History Trivia

By my count, we now have four living ex-Presidents–Ford, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton. Before President Reagan’s demise today, we had five, and I believe that’s the most that we’ve ever had. It seems unlikely that we’d have ever had more than that in our nation’s history, given the lengths of terms and the ages at which presidents normally become president, but does anyone know for sure?

Of course, if one wanted to be macabre, one could start a pool on who will be the next to go, and if it will occur before the current president joins their ranks (which of course depends a lot on what happens in November…).

Requiescat In Pacem

Ronald Reagan has died, a day before the sixtieth anniversary of the Normandy landing. It looks like Andrew Lloyd’s sources were right a few days ago. Given this weekend’s somber remembrances, it might be appropriate to replay his D-Day speech from twenty years ago (though that would put a lot of pressure on President Bush to deliver a real humdinger tomorrow if it’s not to be overshadowed).

I never voted for him (I voted Libertarian), but he was one of the great presidents of the twentieth century, and I’m glad he won both times (and was at the time, considering the alternatives). The Soviet Union may have collapsed eventually, but there’s zero doubt in my mind that he accelerated the process, and broke us out of the failed policy of containment. He was a man of great vision, and in that, we haven’t had a president since, including the present one, that was his match.

Of course, in my mind he’s been dead for years, and it’s sad that we give so much reverence to the body and too little to the mind. I don’t know if he was suffering toward the end, but this has to be a sorrow tinctured with relief for his long-suffering family.

Fusion funding: A Proposal

I’m a member of a group of young fusion researchers who are trying to figure out how to make fusion happen in our lifetimes. This is nontrivial because ‘young’ in this case means under 40, and current plans from DOE don’t put fusion power on the grid for another 35+ years. Given the accuracy of government forecasts a whole year down the line, I’m not holding my breath.

I think that the single largest factor holding up the development of commercial fusion is not physics, its program structure. We need to revolutionize the way fusion research is structured, and the best way to do that is to bring the power of the market to bear. Prizes have been suggested (notably by Bob Bussard). I offer here an alternative proposal, seeking your feedback.

The goal is to encourage private funding. This means finding a way to reduce the risk to investors in potential fusion schemes. If a given idea can pass a basic peer reviewed sanity check (doesn’t violate any laws of physics), DOE should offer to insulate investors from some measure of risk. As a concrete proposal, say DOE will purchase all the intellectual property assets of any innovative energy company which closes down after raising private venture funding. There would be some limit, indexed to the amount of money raised, say 1/2 the total venture funds raised, up to a limit of $50 million expended by DOE per company. The physical plant would remain property of the investors or creditors. DOE would pay an external auditor to catalog and organize the intellectual property assets, and would make them freely available to interested parties.

There would have to be sensible mechanisms for peer review and for deciding when to shut down (presumably the investors would make that call), but I don’t see showstoppers there. I think the idea would work, but getting congress to agree is likely to be hard. There’s a real danger of the money disappearing after a venture is funded, thanks to diversion to some more worthy cause, like rainforests in Iowa.

Anyway please comment, kvetch, suggest, advise, discuss, either in comments here or in email to me.

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.