From the New York Times:



Excerpted from the article, regarding the hiring end of the employment equation:

The discrimination is rarely overt, according to interviews with more than two dozen college-educated black job seekers around the country, many of them out of work for months. Instead, those interviewed told subtler stories, referring to surprised looks and offhand comments, interviews that fell apart almost as soon as they began, and the sudden loss of interest from companies after meetings.

Whether or not each case actually involved bias, the possibility has furnished an additional agonizing layer of second-guessing for many as their job searches have dragged on.

A follow-up article deals with the issues surrounding resumes specifically, called "Whitening" the Resume. This is all reminiscent of a study done back in 2004, called Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?, which found that identical resumes sent with "white sounding" names were a full fifty percent more likely to receive a callback for an interview than those with "black sounding" names.

Most of the data in the Times articles comes from Friday's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

President Obama's Message to Students

And you can read the text of his speech here.

As Green As You Think? Consider the Life Cycle

From the New York Times:



The bottom line:

One stainless steel bottle is obviously much worse than one plastic bottle. Producing that 300-gram stainless steel bottle requires seven times as much fossil fuel, releases 14 times more greenhouse gases, demands the extraction of hundreds of times more metal resources and causes hundreds of times more toxic risk to people and ecosystems than making a 32-gram plastic bottle. If you’re planning to take only one drink in your life, buy plastic.
[...]
What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact categories studied in a life cycle assessment.

The God-Einstein-Oppenheimer Dice Puzzle

From Tierney Lab:

"God does not throw dice," Albert Einstein famously declared, but suppose he was wrong. Suppose God decided to demonstrate otherwise by showing up one day at the Institute for Advanced Study. God announces that dice games are in fact wildly popular in heaven, and that the purpose of this visit it to teach a new game to Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer. God explains the rules:

There are three blank dice. First, Oppenheimer will take each of the six-sided dice and write the numbers from 1 to 18, in any order he likes, on the 18 faces of the three dice. Einstein will then examine the dice and select one of them as his own. Oppenheimer will then examine the remaining two dice and select one of them. (The third die will be discarded.) Oppenheimer and Einstein will then play repeated rounds of “Dice War” in which they roll the dice simultaneously, with a point being awarded each round to the player who rolls the higher number. The player with the most points wins.

Assume that Oppenheimer and Einstein employ the smartest possible strategies, and that the outcome will be determined by the laws of probability (meaning that God doesn’t skew the dice or the influence the rolls). Which player, if either, is favored to win?

For extra credit, imagine the conversation before, during or after the game.

If you want to test out your theory on who will win and how, here's a handy Dice War simulator.

The Perfect Sunset

Recently, I showed a student of mine a Flash applet from the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. It very generally demonstrates how the sunset changes its North-South location on the horizon during the course of the year (due largely to the tilt in the Earth's axis).

In talking about the sunset's movement, my student expressed to me a lifelong desire: to see the sun setting over the Golden Gate Bridge. It takes a little figuring out, since not only does the sunset move during the year but where it happens depends on where on Earth you are (eg If you are far North of the Equator during the summer, then sunset will appear to happen much farther North than if you were standing at the Equator)!

After thinking about different locations in the East Bay to view the Golden Gate Bridge from, I've determined that Cesar Chavez Park is the optimal place (or possibly the nearby Berkeley Pier).


Latitude is a measure of how far North or South a place on the Earth is from the Equator, so knowing the latitudes of both Cesar Chavez Park and the Golden Gate Bridge will help us to find the date of our particular sunset. Latitude is given in degrees, like the way you measured angles in Geometry.

The Flash applet below gives you control over the Time of Day, Date, and Latitude of the observer. Given that

Latitude of Chavez Park: 37.87^oN
Latitude of Golden Gate Bridge: 37.82^oN

can you use the Flash applet below to find the date of the perfect sunset?

[There are some hints below the applet that may help you.]



Key (for 3-D Observation Simulator)

• Yellow Line: Sun's Declination (Daily Path)
• White Line: Sun's Ecliptic (Annual Path)
• Blue Line (E-W): Celestial Equator
• Blue Line (N-S): Prime Hour Circle

Hint 1

If you're feeling stuck, play around with the Date and Latitude. See what happens in different places at different times of year. What patterns can you find?

Hint 2

Pay close attention to the Sun's Declination. Go ahead and read about it on Wikipedia. There's a continuous measure of declination in the box in the lower left of the applet.

Hint 3

The latitudes of Cesar Chavez Park and the Golden Gate Bridge are just 0.05^o apart. How significant is that in our calculations, considering that our accuracy is limited by that of the applet?

Falling Into a Black Hole

So if you've ever wondered what it might look like to fall into a Black Hole, wonder no longer! From an article at New Scientist, researchers at the University of Colorado - Boulder

built a computer code based on the equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity as a distortion of space and time.

They follow the fate of an imaginary observer on an orbit that swoops down into a giant black hole weighing 5 million times the mass of the sun, about the same size as the hole in the centre of our galaxy.

[Note: There are more details on what exactly is happening in the video in the article linked above.]


Thanks to Mr. Jue over at the fledgling STEMpowerment blog for the article.

Planetary Orbits

From the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

This is Why You Pay Attention in Science Classes

According to a national survey, commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences:

• Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun
• Only 59% of adults know whether or not the earliest humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time
• Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water
• Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly

Another Year, Another Call for Water Rationing in California...

Even though it's been rainy on and off for the past month or so, I keep seeing articles in the news, like this one from the New York Times, about the drought that California is going through. Apparently, rain has been hitting the Bay Area but not really much else... for three years running. The Times article talks a lot about the impact of the drought on farming communities in the Central Valley (less rain = fewer crops = fewer jobs) and the intensification of hardships that out-of-work farmers face because of the Financial Crisis.

Along with the drought comes the annual call from the governor's office to ration water. Just two weeks ago:

The governor called for a statewide water conservation campaign and asked all urban water users to immediately reduce their individual water use by 20 percent.

After I read about the call for water rationing, I started wondering to myself,

How much of a difference does 20% of my personal water usage make?

• From the U.S. Geological Survey: In 2000, the U.S. used 408 billion gallons of water in total per day
• 43 billion gallons per day were used for the "Public Supply" (that's like plumbing and water fountains)
• From the Environmental Protection Agency: About half of the Public Supply goes to residences, people's homes (the other half goes to office buildings, schools, etc)
• That means that about 21.5B gallons per day were used residentially in 2000 (ie 1/2 of 43B gallons)
• 21.5 billion gallons (Residential) ÷ 408 billion gallons (Total) = 0.0526 = ~5%
• Residential water use in the U.S. accounts for about 5% of total water usage

Just 5% of total water usage is in people's homes, and yet the governor is asking us to tighten our belts. Don't get me wrong, we should be trying to minimize our personal water consumption all the time, not just during droughts. However, since residential consumption is such a small part of the total, if we all reduced our personal (ie residential) consumption by 20%, that would still only mean a 1% reduction over all for total water usage.

• 20% (reduction in residential usage) of 5% (residential usage as percent of total usage)
• 20% of 5% = .20 x .05 = .01 = 1%

This all is just to demonstrate that residential water consumption is just a drop in the bucket, so to speak. Reducing water usage is a good habit to have, however the real water usage is clearly elsewhere.


CA is by far the largest water-consuming state, dwarfing even TX, the second largest
Where is all the water going?
There two major uses of water: agriculture and electricity. It makes sense that a lot of water would go to farming; crops need clearly need it. Indeed, Governor Schwarzenegger is asking us to reduce our personal water consumption, so that more water can be directed towards irrigation. The present drought means that the sky isn't providing the water crops need in the form of rain. The other major use of water is the less obvious one: electricity. The majority of electricity in the U.S. is produced in Fossil Fuel burning power plants. These plants burn coal or oil to produce a great amount of heat, which is used to boil water. The steam from the water spins a turbine, which as it rotates creates electricity.

• As was stated earlier, 408B gallons are consumed per day
• 137B gallons go to Irrigation
• 137B ÷ 408B = .3357 = ~34%
• 196B gallons go to Power Plants
196B ÷ 408B = .4803 = ~48%
• So, Irrigation accounts for 34% of the Total U.S. water consumption, whereas Electricity accounts for 48%

If we really are serious about cutting down the amount of water that is consumed, not just in California but in the whole U.S., we need to consider more than just residential use. Cutting residential use by 20% could save up to 4 billion gallons of water per day: that's a HUGE amount of water we are just flushing away!

However, to really save water, we need to move away from Fossil Fuel burning Power Plants. Not only do they account for almost half of U.S. water consumption, but they produce Green House Gases that contribute to Global Warming. There are alternative modes of electricity production that use significantly less water and produce no Green House Gases. While we're at it, we should reconsider our farming practices which create a great deal of Green House Gases as well. Now is the time to really examine how we, as a state and country, use our resources and impact the environment.

[Note: For the most complete breakdown of U.S. water consumption by state and end-use, check out this chart from the U.S. Geological Survey. It provides a much more complex picture for changing our state and national priorities.]

Internet Resources on the Housing/Finanacial Crisis: III

This is a really nifty video that explains how the Financial Crisis happened (and is still happening) in the US. It's got all the info you need to understand what's happening in the news -- just don't get intimidated by the big words (all of them get explained eventually).


The video above is about 11 minutes long and explains what happened in broad terms. It give the essential background of the Crisis.

On the other hand, if you would like a detailed account of the specific decisions made and actions taken by both the Wall Street banks and the US Government as the crisis unfolded over the Summer and Fall of last year (to try to stop the banks from failing), then check out this (hour long) video. It's an episode of Frontline, called (menacingly) "Inside the Meltdown."

Also, I've been posting links to the episodes of the radio show This American Life that similarly explain the Financial Crisis in ways that people can actually understand. Well, they just aired a new one about what the US Government is trying to do right now to save our sinking economy (and why it's so hard to figure out what to do). It's called, Bad Bank.

Academic Earth

In the same spirit as the post a while back on Khan Academy, I've found a new general resource for learning via the Internet. It's called Academic Earth.

Essentially, Academic Earth is a collection of lectures from college classes, but some of them can be pretty relevant for high schoolers, or at least they can be entertaining.

The Obama Tracker

There was such a hullabaloo back in November when Obama was elected President that got a majority of Americans wrapped up in politics, but what exactly has Obama been up to since he took office (besides this whole Stimulus Package mess)?

To answer that question with style, NPR (National Public Radio) has a nifty Flash program on their website called The Obama Tracker. It lays out each day's major work (eg Jan 27:"Aid for Gaza Refugees") and puts each item into one of three (color-coded) categories: Economic, Domestic, or Foreign policy.

Even Famous Mathemeticians Struggle with Imaginary Numbers

[Note: This post is only for students in Algebra II and above, who have seen Imaginary Numbers.]

[Also Note: If you are interested in reading further on this topic, it's put together here in a well-written article from the American Mathematical Monthly.]

You know the Radical Product Rule? It's the one that says:
√[ab]=√[a]*√[b]You probably saw that rule in class and it made some sense. Then you went home, did an assignment on Multiplying Radicals, and didn't think about it again. Here's the crazy thing about it: that equation is the result of dozens of Mathematicians collaborating over the course of decades.

When Leonhard Euler (pronounced like Oiler, as in a person who oils things for a living) wrote his highly influential Algebra textbook in 1770, he naturally included the Radical Product Rule -- no doubt you saw it, as well, in your own Algebra I textbook written by a Mathematician considerably less famous. However, it was unclear in his text exactly what were the rules for the Radical Product Rule.


Act Like You Know: e^iπ + 1 = 0
Euler seemed to imply that the Radical Product Rule worked for both positive and negative a and b. That would mean that

√[-a]*√[-b]

√[(-a)*(-b)]

√[a*b*(-1)*(-1)]

√[a*b*(⁺1)]

√[ab].
However we know -- by using Imaginary Numbers -- that

√[-a]*√[-b]

i*√[a]*i*√[b]

i²*√[a]*√[b]

-√[ab]
In fact, Euler was one of the major early explorers of i, although it appeared in his textbook that he had trouble simply multiplying it. (It has recently been demonstrated that Euler did in fact understand the Radical Product Property.) Unfortunately, the way he presents it in the book can be confusing (he mostly used words, rather than equations) and it actually sparked a debate among Mathematicians on two continents, in particular: Etienne Bézout and Sylvestre François Lacroix (French, early-/mid-1800s), and Jeremiah Day (American, early-1800s, President of Yale College).

More specifically, they were debating whether or not Euler had a mistaken understanding of the Radical Product Rule, since he apparently implied that
√[-a]*√[-b] = √[ab].Bézout and Lacroix argued against Euler, whereas Day came to his defense. In the process of the debate, however, some of the issues that Euler himself had to deal with came to light.

Consider the fact that in 1758 -- just over a decade before Euler wrote his book -- a rival Mathematician published a well respected essay in which he denies many important uses of Negative Numbers that we take for granted. Euler's rival, named Francis Maseres, and many others like him believed that Negative Numbers were absurd: I cannot hold negative two pencils in my hand! In 1796, another respected Mathematician, William Frend, referred to Negative Numbers as "ridiculous." With even Negatives open to debate at the time, Euler took baby steps in describing Imaginary Numbers in his textbook.

During the ensuing, decades-long debate on Negative Radicals, many of the properties of Radicals and Imaginary Numbers were developed that we take for granted today. For instance, the idea that
√[a²] = ±athat is, an equation might have multiple simultaneous answers, was developed beyond Euler's statements in his textbook. Matrices of those simultaneous solutions were important in the discussions as well. Not to mention that even using the √ to represent a Radical became standard: before then, Mathematicians had been using radicals with and without the line over the numbers inside -- which led to plenty of confusion -- and parentheses and exponents with radicals were out of hand. The debate two hundred years ago among scholars in different countries required the use of a single notation, which resulted in the one we use today.

There were decades of debate over just one equation -- and all the notation that comes with it -- that Algebra students often take for granted in high school. These are rich ideas. Too often I hear students complain about Imaginary Numbers not making sense, but there was a time when that was said of Negative Numbers as well. Imaginary Numbers not only come in handy to solve the problem of a negative inside the radical -- nor do they only have great significance in the sciences (for instance in Quantum Physics, my passion) -- but they helped Mathematicians rigorously understand a concept as elementary as our Radical Product Rule.

Stop Taking Your Breakfast for Granted!

3.75
That's how many pounds of Carbon Dioxide are released into Earth's atmosphere for every carton of Tropicana Orange Juice. To give you an idea of what it means in terms of pollution: Cars make about 1 pound of Carbon Dioxide for every mile driven. Each carton of Tropicana OJ that you buy is like driving a car for almost 4 miles. The name that scientists give to the amount of Carbon Dioxide (and other harmful Green House Gases) connected to a particular product is its "Carbon Footprint."

[Note: Check out my last post on calculating your own Footprint -- the approximate Green House Gases from all the goods and services you buy each year.]

What goes into each carton's Footprint?
As I mentioned above, the Carbon Footprint refers to some amount of Carbon Dioxide, which contributes to Global Warming. The largest sources of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are Fossil Fuels. (Some examples of theses Fuels include Oil and Coal, and products made from them like Gasoline.) Two major characteristics of Fossil Fuels that scientists have known and taken advantage of for years are that 1) they release a great amount of heat energy when set on fire and 2) they have lots of Carbon in their chemical make-up.

When Fossil Fuels are burned, the Carbon that is contained in them transforms into Carbon Dioxide and floats off in a cloud of smoke. Just so you know: Most of the electricity in the U.S. is produced by Fossil Fuel-burning power plants -- that is, about 72% of all U.S. electricity. (Only 8.5% is created by Renewable Resources, like Solar and Hydro Power.) And don't forget how much Gasoline (made from Oil) we burn every day driving our cars around! (I would also like to point out that most Plastic is made from Oil and has a large Carbon Footprint as well.)

A Carbon Footprint calculates things like how much Carbon Dioxide is made while producing the electricity used in Tropicana's factory. It also includes the Carbon Dioxide from burning Gasoline while shipping the cartons of juice across the country (usually from the main plant in Bradenton, Florida). You can probably tell already how hard it is to calculate a Carbon Footprint: you have to figure out every step of the process and then calculate the Carbon Dioxide associated with it. The hardest part can be figuring out just what all the steps in the process are.

A Surprise in the Calculation
To calculate their Carbon Footprint, Tropicana hired an outside company, called Carbon Trust:

Early on, [Tropicana's own] company officials roughed out the carbon footprint of Tropicana juice. But when the Carbon Trust came back with its own calculations, that initial estimate was off by more than 20 percent.

Growing the oranges accounted for a larger share — about a third — than [Tropicana] had expected, almost entirely because of the production and application of fertilizer.

So Tropicana's own people made a guess at their Footprint, but like I said, it's hard to figure out all the steps in the process. The professionals they hired from Carbon Trust found a step the Tropicana people left out: growing the oranges.

Tropicana discovered something that Environmentalists have known for a while now: Farming makes a lot of pollution. The majority of Carbon Dioxide produced in farming comes from its fertilizers. Most of the nutrients in the fertilizers are made from Fossil Fuels. In 2005, 99.5% of farms in America use fertilizers made in a lab. Just the process of making the fertilizer releases a huge amount of Carbon Dioxide. (These chemical fertilizers -- and other elements of modern farming -- have further negative effects on the environment, but for this blog post, let's just stick to the Carbon Footprint.)

Breaking Down the Footprint
Here's Carbon Trust's breakdown of the Carbon Footprint:

As it turned out, the production phase of the juice alone accounts for 60% of the Carbon Footprint. Of that, 58% comes from the fertilizer.
58% of 60% = .58 x .60 = .348 = ~35%So, about 35% of the orange juice's Footprint comes from the chemical fertilizer used to grow the oranges. That's more than the Electricity and Natural Gas (another Fossil Fuel) used to power the factory in processing the oranges! That's more than the fuel used by trucks and trains to drive it across the country!

The way Carbon Trust came to the number 3.75 pounds was by adding up all of the Carbon Dioxide emitted by all of these processes over the course of 6 months or a year and then divided by the number of cartons produced in that time. Consider this scenario: A single batch of orange juice made from the same harvest of oranges is split into two trucks. One truck full of orange juice drives from the main Tropicana plant to somewhere else within Florida. The other truck drives all the way out to California. Since the second truck drove farther, does that mean that its orange juice has a larger Carbon Footprint?

The answer is: No, since Tropicana is a national company and it uses profits in one area of the country to balance out costs in another. That helps them to deliver a uniform brand product with the same quality and price nationwide. But it also means that the cost of fuel and therefore the fuel's Carbon Dioxide is distributed over all the cartons of juice that Tropicana sells.

Does this mean that Tropicana is bad for the environment?
Let me put it this way: "Bad for the environment" is relative. As I said before, the biggest part of the juice's Carbon Footprint comes from the chemical fertilizer that is used, and remember that 99.5% of farms in America use these fertilizers. That means 99.5% of oranges, corn, wheat, rice, grapes, and all other types of produce have this large Carbon Footprint due to chemical fertilizers. You may be wondering now what that other .5% of American farms is: Organic Farms.

If you go to a supermarket and head to the produce section, you'll find that there are many types of fruits and vegetables available. And next to each variety, you may (though maybe not) find the same kind but with the label "Organic." Organic blueberries. Organic corn. It's the same type of food, but grown without chemical fertilizers (and without pesticides). This means that these organic foods have much smaller Footprints.

Something else that can reduce a product's Carbon Footprint is not driving it halfway across the country, burning up gasoline. Locally grown foods don't have to travel nearly as far. There are big Farmers' Markets that happen in Richmond and Oakland every weekend.

In Richmond, the Farmers Market is every Friday, 11am-5pm:

Richmond Public Library (parking lot)
325 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA

[Note: I just went there and bought a blood orange (oranges that are red inside) and strawberries.]

The other big way to reduce the Carbon Footprint of your foods is buying less processed stuff. The more that food has to go through machines and factories, the more electricity has to be used. You can minimize the Carbon Footprint of your orange juice by buying California-grown, organic oranges and squeezing them yourself, then just keep a pitcher of it in your fridge.

But getting back to the original question: Tropicana's orange juice is probably no worse than any other company's: they all use chemical fertilizers and ship around the country. Tropicana, however, has taken the first step to reduce their Carbon Footprint, and which no other company has done: figuring out just what their Footprint is.

Carbon Footprint Calculator

The University of California - Berkeley has developed a handy "calculator" that helps you to determine how much Carbon in the Earth's atmosphere that you (and your family) are responsible for. The questions it asks especially deal with how much you and the people you live with spend on food, travel, heating, etc. (For example, the calculator asks you how much you spend on fruit because it often has to be driven across the country, and that burns gasoline.)

Check out the calculator: here. These are my results:


My household (2 people) creates 16 tons of Carbon Dioxide per year, which is the equivalent of cutting down 3 acres of forest. I do my best to conserve energy -- and I only use about 60% less than the average 2 person household -- but what makes my footprint really big is the Transportation. I don't have a car (I ride my bike and take BART often), but my family lives all the way in New Jersey, so I've flown out to see them twice per year. That means that I fly way more miles than the average American.

On the other hand, my carbon footprint is twice the average of people around the world. Maybe in the interest of my carbon footprint, I'll start using Skype with my family, instead of traveling.

Alternative Energy in the Economic Downturn

From the New York Times's Green Inc. blog:

OptiSolar, based in California, is laying off close to half of its workers at what it had hoped would become a huge solar-panel plant near Sacramento.

HelioVolt, a [...] solar manufacturer headquartered in Austin, is also cutting jobs, as reportedly is SunEdison.

Evergreen Solar, a solar manufacturer, announced that it would close down a pilot plant in Massachusetts as a cash-saving measure; it will incur a $25 million charge for writing off equipment.

All of those (hyperlinked) company names are different companies that manufacture solar panels and things like that. And, as you probably noted, they are all suffering right now, during the Financial Crisis.

According to USA Today, there are several reasons why:

Since 2004, solar prices have been propped up by a shortage of capacity to make both silicon — the raw material for solar-power systems — and finished panels. Meantime, the Spanish and German governments have paid system owners hefty subsidies to generate solar power, turbocharging sales in those countries.

Manufacturers responded by building a wave of factories. Then Spain and Germany slashed this year's incentives [ie the subsidies]. In the U.S., the biggest solar investors were banks such as Morgan Stanley that can no longer benefit from tax credits because of insufficient profits.

Prices on solar panels had been pushed artificially high, since 2004. However, the Financial Crisis, last fall, slammed the brakes on everything: no one is buying solar panels and Germany and Spain stopped their subsidies. Even in the U.S. investment capital is slim. This has had two major results:

1. The wave of factory closings mentioned earlier.
2. Prices are much lower on the solar panels that are still being produced.
   • There were so many factories producing as many panels as they could, for the past few years, that there are a ton of panels just lying around right now. Factory owners are more or less trying to get rid of them.
   • At the same time as that high level of supply, there is extremely low demand.

Barry Cinammon, CEO of Akeena Solar, one of the nation's largest installers, estimates that the total cost for consumers buying solar panels has fallen 8%. And representatives from SunPower, one of the largest solar manufacturers, predict that prices may fall by as much as 20%.

The news isn't so bad though, if you're a consumer in the Golden State. From the USA Today article:

In California, which accounts for nearly 70% of the U.S. solar market, a typical 4-kilowatt, $32,000 solar energy system cost a homeowner about $23,000 last year after state and federal incentives [ie more government tax credits]. This year, if prices sink as expected, that system is likely to cost $10,000 to $12,000.

The point here is that if you're thinking about buying solar panels for your roof, the time to do it is now.

But even though the math has been sounding pretty negative for solar companies, there is good news in the long term. According to an article from the Wall Street Journal:

Start-ups across a variety of areas -- solar power, biofuels and energy conservation among them -- are getting increased financing from venture capitalists and lenders at a time when other small companies are cutting back and being turned away by investors. And many are hiring more staff, boosting marketing efforts and expanding geographically.[...]

While the overall volume of venture-capital deals sank last year, investments in clean-technology companies totaled $8.4 billion, up nearly 40% from 2007, according to Cleantech Group. In the third quarter alone, venture capitalists poured $2.6 billion into clean technology, a quarterly record. In the fourth quarter, they invested $1.7 billion.

Even though venture-capital as a whole was declined last year -- no doubt as a result of the Financial Crisis -- it went up by 40% for the Alternative Energy sector. The article goes on to interview owners of alternative energy retailers, manufacturers, and installers who are expecting their business to grow in the next few years.

How does this reconcile with the problems that the solar companies are facing? Solar technology is just one source of alternative energy. The WSJ article deals with everything from Biofuels to Information Technology:

Verdiem Corp. sells software that provides centralized control over power consumption, such as remotely turning off computer monitors left on overnight.

Solar got popular very quickly, but as it turns out, we're going to need more than one solution to the Energy problems that the world faces. It will encompass everything from the cars we drive to how we turn off the lights at night. Just producing the electricity that we consume will take several forms of alternative energy. Remember the Supergrid that I wrote about a while back? It was a plan to power Europe that focused on energy from the Sun, but every part of Europe had to contribute: the windy countries had turbines, the coastal regions contributed Hydro-power. Fortunately, now, U.S. companies are beginning to invest in these many different technologies. We are just taking the first steps on the road to sustainability.

Poem Read at President Obama's Inauguration

Praise Song for the Day
by Elizabeth Alexander

A Poem for Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration

Each day we go about our business,
walking past each other, catching each other's
eyes or not, about to speak or speaking.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

Someone is stitching up a hem, darning
a hole in a uniform, patching a tire,
repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what's on the other side.

I know there's something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle, praise song for the day.
Praise song for every hand-lettered sign,
the figuring-it-out at kitchen tables.

Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself,
others by first do no harm or take no more
than you need. What if the mightiest word is love?

Love beyond marital, filial, national,
love that casts a widening pool of light,
love with no need to pre-empt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air,
any thing can be made, any sentence begun.
On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp,

praise song for walking forward in that light.

Take That Math Haters

According to the Wall Street Journal, the best job in America is... Mathematician.

According to the study, mathematicians fared best in part because they typically work in favorable conditions -- indoors and in places free of toxic fumes or noise [...] They also aren't expected to do any heavy lifting, crawling or crouching [...]

The study also considers pay, which was determined by measuring each job's median income and growth potential. Mathematicians' annual income was pegged at $94,160, but Ms. Courter, 38, says her salary exceeds that amount.

Her job entails working as part of a virtual team that designs mathematically based computer programs, some of which have been used to make films such as "The Matrix" and "Speed Racer." She telecommutes from her home and rarely works overtime or feels stressed out.

Take that Math haters.

Parabolas, Childhood Wonder

"And this really gave me the creeps cause it was as if this inanimate thing, this pendulum knew algebra. How could this thing swinging back and forth know something about parabolas, or how could that be built in? And so, it was in that moment that I understood what people mean when they say 'There is a Law of Nature'."