Saturday, April 21, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
Oldie-But-Goodie...
Via my mom:
Heaven or Hell?Remember this when you vote in November!
While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator (that may be redundant) was hit by a bus and died. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, saying "Now it's time to visit heaven...”
So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell...
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.
"I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today, you voted..."
Spirea henryi...
Spirea henryi, or 翠蓝绣线菊, is a Chinese shrub that grows at altitudes of 4,000 to 10,000 feet. Photo courtesy of Botany Photo of the Day.
How Can They Be So Stupid?
Or is it that they think we're so stupid? Maybe it's both...
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:
The first amendment was ratified as part of the “Bill of Rights” (the first ten amendments), on December 15, 1791 – some 220 years ago. In all that time, nobody has ever seen the need to modify it. It does its job quite admirably.
But now the Democrats (led by the harridan-in-chief Nancy Pelosi) want to change it. In particular, they want to remove this freedom from corporations. I suspect that their internal noodlings are that corporations, being businesses, are more likely to lean right – so shutting them up would be advantageous for Democrats.
This is a very dangerous step down the slippery slope. You can bet on this: if they managed to amend the Constitution for reduce our freedom of speech for this reason, they'll keep trying to impose more restrictions. But slippery slope aside, this is dangerous for another reason. The law considers a corporation to be a person in a legal sense, and with very good reason: a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people (the shareholders). Restricting freedom of speech for a corporation is exactly the same thing as restricting the speech of a group of people. The argument is sometimes made that corporations are comprised of people who aren't necessarily Americans, and that's true. But it's also true that foreigners in America have freedom of speech here. So why would we treat them any differently simply because they're part of a group?
Thankfully, there's very little chance that Pelosi's amendment would ever be ratified. The Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution very, very hard for a reason – and this is an excellent demonstration of that reason. Their best hope to accomplish something like this is to pack the Supreme Court with allies – one of the main dangers of allowing Obama to stay in power.
Remember all this when you vote in November!
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.That's the whole thing. It's simple, straightforward, and is one of the most important freedoms we have as Americans. The first amendment gives us a right that is surprisingly rare in this world, though most Americans don't realize it.
The first amendment was ratified as part of the “Bill of Rights” (the first ten amendments), on December 15, 1791 – some 220 years ago. In all that time, nobody has ever seen the need to modify it. It does its job quite admirably.
But now the Democrats (led by the harridan-in-chief Nancy Pelosi) want to change it. In particular, they want to remove this freedom from corporations. I suspect that their internal noodlings are that corporations, being businesses, are more likely to lean right – so shutting them up would be advantageous for Democrats.
This is a very dangerous step down the slippery slope. You can bet on this: if they managed to amend the Constitution for reduce our freedom of speech for this reason, they'll keep trying to impose more restrictions. But slippery slope aside, this is dangerous for another reason. The law considers a corporation to be a person in a legal sense, and with very good reason: a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people (the shareholders). Restricting freedom of speech for a corporation is exactly the same thing as restricting the speech of a group of people. The argument is sometimes made that corporations are comprised of people who aren't necessarily Americans, and that's true. But it's also true that foreigners in America have freedom of speech here. So why would we treat them any differently simply because they're part of a group?
Thankfully, there's very little chance that Pelosi's amendment would ever be ratified. The Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution very, very hard for a reason – and this is an excellent demonstration of that reason. Their best hope to accomplish something like this is to pack the Supreme Court with allies – one of the main dangers of allowing Obama to stay in power.
Remember all this when you vote in November!
Mystery Solved!
This is actually old news, but the Planetary Society's blog has a nice post with some new details. The original mystery was that Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were slowing down a tiny bit more than any known source could account for. In a feat of data recovery and scientific analysis (paid for the by Planetary Society), Slava Turyshev and his colleagues figured out why: the nuclear power source (RGT) on board differentially radiated toward the direction of flight – acting like a teensy, tiny retro-rocket. A very nice piece of scientific detective work, and an equally nice confirmation of radiation-induced acceleration...
Crisis of Character...
From Peggy Noonan's column today:
The reason the story is news, and actually upsetting, is not that a government agency wasted money. That is not news. The reason it's news is that the people involved thought what they were doing was funny, and appropriate. In the past, bureaucratic misuse of taxpayer money was quiet. You needed investigators to find it, trace it, expose it. Now it's a big public joke. They held an awards show. They sang songs about the perks of a government job: "Brand new computer and underground parking and a corner office. . . . Love to the taxpayer. . . . I'll never be under OIG investigation." At the show, the singer was made Commissioner for a Day. "The hotel would like to talk to you about paying for the party that was held in the commissioner's suite last night" the emcee said. It got a big laugh.Read the whole thing...
Thursday, April 19, 2012
A Giant Ant Colony, Revealed...
Via Simon M., this fascinating look at a giant ant colony' structure:
Audiophile 24 bit DAC ... Open Source!
A DAC for reproducing digital music, designed to plug into a PC's USB port, with specs and listener reviews that match the very best products on the market – for around $100 (instead of around $10,000). This nicely complements the already available open source amplifier. Awesome stuff!
Man Bites Dog...
I've been ignoring the currently hot meme about Obama having eaten dog meat when he was a child. It's just silly to hold him culpable for what the adults around him provided for him to eat as a child. But after the Obama campaign's hammering of Romney for strapping their pet dog to the roof of their car, it's quite funny. James Taranto has the whole story, plus a small collection of “Obama ate the dog” one-liners:
#ObamaDogRecipes: Yorkshire terrier pudding, mutt chop, Pekingese duck, bichon frisee salad, beagle with cream cheese, pure bread.
"So, Mr. President, where shall we go to eat?" "I know a great Spot."
If you want a friend in Washington, don't eat him (credit to Jim Geraghty).
Happiness is a warm puppy, with a side of fries.
Obama's favorite fast-food joint? Checkers (Patrick Daly).
I wouldn't vote for that guy for dogcatcher.
Did you hear about the insomniac polyphagiac president? He lies awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Godafoss, Iceland...
Once again I am gobsmacked by both the technical skill and the artistry of National Geographic's photographers. I can only dream of taking a photograph like this; those folks actually do it...
Quote of the Day...
From Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle:
I don't know.
So sayeth “the Larry”, in response to this question: “Is the Java programming langauge free?”
Oh, my...
I don't know.
So sayeth “the Larry”, in response to this question: “Is the Java programming langauge free?”
Oh, my...
Portraits of Our Sun...
Health “Insurance”...
Warren Meyer at CoyoteBlog weighs in on one of my pet frustrations:
It's fascinating to think about how our current form of healthcare “insurance” distorts consumer behavior. Consider this scenario. Imagine that you were working out in your yard, and in some accident you got a 2 inch long gash in your arm. It's bleeding, and it hurts, but it's obviously not life-threatening.
First scenario: you have healthcare insurance through your employer, as most Americans today do. Without even thinking about it, most people will call their general practitioner to make an appointment, or go to an urgent care facility. Cost to you: perhaps a $10 “co-pay”. Cost to the insurance company: $500 to $1,000, depending on exactly where you went and what services were rendered. Who pays that cost? You do, in the end: your employer is paying directly, but your employer's cost is money that would have been in your salary if your employer didn't have this expense. Even if you don't believe that (though it's easy to prove), you'll pay for it anyway: your employer, like all employers, will recover this cost through increased prices for goods and services – which we all pay. Obamacare is an extreme version of this scenario.
Second scenario: you have a major medical policy (which this injury isn't covered by), and otherwise you're on your own for major medical expenses. You will think hard about how to handle this, and you'll make a considered choice: either you'll go to the doctor or urgent care (and pay that expense out-of-pocket), or you'll go to the pharmacy and get yourself a supply of butterfly bandages, or some glue (which is likely what the doctor would use), and some topical antibiotics. I know what I would do: I'd wash the wound carefully (it's really not that hard, folks), dry it, hold the edges together, apply some glue, perhaps slap a protective bandage over it, and I'd keep mowing the yard. My expenses would be a few dollars at most. The most important element: I'd be thinking like a consumer, and adjusting my purchases to match what I'm willing to pay. That's the element that's missing with today's healthcare “insurance”, and it's distorting the consumption of healthcare in a way that drastically drives up its cost...
In a reasonably sane world, and in all other contexts outside of health care, insurance is obtained at relatively low prices to cover only catastrophic events that would be potentially bankrupting. Car insurance does not cover oil changes and home insurance does not cover oven repairs. So why is it that Drum is arguing that we should ban insurance policies that only cover catastrophic losses and not routine costs? After all, the second sentence in the first paragraph from the LA Times sure seems to define exactly what insurance should be (and is similar to my personal policy, which has a high deductible attached to a health savings account).Some of us are old enough to remember when health insurance was sold exactly like this in the U.S. You bought a “major medical” policy to insure you against the catastrophic expenses, and the rest of the health care costs were out-of-pocket. The currently conventional notion of healthcare “insurance” isn't actually insurance at all – instead, it's a bubble of socialism living inside our nominally capitalist society (I say nominally because we've managed to regulate capitalism into something that's a hybrid between capitalism and socialism, and highly variable across various market segments).
It's fascinating to think about how our current form of healthcare “insurance” distorts consumer behavior. Consider this scenario. Imagine that you were working out in your yard, and in some accident you got a 2 inch long gash in your arm. It's bleeding, and it hurts, but it's obviously not life-threatening.
First scenario: you have healthcare insurance through your employer, as most Americans today do. Without even thinking about it, most people will call their general practitioner to make an appointment, or go to an urgent care facility. Cost to you: perhaps a $10 “co-pay”. Cost to the insurance company: $500 to $1,000, depending on exactly where you went and what services were rendered. Who pays that cost? You do, in the end: your employer is paying directly, but your employer's cost is money that would have been in your salary if your employer didn't have this expense. Even if you don't believe that (though it's easy to prove), you'll pay for it anyway: your employer, like all employers, will recover this cost through increased prices for goods and services – which we all pay. Obamacare is an extreme version of this scenario.
Second scenario: you have a major medical policy (which this injury isn't covered by), and otherwise you're on your own for major medical expenses. You will think hard about how to handle this, and you'll make a considered choice: either you'll go to the doctor or urgent care (and pay that expense out-of-pocket), or you'll go to the pharmacy and get yourself a supply of butterfly bandages, or some glue (which is likely what the doctor would use), and some topical antibiotics. I know what I would do: I'd wash the wound carefully (it's really not that hard, folks), dry it, hold the edges together, apply some glue, perhaps slap a protective bandage over it, and I'd keep mowing the yard. My expenses would be a few dollars at most. The most important element: I'd be thinking like a consumer, and adjusting my purchases to match what I'm willing to pay. That's the element that's missing with today's healthcare “insurance”, and it's distorting the consumption of healthcare in a way that drastically drives up its cost...
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Oracle v. Google...
Reading this brought back lots of memories, of the Stac v. Microsoft case in the early '90s, in which I was a participant...
Dragon Cleared for Launch...
The SpaceX Dragon space craft has been cleared for launch, tentatively scheduled for April 30th. This is a private space venture (which I support), but publicly funded as a resupply mission to the ISS (space station) – which I do not support. What I'd really like to see is open commercial competition for NASA's robotic explorers. Several private space companies are clamoring for exactly that, but the NASA bureaucracy is furiously resisting, of course.
We're doomed to the government we elect...
We're doomed to the government we elect...
Engaging the Mathematical Mind...
I've posted before about the way in which doing math by slide rule forces one to estimate the answer before “reading” it from the slide rule. You can't get an answer from the slide rule without actually understanding the math in the problem you're trying to solve. Calculators eliminate that requirement, to my regret – and, I think, to the detriment of our young folks learning how to apply math to the real world.
Here's a calculator that changes that, in an interesting way: it won't give you the answer until you've supplied an acceptable estimate. That is exactly how it works with a slide rule. As I read the description of the QAMA calculators, it occurred to me that there's an even simpler way to make a calculator that “behaves” like a slide rule: simply disable the decimal point display! Such a calculator, if you were to (say) divide 1 by 7, might display 142857143 – and it would be up to you to figure out where the decimal point belonged. When I divide 1 by 7 on the slide rule at my desk, I read off the answer as 143 – the same answer as the decimal-less calculator, but to less precision. In both cases, I'd have to estimate the answer in my head to figure out that the decimal place was before the first “1” (the correct answer is 0.143, to three decimal places).
I don't suppose I'd actually be able to talk people into disabling the decimal display :-)
Here's a calculator that changes that, in an interesting way: it won't give you the answer until you've supplied an acceptable estimate. That is exactly how it works with a slide rule. As I read the description of the QAMA calculators, it occurred to me that there's an even simpler way to make a calculator that “behaves” like a slide rule: simply disable the decimal point display! Such a calculator, if you were to (say) divide 1 by 7, might display 142857143 – and it would be up to you to figure out where the decimal point belonged. When I divide 1 by 7 on the slide rule at my desk, I read off the answer as 143 – the same answer as the decimal-less calculator, but to less precision. In both cases, I'd have to estimate the answer in my head to figure out that the decimal place was before the first “1” (the correct answer is 0.143, to three decimal places).
I don't suppose I'd actually be able to talk people into disabling the decimal display :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)