A Curious Statistical Anomaly

For a long time now, my husband and I have joked about the chaotic nature of the non-traffic jam. You know the ones where you crawl along on the interstate or highway for mile after mile and then, at last, get to the head of the jam and there’s nothing there.  So you just sail on at the posted speed wondering what just happened. We’ve said it’s chaos in action or a curious statistical anomaly.

Well, now mathematicians have solved the problem from this article:

Mathematicians from the University of Exeter have solved the mystery of traffic jams by developing a model to show how major delays occur on our roads, with no apparent cause. Many traffic jams leave drivers baffled as they finally reach the end of a tail-back to find no visible cause for their delay.

It seems Paul and I weren’t that far off. The mathematicians developed a model that shows that when one event happens — say a truck unexpectedly changing lanes — the cars nearest slow down, the cars behind slow down even more, and this begins a backward wave that slows all traffic, causing the jam that can stretch for miles but having no apparent cause when any car reaches the beginning of the slow down.

Granted we don’t have mathematical degrees but since I’ve independently come up with this explanation for the phenomena — I’m really glad to hear that they’ve come up with a model for this behavior. I always find it interesting that seemingly random and unexplainable behavior has not only an explanation, but a equation or group of equations that can cause the same behavior in controlled conditions. This is the first step in understanding and hopefully coming up with ideas for handling this phenomena.

Of course, we’ve learned to handle the slow downs and increased time on the road by listening to books on tape. It’s the best way to travel in a car. It keeps the mind occupied, gives us a chance to read a book we might otherwise not get to, and you can turn it off and talk about the section you just heard or discuss a tangential topic the book raised. So far we’ve listened to The Life of Pi and the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (read by the author). It’s made the hours on the road (each trip was 8 hours one way) much more enjoyable as quality together time.

Last night my husband happened upon some YouTube videos of Eddie Izzard. It had been a while since I’d seen his stand-up acts and so we ended up watching several of the videos. Today, I happened upon the Mac/PC Christmas commercial. That got me to thinking about humor. The most important thing about both of these examples is that neither Izzard nor Mac do hurtful humor. Of course, Apple wants to sell its product but it does it in a humorous way without actually putting down PC — only pointing out the differences between the two brands. Izzard also doesn’t do hurtful, insulting humor — his routines are usually about the absurdities of life, history, literature, and society. They can be biting but there not sarcastic or insulting just absolutely hilarious.

There are many other examples I’m sure of humor that tickles the funny bone but doesn’t insult to do it. So, why is it so difficult to find good humorists who don’t insult people to get laughs. I know they’re out there but they don’t seem to get the screen or air time of the hurtful/insulting ones. When did it become normal for people to laugh at others rather than at themselves and the absurdities of life.

I also wonder if that change in outlook is what driving so much of the hatefulness that has crept into so many areas of life. Recently, CNN had a question that asked if negative ads were helpful to the candidate or a pox on both parties. The results last time I looked was 93% for a pox on both parties. Yet, by the time we reach the middle of next year, if not sooner, most if not all political ads will be negative. They won’t give us any information about the candidate that the ad is for but only comments skirting slander of all the opposing candidates. Personally, I get my information about candidates from other sources than ads or newspapers because they concentrate on this negativity to the exclusion of actual information about the stance of the candidate. [NOTE: I’m not naming parties because it seems all parties are guilty of negative campaigning.]

I can’t help thinking that my grandmother was right, “If you can’t say anything good don’t say anything at all”. So, I’ll continue to enjoy humorists who make me laugh at myself and my species. I’ll also tend to vote for a candidate that tells me exactly what the problems are and what they intend to do about it rather than wasting time telling me about the graphic/petty details of the opposition’s peccadilloes — as if I care about the church attendance, what they did years ago in college, or who they’re related to. What I care about is how they’ve voted in the past, what they intend to do in the future, and can I trust them to keep their word and run the country in accordance with the wishes of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the laws of the land, and the will of the people (all that irregardless of their party affiliation which should come after the above list).

Guess, I am a Pollyanna afterall — always looking for the good/better/best in others.

Looking at a few news sites today, I learned that Korean scientists have cloned cats that are florescent in UV light. The first article said:

The Ministry of Science and Technology said a team led by Kong Il-keun, an animal cloning expert at Gyeongsang National University, manipulated the RFP in the skin tissue of Turkish Angora cats.

The second article (the one with the photo) said:

The red cloned cat research is expected to be utilized in dealing with certain genetic diseases in animals and humans. It will also help reproduce rare animals, such as tigers and wildcats, which are on the verge of extinction, the team said.

While it may seem that this is simply science for science’s sake and this cat could stand in for Rudolf on a cold winter night if Santa had a big UV light, it does appear that it has some legitimate research uses in dealing with genetic diseases. It’s also a theoretical test of their ability to change a genetic trait with a virus. This is all well and good but what about these cats?

I’m all for gaining knowledge and for solving some of the health problems that people have and maybe this is a first step in doing this; however, I can’t help but think that while the proof of concept with getting the skin cells to fluoresce didn’t do any harm (or at least I hope not, one of the kittens was born dead according to the article). But then you change the cat to be born with a disease and then come up with a treatment…doesn’t do much for the cat does it?

Sure, if push came to shove I’d side with humanity against animals but there has to be another way to test this stuff out without putting animals in danger. There seems to be an US vs THEM attitude — we’re the top of the heap, the epitome of evolution, so we can do anything we want because they’re just animals. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. If indeed we wish to be as great as we think we are then humans need to also realize that they are stewards of this planet and its inhabitants down to the smallest insects/whatever. So, far with global warming, acid rain, genetically engineered crops escaping from test fields — well, our grades are failing and it’s the generations unborn who will be paying for our hubris and failures.

Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. The ends do not always justify the means no matter how good those ends may be. I can say that now because it’s all theoretical, but if a family member was dying and the price of saving that loved one’s life was to do more of this type of research — I don’t know what choice I’d make in that case. And that’s the point, the ethics of these situations have to be spelled out before we’ve traveled so far down the road that we can’t, or won’t, turn back.

Do we need more research into genetic diseases and ways to cure them? Yes, we do. But what are we willing to do to get those cures? That’s the question. Is there another way other than animal testing? Has anyone even looked into it or, since animal testing is so easy compared to all the research necessary to find alternatives, will anyone even look into it — after all, they’re only animals.