Inbox Trust (TM) is one of those things you have to be really careful with. The reason people are able to spread malware and bilk too many people out of money is the same reason people sometimes take the wrong person home at the end of a date. The person crying over the “perfect guy” who disappeared after leaving a false phone number  is the same sort of person who cries over the Nigerian prince who abused the bank account numbers they shared – Both sets of people misplaced their trust because they wanted something to good to be true to fast.

You need to know whose links you can trust, which attachments can be safely opened, and to whom you can share minor confidences without fear of forward.

What always gets me is the people who try and force inbox trust, and how often people fall prey to this. In some ways it is like any forced vulnerability. We’ve all been there in real life – there is that late night conversation with an acquaintance (or even a newly met person) that somehow leds to over sharing at 4am. They say “Can I trust you?” and we all want to be trusted, so too often everyone ends up saying too much, and through this shared vulnerability friendship is created. There is a difference between a face to face moment of TMI, and someone in your inbox asking for confidentiality. As the saying goes, on the internet, anyone can authenticate their dog. You just don’t know who or what is really behind that message you’re getting. At least when that middle of the night TMI turns out to have occurred with a crazy person, you know who that person is and how to get them back out of your life as needed. With your inbox, that crazy person can just come back with a new and improved user name.

I often get emails like the one I screen captured above. They start with the “Can I trust you?” theme. They then ask me to do something that will endanger myself to prove I’m trust worthy; open an attachment, send bank numbers, etc etc. It is psychologically clever. I bet lots of people fall prey to these attempts to scam / infect / harm them and their privacy/identity. Just by saying, “Can I trust you?” they are priming people to do things that prove they are deserving of trust.

The other type of email I get a lot also starts with “Can I trust you?” but it is a type that makes me sad because they come from mislead individuals who don’t realize how dumb they are being. These are people who say “Can I trust you? Will you please keep the following in complete confidence?” and they go on to describe some science theory they have or some other issue they have that they want my assistance with. These people are assuming, based on the person I appear to be online, that they can trust me, and they reach out to me without introduction. Now the thing is, the person I play online is actually pretty true to who I am, so people who reach out to me and make themselves vulnerable are safe, but it makes me worry. Not everyone out there is the person they play online. If someone struggling with something reaches out to the wrong blogger, they could get mocked by name online.

As we all become more an more virtual, we need to change how we interact. Yes, we all still want to be trusted, but we need to all also be much more careful in the venues in which we give our trust, and in which we give trust to others. If you say something online, always ask yourself, “Am I prepared for what I said to be blogged?” Ask yourself, “Am I ready for my email conversation to get forwarded to friends, family, employers?” Ask yourself, are you ready to be digitally stripped naked?

Trust is a hard thing, and as we become more and more digital, the levels of trust we must have are getting greater and greater. Protect your selves, and be aware of the psychology of the simple phrase “Can I trust you?” And remember the other old adage, if they have to ask, then answer is probably no.

Image by Alan Friedman of Archimedes Crater

Twas the week after Christmas, when all through the halls
Not a student was stirring – they’d gone out to the malls
The professors were all doing their research with care
In hopes that peer review would be gentle and fair.

The servers were whirring all snug on the cloud
While theorists muttered their equations out loud
With data in columns, I figured and plotted
Checking every t’s crossed and every I dotted

When from the fax room there arose such a clatter
I sprang to my feet cursing what ‘er was the matter
Away to my door I flew in a flash
Slaming it shut, my actions perhaps a bit rash

The noise from my stomach on this once quiet morn
Told it was time for a break for popcorn
When, what on my microwave snack should appear
But a schematic sleigh, and eight handdrawn reindeer?

With a few quiet curses, so creative a quick
I knew in a moment who’d played me this trick
More rapid than eagles his Christmas fails came
I opened my door, and looking about I called him by name

Now, Belstein! Doctor Belstein, Each year at this time
The telescope, the servers, something new you undermine
From the top of the mountain, to this very popcorn
You treat everyones stuff with contempt and with scorn

As old papers that under the suns UV rays
When they meet with some handling, crumple away
As he rose out of his chair, and came tottering my way
I regretted my words, and wished in my office I’d stayed

He was dressed all in wool, from ankle to shoulder
And his cloths were nerd chic with their fancy pen holder
A bundle of printouts he held tight in his hand
And he was mighty annoyed about having to stand

His eyes-how they pierced! His forehead so crinkled!
His cheeks were flushed hot, His shirt was so wrinkled!
His droll little mouth was drawn into a frown
And the hair on his head limply hung down

He was chubby and plump, a right chunky old prof
Why oh why had I dared tick him off
The red of his eye and the twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had all things to dread.

He spoke just a phrase, before getting to work.
“I found him”, he said, then turned with a jerk.
And using a red sharpie he wrote on my door
A series of symbols no one had thought to explore
He want back to his chair, as I gave a low whistle
Santa’s sleigh flew on a neutrino-powered missile
Somehow faster than light, he flew faster than sight
Problem solved! QED! And to all a good-night

For the past several days headlines all over the web have read “US to shoot down satellite.”

Ok, first off, that satellite is on its way down no matter what. That would be the problem. It doesn’t actually need shot “down.”

Second, after it gets nailed by whatever our government and military, in their wisdom, decide to fire at it, the satellite is going to hopefully smash apart into a bazillion little pieces, and some of those pieces will end up going up, while others stay in orbit, so in reality we are shooting the satellite in all directions.

An accurate, and still fantastic, headline should read, “US plans to blast satellite into little bits” or “US plans to blast satellite apart.”

The only reason this is happening is to guarantee that the satellite is in tiny enough pieces as it comes through the atmosphere that nothing makes it through intact. This is a dangerous thing to do because bad aim could knock it in unpredictable ways that lead to much badness (for instance, a glancing blow with failure to detonate could set the thing spinning and put it on a new orbital path that hits Earth sooner). Alternatively, we could blast it into a bunch of tiny pieces and a few big ones that wreck havoc either on Earth or in space. It’s not like Earth’s orbit really needs more space junk, but… More space junk is better than toxic chemicals killing a bunch of people on Earth. This is probably the best thing to do, and the best thing isn’t always a safe thing.

Bottomline: Weather willing the US will be blasting apart a satellite somewhere over the Pacific nearish Hawaii during the darkest part of the lunar eclipse tonight (so they can better see falling chunks – this has a good scientific reason). We are not shooting it down. It’s already on its way down. They’re just skeet shooting a really large metal pigeon filled with poison.

Want to learn more about the satellite (USA 193, for those wanting to know)? Check out Phil’s Bad Astronomy Blog. He’s got a video that gets into all the details.

Random 2: There is an interview of yours truly over at Books and Ideas with Ginger Campbell, MD. Give it a listen

Random 3: I was traumatized by tricker-treaters tonight. Over 200 kids in 3 hours. We went through 8 bags of candy, and reduced our selves to pulling out our personal candy stashes, and when we were bombarded with 15 kids at once and only had 5 pieces of candy left, they got snack bags of potato chips. We then turned off all our lights and hid. And this was night 1! Our town has TWO nights of tricker treating. I don’t get it. I don’t like it. Tomorrow, however, I’ll be on a plan (my poor poor husband, and 10 bags of candy, will try and battle the daemons, zombies, witches, and other customed kiddies).

Here is why. With the monopoly game I had a 1 in (something like) 6 chance of instantly winning something. This means that if I get a soda and fries 3 times, I’ll probably get 1 free something. This will actually work in getting me to go to McDonald’s over Wendy’s or the Quikie Mart when I want a soda and a munchie. For McDonald’s, this means they give away more free stuff, but it also means the get more business. This is a lose-win scenerio.

With the monopoly game, getting the big ticket items is harder – it requires folks to collect a series of pieces that often distributed in a way that makes it hard for one person to get all the pieces, and they have some pieces (that for obvious reasons) only exist in small numbers (small being defined as like 5, in some cases). In some cases, people will pieces that are rare, and lose them or throw them out – thus McD’s doesn’t have to give out the winnings. It is possible, some years they won’t have to give out any big ticket prizes (I don’t think this has happened).

By putting the prize info on a bag and requiring folks to log in, they are making it even more likely that they won’t have to give out all the prizes. My bag when straight to the trash. Some folks, like the homeless folks who really could use the free fries, probably aren’t going to type their numbers in at the local library’s internet cafe. I’m not sure McD’s will get the same surge in sales (not my field), but they will definitely get more info on who’s playing, and that has it’s own value.

Sweepstakes and lotteries are really a tax on the mathematically illiterate. Sure, I’ll randomly buy tickets when the amount one can potentially win gets sufficiently large,  but I plan to throw that money away.

Think of it this way. If galaxies typically produce 1 supernova a per hundred years, I need to watch at least 100 galaxies every day for 1 year to have a high probability of catching 1 SN on it’s first day.

Now, for your typical 6 numbers with 49 options lottery, there is 1 chance in 13,983,816 that any particular combination of will come out of the machine. This means that you have to play 13,983,816 times to have a high probability of winning. Or, if you are part of a ticket pool, you would have to buy 100 tickets a week for 2,689 years to have a high probability of winning. Now, you could spoil the statistics and be the fluck who tries once and wins, but… The odds aren’t in your favor

The odds are always in favor of the house, and whenever there is a sweepstakes that requires you to collect pieces, be present for the drawing (no replacement drawings made), or something other than an instant win, the person putting forward the money you might win is hoping you won’t follow through.

McDonalds: I like your fries, but your latest sweepstakes just gives me a statistical headache.

2) Jupiter & Venus are high(ish) and gorgeous(!) in the sky – That is a hint you should go out and look at them
3) Sagittarius is at its best. If you have never scanned it with binoculars on a clear summer night, you are missing a great chance to randomly discover for yourself a star forming region or a young cluster of stars. (7×50 binoculars will do the trick from a dark area)

4) August 12 is the Perseid meteor shower. Plan ahead – It is supposed to be truly spectacular!

I’m now going to go read number 7

And if you don’t get motion sick, try watching through diffraction grating glasses. You can actually see the atomic/molecular lines of of the stuff used to make the fireworks!

Happy Canada Day to all you Canadians and happy Independence Day to all you US folks!

And tomorrow we return to our regularly scheduled onslaught on science.

We have moles. Lots of moles. And a bunch of trees blocking the southern horizon. Clearly a telescope pier on the roof is called for. When we redo the roof in the (fall?) we’ll add roof access. The roof is higher than all the trees

Do the have a name for what comes after Post-Modernism?

1. A big woohoo to my Astronomy Cast co-host Fraser Cain for his appearance on the Wired Blog Network. Fraser’s Universe Today is a must read for anyone interested in astronomy.
2. Next week, on June 14th, the Space Carnival will be hosted by yours truly. Please send submissions to CarnivalOfSpace@gmail.com by 6pm June 13th. Any blog can contribute, however contributions need to be related to, well, space. To learn more check out This site and links therein.
3. If you are an educator, check out this neat program planned to kick off the launch of the next Mars exploration program: Phoenix.

Okay, randomness over.

Sadly, there are no stars we preceive as green.

On the research front, I have a date with AH Leo. This stubborn little RR Lyrae star has been refusing to reveal all the downbeats of its complex rhythms for several years. This star pulsates in a complex combination of radial and non-radial pulsations that are discussed in an article I wrote last year. Imagine a song with a driving 2/2 bass drum – Thump thump, Thump thump – that has layered on top of it a complex longer percussion lines – ratta tat tat ratta tatta tat tat ratta ta ta … . AH Leo is dancing to that complex beat, revealing its baseline easily, year after year, but never quite letting me see how that top line repeats.

Common wisdom says, “If at first you don’t succeed, find a bigger hammer.” Last year I went out a found the biggest variable star hammer I know of and hit AH Leo with it. The hammer was the AAVSO and its hordes of highly knowledgeable and skilled amateur astronomers. Last April a call went out – catch AH Leo’s light, record its every change. From across the globe amateur astronomers emerged armed with telescopes and CCDs, and (as weather, spouses, and other obligations allowed) they let no photon go unobserved. Over 4000 data points later, I have the data needed to get at the background oscillations of AH Leo, and thanks to the hard work of Marek Kozabul at Clay Center Observatory, I’m getting one final year’s data to confirm what is going on.

This brings us to the writing part of this entry. Writing blogs is a pleasure. Writing research papers and grants is not. On my ‘Spring Break to do list’ is the need to start writing up AH Leo, and also to start writing up grants for some side projects. To try and mediate the pain I will probably be writing at least one blog entry on tools for both research and grant finding/writing that minimize the pain.

And in the midst of my professional astronomer research and writing, I’m going to work on some recording. I want to get some of my talks turned into enhanced podcasts that I will post on this site. I also have a neat collaboration in the works between Astronomy Cast and an entity that has been a long time promoter of public astronomy education that I can’t wait to reveal. Part of what makes astronomy exciting to me is being able to communicate not just my research (which in the grand scheme of things isn’t the most exciting of stuff) as well as the research of the entire community to the public. My personal excitement about astronomy is fed by the excitement of others. I’m am driven by every letter from a reader/listener and every student who asks a question just out of curiosity. Their desire to know more, makes me want to find more answers and find better ways to communicate those answers.

The other day I was asked why I focus so much on astronomy education research, and I have to admit that I don’t see podcasting and astronomy education research as the same thing. Yes, people do learn about astronomy from Astronomy Cast. But, I also learn about middle-east politics from Time, and about home repairs from “This Old House.” Are people who write for Time doing research how to most effectively teach middle-east politics so people retain what they learn? Are the folks at “This Old House” doing research on best practices in evaluating what people learn about home repair? Maybe, but I’m betting their primary focus is on communicating content and finding the most effective ways to catch and keep their non-captive audiences. Astronomy Cast does educate. Fraser and I rely on the research others have done in using technology to communicate and how to most effectively convey astronomy. We are a content source, and if you are going to place us in a bin, I suspect that our bin would also contain Sky and Telescope, Bad Asttonomy, the Cosmos series, and a whole lot of popular astronomy content. Astronomy text books and astronomy classes, which all have activities for learners and evaluation components to test learning are in a different bin. I have the utmost respect for people doing astronomy education research, and it is because of that respect that I must say I am an astronomy educator, variable star researcher and astronomy communicator/journalist, but not an astronomy education researcher.

Now, if you want to ask me why I spend so much time popularizing astronomy through podcasting and writing, that I can answer. I do it because astronomy inspires people to question, to think, and to want to learn more about science. I want to live in an inspired, scientifically knowledgeable, and questioning society. Through popularizing astronomy I can help to build that future society I want to live in. Astronomy is a gateway drug to wanting to learn science, and I am a dealer standing on a digital street corner peddling cosmology, stellar evolution and planetary science. My little pages of content are free, but if you find yourself coming back, I just might start asking you to donate. Come learn. Go out and tell all your friends. Here, let me give you some links for you little siblings, and don’t forget – the more people who come and learn, the more I will be inspired to give.

Limited access to information (and the decision to actually access that information) acts in many ways to divide our society. It takes money to get the cable and satellite news feeds. Prolonged access to online content – the type of access needed to hunt down links and read background material – takes money or the right job. Knowing how to access information takes education, which is another way of separating the haves from the have-nots. And sorting through digital, video, and audio content takes that most precious resource of all: time. It takes effort to be informed, and one must choose to know what is going on.

With time and access often limited, many people rely on the main stream media to tell them what they need to know in 30 minutes a night (30 minutes minus commercials, minus special interest topics, that is). It scares me sometimes how much a person can miss by not having the time or desire to spend a few minutes checking the headlines on the sidelines: Bird Flu is back, China shot down a satellite, cows are starving in heartland snows, and citrus is suffering in the Sonoma ice. Sure, a lot of it doesn’t affect me. To make informed stock decisions, I don’t need to know the Oscar picks, but in understanding today’s transportation sector, it helps to know new laws now govern travel to neighboring countries and Virgin America Air was a US no fly.

So knowledge is power. We all learned that from School House Rock, right? So how do we get people to seek knowledge? And more importantly, how do we get people to be informed critical and skeptical thinkers? I have ~ 70 channels on my cable TV. I can tune my content to almost any whim. I can self-select to have people carefully “prove” the paranormal, demonstrate the power of prayer 24 hours a day, and show me ways to solve all the worlds problems with little magnetic bracelets. I can also decide to have the MythBusters demonstrate the scientific method as they take on the urban legends and old wives tales of US society. To get people thinking critically, we scientists need to somehow make people want to spend their time watching us. We need to make what we do cool and trendy. We need to make people want to be skeptical and think. We must somehow make people want to invest the time and resources necessary to be informed.

And I see this happening. The Skep Chicks and Skep Dudes calendars are showing that critical thinkers can be sexy too. Sex sells. The media is also letting scientists be more than thick-glassed geeks. The scientists in Numbers and Bones aren’t always the most socially adroit individuals, but they are sexy.

Its a start. Laura McCullough, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin – Stout, told me that part of getting women into science is showing them an environment in which they can (and want to) see themselves. I think this is true for anyone. By making the faces that portray scientists and who inform about different science fields a little more hip, a little more fun, and a lot more charismatic, perhaps we can inspire more people to follow us into the trenches of science. Perhaps we can inspire them to get informed and get skeptical and get online and get hip to what’s hot in Nature (or at least on their free podcast).