Didn’t I see this on the Italian Job

From the BBC: German drives down subway stairs
“A German woman in Dusseldorf blocked the entrance to an underground station when she mistook it for a subterranean car park, police said on Wednesday.”
A) It looks to be a pretty large entrance
B) Perhaps it was signed as a car park. According to the article, this is the second time it happened at this location.
C) Perhaps we should let small cars onto underground trains, I mean, we already let bikes on. (Off-peak of course)
D) What would be the fare for a VW Beetle on the Underground?
E) Car free streets … Car-friendly stations?

Knock-on effects

Why I couldn’t get off the train at Victoria station tonight: London fire causes commuter chaos
“A fire in southeast London has resulted in the closure of a mainline and underground stations, causing chaos for commuters.
London Bridge station was closed following fears that gas cylinders could explode in railway arches in Bermondsey.
Firefighters threw a 200 metre exclusion zone around the workshop where a blaze broke out in the morning.
Even though the fire had been put out, a London Fire Brigade spokesman said the tracks could remain closed overnight if acetylene gas cylinders were found at the workshop.
The closure of London Bridge station – used by thousands of workers in the City – had a knock-on effect elsewhere, with Victoria underground station temporarily shutting because of overcrowding.
Rail services are also affected at Cannon Street, Charing Cross and Waterloo East.”
So the train I am on tonight (Victoria line), while returning from a seminar at UCL, does not stop at Victoria (where I want it to stop, to transfer to the District Line), and where given the name of the line, it is implied it will stop, and proceeds past. I got off at Pimlico, and found a bus #360 to Sloane Square, and transferred to my favorite #22, though it took 15 minutes before it arrived and the bus was packed to the gills with people sitting on the steps.
Had I known it was not going to stop, I would have gotten off earlier (Green Park) and transferred. That would have required at most 5 minutes advance warning given to the driver to inform the passengers. Perhaps I was just unfortunate and the decision to close Victoria station was made while I was on the train between Green Park and Victoria.
At any rate there were lots of peeved and confused passengers exiting at Pimlico.
And all of this occurred because gas canister “might” explode. Somehow I would feel more comfortable with my inconvenience if they actually exploded. (I understand logically that is probably a risk authorities should not take).

FasTracks are Expensive Tracks

According to this article : Transportation project more than a billion dollars over budget The FasTracks project in Denver will cost $6.1 Billion instead of $4.7 Billion, or 30% over the budget promised to voters as recently as November 2004.
Are officials constitutionally incapable of making accurate cost estimates, or was the misestimate intentional?

MS Word is hereby banished

[A message to Nexus group members and my students on April 10, 2007]

Hi all,

I have made a decree. I will henceforth no longer accept electronic versions of papers, reports, theses, or dissertations in Microsoft Word format. I have been using the software for far too long, it is a cancer upon our productivity. There are a number of reasons for this.

The format is closed, stylesheets and headings never work right, every document looks different even when it shouldn’t, references are never formatted correctly, track changes leads to crashing, the files produced are bloated, templates don’t work, embedded graphics are not reproduced correctly, it is prone to viruses, the output is ugly, etc.

You may continue with MS Word for your personal use, and of course in anything unrelated to my supervision of your academic or research work. You probably need to continue to have the software available as others will send you documents in that format.

However, when transmitting a document to me, if you want me to read it, but not edit it in detail, you may use pdf. If you want me to edit it (and this applies to all of my TAs, RAs, Post-docs, and research fellows), I would suggest plain text or LaTeX. For academic papers, I will be using LaTeX. LaTeX automatically produces PDF output.

There are a variety of open source LaTeX tools. I use TeXShop on Mac OS X.

The new version of (the non-open source) MathType exports equations to LaTeX format.

I now use the cross-platform (and free) Jabref as a reference
manager, and would suggest using that as well. I believe EndNote
references can be exported to BibTex, the format underlying
references as used in Jabref. Google Scholar can be set to produce
BibTeX formatted references, which is very convenient, as those can be dragged and dropped into jabref.

There are tools to export tables from excel to LaTeX (e.g.
Excel2Latex V2.0 … though be careful with this, it can be
destructive of the original data, so always work with a copy).
I would suggest installing Natbib as well. This allows you to
reformat all of your references with a single command so that it
comports with a different journal standard.

This decree applies to all papers currently under review or under
revision as well, subsequent versions should be reformatted in LaTeX when it is time for revision, for a paper-length document that should take about 2 hours.

The only exceptions to this are when sponsors or publishers require MS Word format.

I understand there may be a learning curve associated with conversion to LaTeX, but I believe the long term reduction in variable costs outweighs the initial fixed costs.

I am not especially happy with Powerpoint either, but that will wait another day.

– dml

An illusion of certainty

From the Guardian: UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) apparently says, according to the article “. But there could be as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”
1. Where is this actual report that was supposedly published, maybe I am missing something, but all I can find on the IPCC website is the summary for policy makers.
On the attrociously designed IPCC page
Working Group III Report “Mitigation of Climate Change”
Release on 4 May 07 in Bangkok
* Download the webcast of the press conference
* SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
Nowhere obvious is the full report of Working Group III. Perhaps because it is not actually done. Yet the conclusions have been drawn and the press conferences given and articles written as if this report is available for public and peer review. This is not science.
Working Group 1 report (from February) is now online. (with pending supplementary materials). Working Group II Report is not yet online either. Maybe the press conferences can wait until the reports are ready?
2. Why is this false level of precision being given as truth. Scientists are discrediting themselves by sinking to the level of diplomatic politics. Of course the newspapers are complicit here suggesting certainty where there is none. In this politically-driven story of how we must change, there is always time to redeem ourselves. (In this case, a full 8 years before the temperature rise changes from 1.9999 degrees to 2.00001 degrees apparently if the Guardian’s implications were to be believed). Just once I would like to hear someone say that “This is actually irreversible. Too bad, we can’t fix it, no point in changing our ways, it won’t matter anyway. We broke the planet for good.” That however is politically unacceptable because it won’t inspire change. There must be enough time for the diplomats to get their next treaty in place.
3. What if this “consensus” of scientists is wrong, will they be believed next time?
Let’s hope for science this is not a case of crying wolf. Let’s hope for the planet it is a case of crying wolf.
4. There are strange assumptions underlying the policy analysis, e.g. there is in the analysis a pre-industrial “temperature equilibrium”. Maybe I missed something in school (or Al Gore’s video), but I don’t know what this mechanism for equilibrium is, it seems like the climate is something that is continuously changing, sometimes up on some parameter, sometimes down.
5. Science is not about consensus, politics is. Science is about developing and testing falsifiable hypotheses. Models are useful for generating and hypotheses and clarifying theories, but data is required to test them, and the future is a grand experiment we need to measure carefully. A consensus of scientists, even if one exists, proves (and disproves) nothing.