padren

I do understand that economics and political ideology are hard to separate, but I get the impression most economic theories are vetted by "the chorus" in their respective camps, and then these theories become proposed legislation, compromised only as much as needed for the more powerful party at the time to get it to pass. The second to last thing I want to do is read two books that are not heavily vetted and as such filled with many red herrings, because since I lean towards the left, I may not notice nearly as many of them in a more left leaning theory than a right leaning one. I don't want to have to dig through books on Monetarism theory to find the caveats Keynesian theory, especially if the criticism is in a vacuum, where you can end up with the "Michael Moore Effect" of someone not really bothering to back up their criticism as they think their view should be common sense. (Not accusing Milton Friedman of that degree of laxness, I just haven't dug through his work and in this field I start out pretty skeptically) The last thing I want to do is not read up on it at all, so I will hit the bookstore. I am curious if any specific titles may be especially good in the "devil's advocate" manner, where instead of pitching a theory as the savior of economics sales pitch, its more proposed as a set of thought out benefits and thought out caveats, even if it leans towards the benefits being greater. An economics book club could be interesting if it has a diverse enough membership - could lead to some heated vetting of the theories. Agenda is definitely a huge factor - I wouldn't doubt it if our education system may be ailing as much as it seems to be lately due to the sheer amount of political polarization that gets tied into education reform issues. Well, in quantum physics you often get competing theories - no one knows which is "better" yet but if you don't incorporate them into education students aren't prepared later, so they are taught as competing theories, complete with peer review. (at least, I think that's how it works, its been a while) It may be easier to teach personal finance, which, if someone solidly understands the risks of debt, they should be able to ask obvious questions like "how much will that 700 billion cost us in interest to borrow?" and the like, and perhaps seek assurances from politicians that short-term deficit spending is treated as a bill owed out with a payback plan, not trust fund sponsored by our grandchildren. I do think its possible to teach economics as competing theories, but it would be hard to keep the teachers themselves from biasing it, unless the material was really well produced and heavily vetted on both sides.

This whole bail out and the state of the economy is really starting to bother me, and my first thought is: do we need to start teaching better economics in highschool? My second is: what are some good books on the topic - as free from political ideology as possible? I think I need to read up on everything from personal finances to Keynesian economics and the like. What my common sense tells me, is we are far too leveraged in debt, and as a culture we don't understand the fundamental implications of debt well enough. Americans are tied down with debt both personally, and nationally through our national debt and it seems to me unless a debt is going to bite someone within 6 months time, its almost off the radar. I've heard it mentioned this bailout could make the taxpayers money if done right, but honestly, if we have to borrow it from overseas, and give these firms enough pennies on the dollar for the assets to keep them solvent is that going to net us a profit in the end? I am yet to hear how we plan to pay for a bail out (to the foreign lenders) and how much it will cost us by then, as we'll have to regardless of whether we make anything off it here. One of the things that really bothers me is the degree to which economics and politics get intertwined - instead of myopic attacks on regulation/deregulation and the benefits/evils of "trickle down" vs "spending up" etc, why is it so hard to find scientific assessments of historical data that can provide insights into the benefits/dangers of various strategies? Whenever I hear about unions, it's either about evil businesses trashing them or evil unions trashing business - whatever example is most extreme and can be used as a poster child for a political stance. It's always the same with economics in general - all rhetoric and no theory. I hope this doesn't come across as just a rant, I am definitely interested in trying to nail down the science of "objective economics" and whether we as a nation are too debt-unconscious. That's what my common sense tells me but my common sense sure hasn't made me a millionaire either.

I do wonder where the gray line of "proselytizing" gets drawn - if a church runs an after school athletics or study program, even if the church authority figures manage to keep their faith separate... will the average evangelistic teen not proselytize to their "new friends" and such? No matter how you look at it, the result will be federal funds will be spent, and churches will gain exposure of their philosophy to potential members from it. It may be indirect with very blurry connections, but the result will be the same. One thing I do like is the idea of aiding religious and non-religious people alike in doing true honest humanitarian work. Religion makes me very very uneasy on a personal level - and I've honestly never considered the idea of any religious group doing humanitarian work for any reason other than to prey on people at their most vulnerable. If Obama can convince me that an "uneasy truce" is a good idea in the spirit of working towards common goals - then maybe we actually can end up getting closer to those goals. Side note: What actually stops any church full of followers from starting/joining secular programs to do volunteer work? If its all about the humanitarian effort and not the faith - why not just join the humanitarian effort that already exists?

Don't forget lolcode - its not just English that's getting butchered.

Lets say the small wheel's weight starts to drop, picking up speed, passes the point of equilibrium, and starts to slow down until the formerly-larger-now-smaller wheel's capacity to over power it stops it all together, and takes over in the reverse direction. Due to friction, the weight will not get all the way down to its fullest potential, lets say, it makes it 99% of the way there because its very very efficient. The other weight is now 99% of the full height that the initial one was, and it will only drop 99% of that value - roughly 98% of the total possible distance. This will continue until the machine comes to rest in the dead center - at equilibrium. What I think you failed to consider, is that speed is only being gained during the first half of the free-fall while one wheel is smaller than the other - as soon as they pass equal size at the half way point and it gradually slows. It needs every last possible iota of energy to get the other end back up to it's original position - making harvesting energy impossible and friction it's "slow death" into equilibrium. It is a clever adaption of the pendulum though - just less efficient and, still not a perpetual motion machine.

I think if you want to look at the "where would the energy come from?" question, it boils down to potential energy from "rocks lifted up" during the big bang and subsequent shaping of the local star system. The "work" done in setting up the location of Earth and Jupiter was done a long time ago, and not by humans. It would be no different than gaining energy by tying a rope to a rock found at the top of a mountain and having it unwind from the axle of a generator. The closest we have to pure "gravitational power generation" would be tidal power plants, which only require solar energy to keep the water from freezing, but not move it around. (The moon does that.) Technically, (this is my assumption, not a proof) the resistance the water going through the turbines causes a slight mass of water to slightly "lag" behind the moon instead of being pulled directly up towards it, (just as friction resistance in the open ocean does to a lesser degree but on a larger scale) which causes the "center of mass" (Earth) that the moon is pulled towards to always be a bit lopsided and behind the Moon's orbit instead of directly below the moon - which in very small increments causes the moon to slow down and possibly crash into the earth one day. Though, I think I recall the moon has a velocity that is actually causing it to get further away, and this "tidal drag" isn't enough to decelerate it enough to ever crash into the Earth. I am not 100% sure, but I am pretty sure that is why a tidal power plant isn't considered a perpetual motion machine - the energy gained increases tidal drag, but due to the sheer amount of potential energy in the moon, the impact hasn't been notable even over billions of years.

Man, that's impressive. If it hasn't already been done - someone should really make a children's book with "big science" photos like these. This stuff could complete with any artistic rendering of a dinosaur for sheer awesomeness. Edit: Quick question: Did someone draw a face inside the "6" in the top mid-left conduit in the second photo? If I see that right, it looks unhappy.

Regardless of whether this deal is shady or not, I think the long term legacy after 30 years will be a very positive one... as long as future politicians don't shadily first intentionally botch reclamation and crookedly hand it back to corporate interests to tarnish the reputations of their predecessors. Between shady deals that damage the environment and shady deals that result in such a reclamation project - I think this one (if it is indeed shady) helps tilt the scales more towards a balance between the two than towards one extreme. We've seen more than enough of the former, not so many of the latter.

Well, there's a bit of variety in what being a "good Christian" means - I know some who will not touch a drop of alcohol, and others that drink in moderation, and those that drink in excess in moderation. You come across as being pretty strong in your faith, so I doubt you'd "rethink your views" in a self serving manner, though its always a possibility (with any human being). Ultimately we all are confronted with situations that do force us to examine our beliefs and make decisions based on our values that can branch in very different ways. To set yourself up to be scammed and give money to people who will use it to do further ill probably doesn't feel right - but the obvious solution also doesn't feel right. I think there are strong philosophical arguments for both sides - on the one hand, Christians did have other means to protect themselves when a marriage went bad, and on the other, the question of whether you are truly entering a marriage of "complete trust" if you protect yourself in advance. Its hard to come to a definitive answer: which is why we have lots of different Christians with differing views, each taking a slightly different leap of faith in the direction that is most at peace with them and how they view their relationship with God. A lot more than money is at stake in a marriage - you invest many years of your life and often have children in a marriage... all that come with far more painful possibilities than loosing half your money. Personally, I would consider a marriage even with a prenuptial to still be "in full trust" as I doubt you'd ever consider a marriage if you thought there was any chance of the prenuptial having to come into play later. You don't build a house somewhere you expect a flood to wash it away within your lifetime - but you may still buy flood insurance. Your assets may end up needed to take care of ailing family or children, so its hardly selfish to take that responsibility seriously. But that's just my opinion - and I am certainly no expert in Christianity. Best of luck in your pursuit.

I kind of like this idea. I don't know how you make it workable, but there's a basis there. Sounds like it would require a pretty massive centralized government, and probably someone like Stalin to enforce it.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of the technologies you see "current progress" as inferior to (optical CPUs/levitating cars) are a lot harder to develop in real life than science fiction would have us believe. You can't fault progress simply because the idea you have of how "it should be" doesn't match the pragmatic real life difficulties in developing such technologies. Also, humanity has been pretty violent and destructive since the dawn of civilization - we did wipe out all other hominids "back in the day" after all, and emerged from an exceptionally violent natural world. If anything, its surprising we've advanced this much socially, and with every generation people are being born into a yet more connected world that fundamentally impacts the formation of their world view. Being born in 1976, the most impressive memories I have are the photos and videos of the Earth from space, which had a huge impact on the formation of my personality. My parents' generation only had man made maps, and a very abstract "idea" about how small the world is. Today, kids "go out and play" with friends all over the world online, and the idea of all these other cultures is not nearly as "abstract" for them as it was for me - who knows the impact of this a generation from now. Another positive sign: look at how life was during the Cold War - and how close we came to an all out exchange of nuclear arsenals. While nuclear weapons still have a degree of threat - its nothing compared to that era. We still have a long way to go for sure, and have a number of very serious challenges, but its not like the world has become stagnant. Its just progress isn't as fast as we'd like, but that is also natural - and one of the reasons we keep pushing ahead. Discontent seems to be an evolutionary trait to keep us always adapting and trying new things, which in the end doesn't so much denote that things are now "bad" but that with effort they can be that much better.

I just thought up this horrible, horrible joke, and now I'll inflict it upon you all! What did the Tortilla say to the joke cracking Nacho? . . . . . . . . ..."Do your jokes always have to be so cheezy?" Couldn't resist!

What I think I'll do, is talk to a patent attorney with NDA in place, and see what I need to do to get to the 'patent pending' status, and research possible manufacturers who would be interested in the patent, and attempt some pitches. I'll let ya all know how it goes!

I hate it when that happens (loosing a post) - I've had to get in the habit of copying everything before a post. What about "patent pending" status? I heard you can shop a patent around without the patent process being finalized, and even go to market. Lots of devices have 'patent pending' written on them these days that you buy in stores. Also, I have no desire to try and get into the actual production/manufacturing of this item - way too much overhead for what specialized companies can do en mass much better. I am not worried about a $2 sprinkler as competition, because this one is pretty much has the same level of 'hook' as that stupid 'tractor sprinkler' but, instead of making the user waste more time, saves the user a whole lot of time...I came up with the idea while trying to figure out how I could make my yard waaaay easier to maintain - and I am pretty sure 90% of men at least (we hate wasting time on household labor, yes?) would be happy to get it in place of a $2 sprinkler, even if it cost $8 or $12. What I really hope I can find, is some sort of 'patent agent' company that can market it to The Big Guys, or, in lieu of that, I'll have to try and shop around to an investor I suppose.

Hey everyone (hope this is the right area for the post) I notice a lot of people here have experience with patents, and I could really use some advice: I came up with a very simple lawn sprinkler system that I think could be a national best seller. It is very cheap to produce, very simple, and has features that put it in its own category - my partners don't want me to go into many details, but I bet I could sell any company on it. The problem: no idea about patents, marketing patents, or what to do. Plus I am self-employed (ie basically broke). The ideal solution would be a specialized company I could consult with (is that done with a NDA?) at a pre-patent phase, that would take an ungodly percent in exchange for dealing with paperwork and the marketing to 'Big Lawn' and all that. Do companies like this exist? They 'appear' to if you believe late night TV commercials, but I would never go in blind with some little known company off a midnight ad. What is the best course of action? Will I have to patent it myself before I can even do anything with it? What should I expect I could sell it for (if I can in fact convince a big company that it'll be the #1 seller) and what should I watch out for? Any advice is really appreciated - thanks

I've often felt that way, and at times felt like words like "altruism" were forms of self delusion. Personally, I took the tact that I'd rather be a self deluded altruist and a fool than a sharp cutting bastard, and the nice part is when my disposition shifted, I was fortunate enough not to regret anything from those days. The truth is, what you are saying is a far more accurate picture of the world than you had before, but it isn't super accurate yet either - its actually a lot more complex yet! We were not born an enlightened species, we evolved as social animals, which became tribal and clannish an competed more with other groups of humans than nature, causing in us a deep, primal distrust of other "tribes" or people who are different in general. But it is amazing we have made as much progress socially as we have - not any of it is ours by birthright, which at first is hard to accept but in the end makes those victories all the more meaningful. Just consider how unlikely it is for this world to exist at all. Even the universe doesn't "add up" when you try to examine the issue of "first cause" and all that... for a single conscious observer to fleetingly see even a single thing that they can describe as "beautiful" in the entire lifespan of the universe would, to me, something to be humbled by. And we've landed in a universe that offers that and so much more right where we are right this moment. I find that mindblowingly sweet, personally. I chalk what you feel up to one of the harsher aspects of the human condition: we have an idea of what the world is, and it is never what the world actually is. The mind's model of the world is always cleaner, more theoretical, and without a lot of the messes of reality. Then it fails to model reality, breaks down, and we blame the world for being less than our model. We often beat ourselves up when we don't live up to our model's idea of what we think we are. You do not have the "right" to live in the world you thought existed - so you are not being cheated out of anything. You're just here, like everyone else, trying to figure out where the hell we are actually living. Just keep refining your understanding of the world, and when something about it bothers you, explore the truth behind it more. And, take time to relax and enjoy what's beautiful about the world. Physical experiences can really change one's mood, which changes how one thinks, and gives more perspectives to consider. Even your pessimism is just another mental model, so don't make the same mistake and put undue faith in that one, either.

I tried to make one while playing the Star Wars Galaxies MMO game a while back (my character did at least) and, you had to get all these crystals and do quests....it was kinda a pain. But on a more serious note: You can make 'beam saber' weapons but, not like the classic star wars. You'd have to have a physical "saber" where the cutting section is somewhat concave, like a hacksaw, and a beam is emitted to a mirror or 'receiver' at the other end. It would be useless as a thrusting weapon, and for slicing it would be hard to have the beam wide enough to account for the width of the bulk of the saber - especially at the tip that has to stop the continuing of the beam. When it comes to laser weapons though, never bring a saber to a (laser) gun fight: Point and Click is a better user interface for laser weapons, overall. If you can have a saber with a terminating beam via a mechanical device at the end, unless you are recapturing that energy it would be equally efficient to hold the trigger on a comparable laser gun and "swing" it at someone at equal range.

Correct me if I am completely off here but: Isn't digital more of a 'technique' than a 'medium' in general? You can send an analog cell radio signal to a receiver... it detects the radio waves, their fluctuations etc, and produces electrical current in a consistent response to the fluctuation, causing a speaker to emit sound consistent with the radio signal, which was encoded by the exact same sound. Radio waves will always be "waves" but, when we transmit digital data, its not like we are sending "all or nothing" morse code signals or changing what is inherently an analog signal: we simply emit the radio wave in such a matter that it can be broken down into discrete packets of binary data. The density of the data is not determined by the fact its binary (ie, only 1 or 0 is sent at a time) but by the sensitivity of the encoders and readers, and the viability of the transit or storage medium. If all you can detect or read is "beep/no beep" all you'll get is the bandwidth of a morse code signal, but when you actually transmit radio data you have a huge range of intensities that can be written and read, allowing you to pack a full byte or even more in a single moment. In broadcast, the write speed (time between changing data states) is also determined by ability to write/survive transmission/read with accuracy. For storage, say on a magnetic disk, the size of each physical 'bit' is also based on accuracy. Its really analog at that level...its not a discrete cut box to store a bit in, its an area you write to and read from, that you can be pretty sure you don't mess up with neighboring bits because you haven't packed them too tightly. To bring this back to your idea: Quarter degrees gives you 1440 values...but those are still binary values, you've just chosen to pack them in an electrical wave at a certain density per fractions of a degree. We already "pack" data this way when we broadcast digital signals. It doesn't increase storage capacity really, because you are still limited by the accuracy of your writer, the durability of the transmission or storage medium, and the accuracy of the reader. If you don't care about accuracy, then you have to still pack 'fuzzy numbers' which are large enough to be sure higher digits maintain accuracy, and allow the lower digits to be 'read or not read' - so this doesn't increase capacity. The key problem here, is if you up the storage capacity by measuring eighths of a degree instead of a quarter...any inaccuracy could be actually reading not the end of one value, but the start of the next (and visa versa) - leading to HUGE errors (ie, reading what may as well be a random value) instead of a 'fuzzy' number that is 'almost' close to what you stored. Complete side note but: aren't neurons (in the brain) essentially digital and simply work in mass parallel? I always thought it wasn't an analog issue, but one of distributed processing (brain) vs fixed serial processing (CPU).

Here's a philosophical take on the question: Is the inventor the "creator" of an idea, or the "discoverer" of an idea? Given enough time, any invention anyone alive today comes up with, even if they "protect" it by not sharing it with a single soul or patent attorney, it will be rediscovered by someone else. In this way, an "idea" is different than a person's 53 Buick. At the same time, you deserve to profit from your "discovery" and there should be commercial incentive to discover new techniques and technologies....but lets not loose sight of an important fact: When you share your idea with the world, only Law stops others from using it themselves - which is a specific and subjective social contract. You can choose to bury the idea without telling anyone or patenting it, or you can choose to share it with the world via one of the various social contracts available to you, which whether long or short, is ultimately a road to the public domain. What bothers me, is that the world is really a harsh and difficult place, and the means we rise above the natural hazards and elements is through discovery and progress - most notably through the rise of new technologies. No matter how far we go, there is still suffering, and more progress does help mitigate that suffering. To bury a patent as a means for profit really bothers me, because it both ignores this truth, and I personally find it disrespectful to the very nature of "discovery" in general. Once a patent is filed, an idea is shared with the world - it may be protected, but it is shared, and it is by social contract alone that others respect the "owner" of that discovery. To then bury it is to disrespect those who honor that social contract in good faith. The biggest problem I think, is we are really in the infancy of intellectual property rights and surrounding laws, and in ways its bound to be as ugly as anything else as young. The industrial revolution was horribly ugly in terms of worker's rights, with children working in conditions that destroyed their health or were exceptionally dangerous. Industrial workers laws were in their infancy, and that age had its share of vultures as well. It'll take some time before we hit a balance. Out of curiosity, are there any groups that are basically technology advancement advocates, that call out companies for such tactics? Granted, people can be pretty apathetic on the whole, but there really should be some watch dog groups out there....I am sure there are but if I haven't heard of em, chances are low they are on the public radar, which should change, imo.

I think the idea that it is more than likely numerous habitable planets are out there in the universe is generally accepted based on the number of stars. A more difficult question: will we ever look at enough planets - regardless of whether we'll ever be able to get to them - to find one that is habitable?

ditto

Sometimes its fun to utilize out-of-box methods to stimulate your mind. One of the reasons BS artists are still in business, is that what the person being BSed takes from it has to do more with them, than that what the BS artist is saying. Someone does some astrological reading and tells you a bunch of things, one of which actually hits a nerve though a combination of coincidence and generalization...then you start thinking about something you should have been thinking about for a while already. Have you ever done 'paper rock scissors' to decide what to do some evening when no one has a real preference? There's no 'fate' involved: either the first result is the one everyone mostly prefers, or someone pipes up with a 'best two out of three' and the group's actual opinion is revealed. The short, most people will take things from it quite selectively...ignore things liable to be dangerously wrong, and feel stimulated by the things that resonate...so while its still not useful in the manner advertised, it serves a function that can be beneficial. (not to be confused with those that sucker fortunes out of widows to contact the dead, of course)

Unless I am mistaken, it really doesn't matter what CBS has parents sign, other than civil damages...any child getting harmed becomes a criminal law matter (city, state, etc) and parents would be charged as being complicit in the crime. When a parent places a child in the care of others where there is an assumption of reasonable saftey measures and those people place the child in danger... those people are prosecutable - but when parents knowingly place their child in a dangerous situation they become prosecutable too. For any parent to sign off on a contract that includes "uncontrolled hazards and conditions that may cause serious bodily injury, illness or death."[\i] that takes their kids out of their own control should be open for neglect charges in my opinion. They may have as well included "risk of sodomy" in that contract, which I am sure more parents would have reacted to than the "death" part. But what the real question is in terms of CBS, is since they are in control of the environment, how "uncontrolled" was it? Based on the injuries mentioned in that blog, I can't be too optimistic about the safety precautions they implemented...but I suspect more details will arise over time.

It would be really easy to have a set of spare keys you hand to the bouncer - then use the hide-a-key already on your car. Also, your blood alcohol level can actually go up after you stop drinking, I had a friend that was at .24 and after two hours in 'the tank' ended blowing .28...he actually got caught because realized he couldn't drive and should wait in his car till someone could pick him up, and he pulled over until a cop did. Unfortunately where I live, its a very ingrained culture phenomenon. I can't recall the last time there was a fatality related to that here (small rural town of 10k) but people get busted constantly. Even when they do, it seems like while the cops can hand out a few each night, there are dozens that get by every night. Better transportation (at least here) would be a huge benefit. We don't even have a taxi service, and many people have to drive easily 20 miles on rural roads to get home. A real change in both available options, and something that can drive a shift in people's views on the matter are required in my mind to make a difference. Lashings wouldn't help, when someone has driven for years drunk without getting caught. Secondly, bars are too crazy at closing - they need to get everyone out due to the restrictions on their liquor licenses in a hurry, and the bouncers already have their hands full stopping fights in those last minutes between last call and lights out. Also: at least here, you can drink soda all night for free, the bars won't charge you for non-alcoholic beverages like that, to promote designated driving.

I believe she said it was pretty bad for those laid off at the time, but I don't know how much she knew of the exact details. I'm of the "if you stand still you fall behind" mindset, so I actually agree with you about automation. I am sure they got on their feet again (most people do) and that the setbacks were not catastrophic, but I do think it hilights how automation can have negative effects that are completely within control of management. The company still had as much money as they did when they were paying those 7 people, so they could have very easily made sure they had good odds of landing on their feet. (Not their responsibility to, but they had the power to) Instead, because they could pocket the money, they did, and just kicked them to the curb. To me, it boils down to respect: You put hardships on those who work hard for you when the company's survival or competitiveness is at stake. If I had employees at my business, I would never continue their jobs if those jobs could be automated - it would be irresponsible. But, I would be respectful enough to their efforts that kept my business going, to try and use what resources were gained from the change to make sure they had the best chance for a painless workforce transition. Taking employees for granted and giving them the very least you can get away with is basically like saying "beatle-juice" three times, only instead of a pasty ghost Jesse Jackson appears.