gave me a ticket for that.
This raises a question: is speeding really more dangerous then slowing (driver slower then the speed limit)?
The general consensus is that it is. Speeding is not only breaking the law, but also can cause serious harm. This is all true, but this does not mean that everyone who speeds is dangerous. In most cases it is the relative speed between you can your fellow-motorists that can make speeding dangerous. But rather then using logical reasoning alone, let's use some simple math.
Let say the speed limit is 100 kmh (~62 mph). To travel 100 km, it would take you 60m00s.
If you would 'speed' by 10%, you would be going at 110 kmh (~68 mph) and you would need about 54m32s to travel the same distance, a gain of 5m28s.
If you would 'slow' by 10%, you would be going at 90 kmh (~56 mph) and you would need about 66m40s to travel the same 100 km, a loss of 6m40s.
So time-wise, slowing has a more profound effect on time, then speeding. Often, the argument is made that because the time gain while speeding is limited, it is not worth it. Sporadically, if ever, the opposite argument is made.
But there is more to it then just time gain or loss, compared to the posted speed limit.
What effect does speeding have on time to respond vs slowing? How quick can someone who speeds respond to a situation, compared to someone who slows? In other words, can a car that slows speed up as quick as a car that speeds can slow down to the posted speed limit? Accelerating from 0 kmh to 100 kmh takes easily up to 10 seconds, whereas breaking from 100 kmh to 0 kmh requires about 120 meters or so. 10 seconds in a car covers more then 120 meters, so it would be fair to assume that slowing down takes less time then speeding up for the average driver.
Of course there is a lot more involved in driving a car, then just simply speeding or slowing or obeying the law (but who really does that on the road?). You rarely drive alone on the road, which means that you will encounter other vehicles who have to respond to what you are doing. Now let's take the consequences of speeding and slowing on the odds of having to deal with a fellow motorist. For this let's assume that everyone else is driving at the speed limit of 100 kmh. Slowing cars will encounter more fellow motorists then speeding cars. Now comes the crux. The slowing car has to either speed up to the average speed of 100 kmh or the fellow motorists have to pass the slowing car. The speeding car will encounter fewer fellow motorist, and has to either pass the fellow motorists or slow down to the average speed. If both the speeding car and the slowing car don't change their driving style, the slowing car will force fellow motorists to change behaviour to more people than the speeding car .
Here in California, CalTrans has made multilane highways and it is not uncommon to find 3 or 4 lane highways per driving direction. As in the USA people drive on the right, the natural tendency is to pass another motorist on the left. This means that slowing cars are presumed to stay in the right lane, whereas speeding cars tend to stay in the left lane. Now imagine that a slowing car moves 1 lane to the left. It will encounter even more fellow motorists and thus force more motorists to change driving behaviour. Often this result in fellow motorists slowing down for slowing cars, as the left lane is often already filled with other motorists. How do we know this is a realistic prediction. Look at the highways now and see what happens when a big-rig moves one lane over to pass a fellow big-rig. Yep, traffic will slow down.
So you might say: California has a law that says that slower traffic must stay right. True. But when was the last time you saw a CHP officer pull someone over for slowing? Yep, they pull over people who are speeding. Easy money over guaranteeing flow of traffic or traffic safety.
Then comes psychology. How do people respond to slowing cars over speeding cars. Well, if you are stuck behind a guy who thinks that the left lane is his lane, while going 70 kmh, you will get frustrated. Besides being under the influence of a restricted substance or mobile device or sleep deprivation, frustration is not very helpful in light of traffic safety. You are probably more likely to make an erratic move, while focussing on the slowing car in front of you. In other words, you are paying less attention to your fellow motorist. Not particularly safe if you ask me.
Are speeding cars more or less safe? Obviously, speeding cars who frequently change lanes and tail-gate are dangerous, but these drivers are most likely speeding more then 10%. But cars who drive above the speed limit in a limited manner are per se dangerous. They can lift the throttle and let the car role out to get back to the speed level of the car they are approaching.
The one group of drivers I have not mentioned: the speeding/slowing drivers. They combine the worst of two world for one of the most fundamental dangers on the road: unpredictability. This should be enforced by the police, but clearly they prefer to sit on the side of the road and just get a single moment event of a speeding car.
Maybe it would be worth fining people who drive a certain percentage above AND below the flow of traffic over a strict and set speed limit with a limited fluctuation of speed itself, unless you change lanes? This can be done by lane-specific speeds, with slower in the right lanes and faster in the left lanes. Is this tougher to enforce? Yes, but what is more important: traffic safety or being able to use the public for gathering enforcement 'tax'? Too bad we are currently in an economic recession, so we can only expect more speed-traps by the CHP. Of course this is all in the name of traffic safety and improving traffic flow.
2011-08-02
The story of my sister's death (video in Dutch)
On December 8, 2009 my sister lost her life in Urmond. In record time the local police came to the conclusion she committed suicide. We are not convinced by their words alone and would like to see the evidence that support their conclusion, as we believe there are multiple facts that contradict the conclusion of the local police. In short, my sister supposedly stabbed herself three times in the chest in the presence of her boyfriend, following which she ran out of the house they lived in and collapsed and died less then 200 yards later. The police argues that she was 'psychotic', yet no clinical diagnosis was ever made. With help from the national newspaper De Telegraaf's Cold Case Team, a first review of the death of my sister was performed. This is the result as published in print and online last year as well as a video which can be found on youtube.
2011-06-04
A great documentary by BBC four about safety in Formula 1 in the '60 and '70, or better lack thereof. In the days that on a weekly basis drivers and spectators lost their lives. Today's F1 might be considered sterile and distant, but it certainly is much safer. The last driver to perish was Ayrton Senna da Silva on May 1st, 1994 during the San Marino GP in Imola, Italy. The last marshal to die was during the Australian GP in 2001 when Graham Beveridge was hit by Jacques Villeneuve's right rear tyre after he was launched by Ralf Schumacher. Nevertheless, it is still impressive to see how things were not too long ago.
Link to the documentary.
Link to the documentary.
2011-05-25
2011-05-06
Column op Crimesite door Mr. Jan Boone
Deze column is zeer de moeite waard en toont maar weer eens aan dat er bijzonder weinig recht is te halen voor het normale volk in Nederland, mits ze zelf onderdeel uitmaken van de justitiële molen.
Link naar betreffende colum.
Link naar betreffende colum.
2011-04-28
2011-04-26
Next Generation Sequencers: where are they?
2011-04-24
Dutch police and DNA evidence
Around 21h00 on August 11, 1998 the lifeless body of Nicky Verstappen was found about 1200 meters from the location where he was last seen alive, just 40 hours earlier. This killing has some apparent similarities to three killings in Germany and one killing France.
German police arrested Martin N. initially for a murder in Hamburg. He quickly confessed to two other unsolved murders. At the moment German police suspect he is also involved in two murders outside Germany, one of which is the locally well-known unsolved case of Nicky Verstappen.
Martin H. is allegedly fluent in Dutch and despite lack of DNA evidence in some of the three murders he confessed to, German police strongly believe that he is involved in Nicky's murder. What other clues the German police has to link his to Nicky Verstappen, remains unknown.
Dutch police on the other hand ran a DNA test on Martin H. to see if his DNA matches the DNA found on Nicky Verstappen. This was not the case and for that reason alone Dutch police dismissed Martin N. as a suspect.
How is it possible that two capable police forces have such strong convictions about a single case, but these convictions are each others polar opposites. This begs the question, is DNA evidence the ultimate evidence or just another forensic tool? It appears that Dutch police does think that DNA evidence is the ultimate evidence, whereas the German police appear to think it is 'just' a tool.
So how reliable it DNA evidence? To answer this question, you have to ask various other questions.
First of all, in any forensic investigation you need to isolate DNA. This in turn depends on how, where and when DNA was deposited on a crime scene. How is this DNA sample stored and transported. How is the DNA sample tested? What techniques were used and what statistics were used to analyse the results? And this is assuming that the murderer of Nicky Verstappen indeed left behind some DNA evidence to be collected and that no one else left his or her DNA behind. A plethora of questions and assumptions, which apparently can be easily answered by the Dutch police.
Whether or not Martin N. is responsible for Nicky Verstappen's murder, it seems that the Dutch police has a little too much faith in DNA evidence.
German police arrested Martin N. initially for a murder in Hamburg. He quickly confessed to two other unsolved murders. At the moment German police suspect he is also involved in two murders outside Germany, one of which is the locally well-known unsolved case of Nicky Verstappen.
Martin H. is allegedly fluent in Dutch and despite lack of DNA evidence in some of the three murders he confessed to, German police strongly believe that he is involved in Nicky's murder. What other clues the German police has to link his to Nicky Verstappen, remains unknown.
Dutch police on the other hand ran a DNA test on Martin H. to see if his DNA matches the DNA found on Nicky Verstappen. This was not the case and for that reason alone Dutch police dismissed Martin N. as a suspect.
How is it possible that two capable police forces have such strong convictions about a single case, but these convictions are each others polar opposites. This begs the question, is DNA evidence the ultimate evidence or just another forensic tool? It appears that Dutch police does think that DNA evidence is the ultimate evidence, whereas the German police appear to think it is 'just' a tool.
So how reliable it DNA evidence? To answer this question, you have to ask various other questions.
First of all, in any forensic investigation you need to isolate DNA. This in turn depends on how, where and when DNA was deposited on a crime scene. How is this DNA sample stored and transported. How is the DNA sample tested? What techniques were used and what statistics were used to analyse the results? And this is assuming that the murderer of Nicky Verstappen indeed left behind some DNA evidence to be collected and that no one else left his or her DNA behind. A plethora of questions and assumptions, which apparently can be easily answered by the Dutch police.
Whether or not Martin N. is responsible for Nicky Verstappen's murder, it seems that the Dutch police has a little too much faith in DNA evidence.
Kubica has left the building
Eleven weeks after a terrifying accident, Robert Kubica has been discharged from the hospital.
On February 6th of this year, Kubica was taking part in a minor rally in Italy, called Ronde di Andora. He went through a slippery right hander, had to correct his car, slid against the barriers and normally you can either continue or you are out with damage to the suspension. In this case, he bounced of the wall and came back to it hitting a guardrail head on. Again, normally nothing bad will happen, but in this case the guardrail penetrated the car at the level of the footing area, entering the car and nearly severing off Kubica's right arm and hand. After a 7 hour long operation at the Santa Corona hospital in Pietra Ligure, his hand and arm were saved.
With the Lotus Renault R31 showing great promise to be a regular podium-contender, there were high hopes that Robert Kubica would finally break through a serious championship contender. With his crash in the fog around the right hand bend passing San Sebastiano church, these hopes have crumbled.
Kubica went home to Monoca and will soon start his revalidation-program with dr. Ceccarelli. When he will be able to return to racing or even Formula 1 will become clear during the summer.
On February 6th of this year, Kubica was taking part in a minor rally in Italy, called Ronde di Andora. He went through a slippery right hander, had to correct his car, slid against the barriers and normally you can either continue or you are out with damage to the suspension. In this case, he bounced of the wall and came back to it hitting a guardrail head on. Again, normally nothing bad will happen, but in this case the guardrail penetrated the car at the level of the footing area, entering the car and nearly severing off Kubica's right arm and hand. After a 7 hour long operation at the Santa Corona hospital in Pietra Ligure, his hand and arm were saved.
With the Lotus Renault R31 showing great promise to be a regular podium-contender, there were high hopes that Robert Kubica would finally break through a serious championship contender. With his crash in the fog around the right hand bend passing San Sebastiano church, these hopes have crumbled.
Kubica went home to Monoca and will soon start his revalidation-program with dr. Ceccarelli. When he will be able to return to racing or even Formula 1 will become clear during the summer.
2011-02-26
Why chase the Red Queen?
Who is the Red Queen?
The Red Queen is a character from a book by Lewis Caroll: Through a Looking Glass (1872). In Alica's dream about the looking glass house, all is weird. Left appears to be right and visa versa, as if she was in a mirror image of the world she knew. Also, chess pieces are alive and one of them is the Red Queen, who she will meet once she leaves the looking glass house to see the garden.
To get a better view of the garden, Alice decides to climb up the hill. From here, she sees a very straight path, but when she follows the path, she finds that it leads her back to the house. When she runs, she not only returns to the house, she also crashes into it. So, forward movements take you back to your starting point and fast movements cause abrupt stops.
Eventually, Alice finds herself in a patch of very vocal and opinionated flowers; the rose is especially vocal. It is here, where Alice learns about the Red Queen and as an excuse to escape the verbal use, she decides to find the Red Queen. When she spots the Red Queen, she begins to move towards her, but the Red Queen quickly disappears out of sight. Upon advice of the rose, she decides to go the opposite way, which results in immediate success, as she now stands face-to-face with the Red Queen.
The Red Queen leads Alice to the top of the hill and according to the Red Queen, hills can become valleys and valleys can become hills. This confuses Alice, as she already noticed that straight can become curvy. As if progress can only be made by going the opposite direction.
Once they are at the top of the hill, the Red Queen starts to run, faster and faster. Alice runs after the Red Queen, but it appears that neither of them are actually moving. When they stop running, they are still in the exact same place. Alice tells the Red Queen this and the Red Queen responds: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place".
So why chase the Red Queen?
The short answer is: to keep up with my surroundings. Whatever you do, be it in your professional life or your personal life, you have to keep up with things to maintain your current position. To keep up with science as a graduate student, I have to read articles. For criminal to keep ahead of the authorities, they have to find loop-holes in the law and investigation techniques, whereas the authorities have to do the opposite. For a formula 1 team to maintain there lead in the championship they have to keep developing their cars, as their opponents are trying to out compete them for victory. In other words: life is just a rat race, chasing the Red Queen where ever she goes. You just have to chose which rat race you want to join and the chase is on!
References:
Carrol, L. 1872. Through the looking glass and what Alice found there. Macmillan, London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)