The Baloney Detection Kit and Global Warming

In his book The Demon Haunted World, the late Carl Sagan had suggestions for detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments. He called these suggestions the Baloney Detection Kit. I am going to apply these suggestions to global warming. Here are most of the suggestions:

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. Scientists say the earth is getting warmer. That has been the only thing confirmed by all scientists. Everything else has not been totally confirmed. Scientists cannot even predict how hot the earth will be.
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Here the knowledgeable proponents would be mainly meteorologists and climatologists. I don't see hardly any encouragement for dissenters who believe that man is not the sole cause of global warming. They are ridiculed and say they should lose their AMA accreditations. That is not science. That is a cult.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). In other words, just because you are well known popular climatologists does not mean you are right about global warming. You have to show you are right by the science. And if you are a politician (read Al Gore) or a celebrity you are definitely not an authority on the subject.
• Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. For example, sunspot activity may cause global warming. I know without the sun you have no greenhouse effect which is the mechanism behind global warming. Volcanoes may cause it too. Just don't go blaming mankind right away for all of the causes of global warming.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. Hypothesis' come and go. If your ego gets involved with the hypothesis then you may disregard or downplay any evidence that can disprove your hypothesis. Also, if a researcher gets a grant from the gov't to do research his/her ego will even be more attached to the hypothesis. That is where politics starts to corrupt the science.
• Quantify, wherever possible. Someone once said mathematics is the language of science. You can make up hypothesis' all you want, but unless you can quantify your hypothesis it is harder to describe and cannot be tested. Linear systems like a ball rolling across a floor is easy to describe in an equation. All you need is the ball's mass and velocity to get its momentum. Also, you can figure out from its trajectory where the ball is going to move next. The ball has only one-degree of movement. For more degrees of movement a system has, the more complicated to describe it mathematically (Lotfi Zadeh's Law of Incompatibility). Eventually, if the system has enough complexity it may appear random, but may not be random at all. Just too complex for anyone to quantify precisely. It's hard to link cause and effect together. That is the nature of nonlinear systems. Weather systems are no different. That is why meteorologists can only tell you there is a 60% chance of rain instead of 0% or 100% chance of rain. To simulate weather on a computer meteorologists use five differential equations called primitive equations. These nonlinear equations describe temperature (which is just the average measure of molecule velocity), wind direction (longitude and latitude), precipitation and pressure thickness. If you input the wrong value in those equations or if the value is imprecise then the computer model can yield incorrect results (garbage in, garbage out--as computer scientists like to say). Even a group of researchers from America and Europe saying better forecasting models are needed to model global warming.
• Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? The hypothesis about mankind being most responsible for global warming can be falsified. There is global warming on Mars. Mankind does not inhabit Mars. Therefore, if mankind cannot affect global warming on Mars then it must be something else creating it. Like say the sun or some other natural process.

Cloaking Technology

Purdue University is developing technology that James Bond or any spy would love to have (come to think of it he would like that self-erasing paper too). The university is developing a cloaking device that makes objects invisible by bending light rays around the object. A device has already been made by the university that bends microwaves and they think they can also make a device that bends infrared light around that would make a heat shield. All this is possible by using nanowires.

The Concept of Good and Evil

When 48 Hours started their show on the Virginia Tech massacre they started talking about the gun the murderer used. The show went into what type it was etc. I am sorry, but it was not the gun's fault. The gun did not make the killer use it in his rampage. But that is the way the main stream media treats evil. It is not the person doing the action that is responsible it is X--whatever X is. X caused him/her to do the violent act. The person is not held accountable for his actions. It is the violent video games and or movies that caused his behavior. It is because he was abused. It is because he was picked on in school (the press is already reporting that the Virginia Tech killer was shy and was picked on in school. Like who hasn't been picked on when you went to school?)

There are two potentially dangerous and wrong concepts that the secular-progressives (sp) have about human nature. The first is that evil does not exist in reality only in the abstract. That there is an explanation for evil. This is definitely incorrect and shown by the Virginia Tech massacre and 9/11. The correct view of human nature is and most mainstream religions agree on this is that people have both good and evil in them. We choose which course we take in life. I believe that human nature is 10% very bad (Hitler, Stalin, serial killers, mass murders), 80% medium good, 10% very good (Mother Teresa, Buddha, Ghandi, etc.). It's like the sps completely ignore the 10% very bad part (although the drive-by-cloned-media who mainly is sp love to report it then excuse it.) It's funny when the sps say mankind has no evil in him but then blames society for a killers actions. If that premise is true (which it isn't) then how does a good society do evil? That just does not make sense.

Then there is the belief that you should act on your feelings. Well, feelings are not rational and moral. If you feel you have been wronged or persecuted like the Virginia Tech murderer felt in his video tape then you act on them. That leads to more bloody violence.

Since we don't let felons have guns legally maybe we should not the other potentially dangerous people have them legally either. If you are psychotic and the voices are you telling you to kill people--you should not be able to get a permit for a gun. The same for sociopaths and people who belong to hate groups. Psychotic people who are in a mental hospital and then are released with anti-psychotic drugs should not be allowed to own a gun. They could forget or not to decide to take the drugs. Sociopaths are a different story. This is a functional disorder therefore they are not put in mental hospitals. Also, they are very hard to detect unless they commit a crime. As for people in hate groups unless a person belongs to a group like the KKK or an Islamofacist group he is hard to detect. The only other way to detect a hater is if they document it. Like Hitler did before the Holocaust. Of course there are privacy issues (like doctor-patient confidentiality, the ACLU saying you cannot put hospitalized psychotic people on lists like they protested convicted child molestors listings in a database on the internet) and there is the issue that the very bad people will always be able to get a weapon.

Shopping Hurts The Earth

Yes, you read that right. According to Canada's gov't environmental adviser, Jonathon Porritt, people must shop less because consumerism is killing the planet. I guess shopping ranks up there with murder. I wonder if this guy has a wife or sister and what they think. I believe it was US Senator Hollings said one time "there is too much consuming going on." I can see it now. A young skull full of mush comes home from school saying to his mom, "Mommy, mommy. My teacher told me shopping is destroying the planet! We must do less shopping!" Then the mom replies, "Yes, dear. That's too bad. So, does that mean we don't buy you anymore birthday or Christmas presents?" Which then the kid gives his/her mom a wide-eyed look. Not to mention, we have to give less wedding presents, baby shower gifts, retirement presents, etc.

Haven't we heard this "sky is falling" routine before? It was Prof. Paul R. Ehrlich who said that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985. It did not happen. All this "less shopping" rhetoric is just another example of anti-capitalism.

By the way, if you are keeping count, this is my 100th blog entry! Yea! I should buy myself something to celebrate, but I guess we are supposed to shop less. Oh, well.

Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Form

Being this is the day where the federal government gets their cut of the action (er, I mean where you pay your taxes, sorry about that), I would like to share with the reader Steve Forbes flat tax form:

1. Wages & Salary
2. Number of adults in family
3. Number of children in family
4. 1. Deductions for adults (multiply line 2 by $13,200) or
   2. Deductions for head of household ($17,160)
5. Deductions for dependants (multiply line 3 by $4,000)
6. Total deductions (line 4 plus line 5)
7. Taxable income (line 1 minus line 7)
8. Pre-credit tax (multiply line 7 by 17%)
9. Child tax credit ($1,000 per child under 16)
10. Earned income tax credit (see EITC rules)
11. Total tax credits (line 9 plus line 10)
12. Total tax (line 8 minus line 11)

Not a bad start to reforming the tax code. It is a lot simpler than the behemoth tax code we have now. Steve Forbes wants to the tax rate to be 17%. You can read more about his plan in his 2005 book: Flat Tax Revolution. Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS. Will the tax code be reformed? Probably not, unless the tax payers want it to be reformed and they vote for candidates who want it to be reformed too. Otherwise, too many people (tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc.) make money off of the system as it now and Congress uses it as a way to punish and reward certain groups.

Some people like Neal Boortz want a National Retail Sales Tax (or if you prefer the FairTax) instead. If you are going that way you then Congress would have to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment otherwise you are going to be taxed twice. You can read more about the FairTax in Neal Boortz's 2005 book: The FairTax Book. I think first we should start with a flat tax rate similar to Steve Forbes plan then think about the FairTax later on.

In full disclosure I should say I have never met Steve Forbes and do not know him. I just think his plan is a step in the right direction.

At the end of his 1993 book For Good & Evil: The Impact of Taxes on The Course of Civilization Charles Adams described what he called the Four Square approach to taxes. Basically, tax rates = intrusions (the tax agency looking at your tax records) = penalties = equality (taxpayers paying the same rate and being treated fairly). In other words, all the components of a tax system should be in balance and be fair. It's called four square because you visualize a square where rates and penalties are the top and bottom and equality and intrusions are the left and right sides respectively. A flat tax rate fits this approach.

Before I end this blog entry here is a couple tax quotes from President Ronald Reagan and Will Rogers:

The taxpayer (is) someone who works for the government but doesn't have to take a civil service examination.
        -- Ronald Reagan

Even when you make a tax form out on the level, you don't know when it's through if you are a crook or a martyr.
        -- Will Rogers

A Five-Point Presidential Platform

Here is my talking points on a good presidential platform:

One, take the war on terror seriously. Never letting another 9/11 ever happen again.

Two, a flat-rate income tax with very few exemptions. Congress won't like this idea because they use the current system as a way to punish and reward.

Three, line-item veto for the president. States have it, why not the federal gov't? Congress won't like it because their pork projects might be trimmed, and the president might not like it because it makes him/her more responsible for trimming the fat. Also, if he cuts out something that the opposition party likes they might accuse him of not funding a "necessary" program. If the country is serious about balancing the budget this is a real good way to do it.

Four, illegal immigration reform. Put a barbwire fence or the National Guard on the border to keep out the trespassers for starters. Fine any business for hiring illegal aliens. If an illegal alien commits a crime, deport him/her. Lynn Woolley has even more good ideas on this topic.

Five, make Social Security optional. That is let the workers decide if they want a portion of their paycheck going into it. You could even let them decide how much that portion will be. Whatever they put into it is what they'll get out it when the worker retires. If it is a good program then workers will keep it funded. This is called democracy. Actually, make all gov't programs that take money out of your paycheck optional. You will never hear a candidate (presidential or otherwise) state this.

Ex-Hostage's Gift-Bag Contains Junk

One of the hostages freed by Iran said there was nothing but junk in that "goodie" bag they gave him. The DVD and CD Iran gave him did not work and the clothing they gave him to wear was cheap. They also gave him a cheap suit to wear and stole his £160 ($294.71) iPod.

I hope the British sailor scanned both the DVD and CD for maleware before trying to play them. The Iranians could have put viruses and worms on the media. I would not put it past them to do just that. If they are capable of developing nuclear material then they are capable of writing viruses.

Also, a British naval mom said she feared that the people holding them hostage would rape her. Here is her exact words: "I was thrown into a tiny little cell and ordered to strip off. They took everything from me apart from my knickers. Then some cotton pajamas were thrown in for me to wear, and four filthy blankets. The metal door slammed shut again." She mouthed the words "Are they going to rape me?" to her commander. No wonder the Iranian gov't did not want the hostages to be interviewed when they were released. Isn't this treatment of this female sailor a violation of Geneva Convention?

On a side note, when you go to Google News and type in the phrase "British sailor hostage" you get 512 results. Change the word "hostage" to "captive" the result goes up to 2,099 results! Just an observation.

Another Supreme Court Ruling

The US Supreme Court is at it again. The men in black robes rules that the EPA can now regulate greenhouse gases specifically CO₂ gases. You know that gas we and other animals exhale out every time we breathe and that the green plants consume. The Supreme Court considers it a pollutant. I am really getting tired of the Supreme Court stepping outside its role as judges. This would be like umpires during a baseball game changing the rules whenever they want to. So, what is the EPA going to do? Tax people for breathing? How are they going to regulate greenhouse gas production?

According to Wikipedia, these are the main factors of the greenhouse effect:

• water vapor (excluding clouds) 36-70%
• water vapor (including clouds) 66-85%
• CO₂ 9-26%
• methane 4-9%
• ozone 3-7%

Note the top greenhouse factor: Water vapor. Which of course is not a pollutant. This is a main factor because of oceans and seas I am guessing. CO₂ is number two. Methane is from natural gas, cattle belching, and produced by those pesky ravenous termites. I thought flatuence contain methane, but this is a common myth. Flatulence actually has more nitrogen (not a greenhouse gas) than methane. Which is probably a good thing because methane is a lot more flammable than nitrogen. If you look at the percentages you will notice they are given in ranges not single values. This is because according to Wikipedia: "because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)" Something to ponder when reading or hearing about global warming.

Crazy Schools

In the name of political correctness, some schools in the United Kingdom decided not to teach Holocaust history because it might offend "Holocaust deniers." (read: Islamofacists--oops did I offend someone?). You read that right. It has come to the point where we cannot offend deluded crazy people. Never mind that the Jewish population might be offended and that the Holocaust is a fact that was proven in a court of law in America. The good and bad should be taught in history irregardless who is offended. There should be no historical revision and should be taught without bias. Facts are facts. If you do not teach the evil of history then there is a good chance that the evil will be repeated. How would the descendents from slaves in America would like it if some American schools did not teach about slavery before the Civil War? You know the answer to that question.

On a side note, a Burlington, New Jersey school has a hostage drill that portrays killers as Christians. They are holding drills just in case the school is held hostage by some armed mentally-disturbed parents. For some reason they are thinking that these people would be Christians. Let see. Who held the hostages in an US embassy in Iran during the 1980's? Was it Christians? No, I don't think so. The answer is crazy Muslims. Also, who held a journalist hostage and chopped of his head? Again, crazy Muslims. Who just recently captured UK navy ship and just today released them saying they did that as an Easter gift to the Brits? Once more, Islamofacists. Are you detecting the pattern? Besides using Christians as an example in a mock drill is setting up wrong expectations for the students. You don't need to signal out any kind of group to do a hostage drill. That is not necessary.

What is the lesson you can learn from these schools? Offending Muslims bad, offending Jews and Christians is okay. All Islamofacists are shooting guns in the air celebrating.

Congress Fattens Up Emergency Supplemental

If there is any case for presidential line-item veto power it would be this bill--U.S. Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This bill is supposed to be about funding the brave soldiers fighting the war on terror but it has become more than that with all the riders that Congress has added to it. I would list all the riders it has but it contains eighteen riders on it! Not including the minimum wage law. None of which has anything to do about the Iraq war or the war on terror. Can you say got pork? The drive-by-cloned-media will do little reporting on this bill. All the media cares about is why President Bush fired eight attorneys (President Clinton fired a lot more than that--not a word from the press)--one of which was quitting anyway to return to the private sector. But I digress. Here are some of the pork that the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) lists (my comments are in parenthesis):

• $500 million for emergency wildfires suppression; the Forest Service currently has $831 million for this purpose.
• $400 million for rural schools. (Why just rural schools? Throwing money at schools does not solve their problems if the schools spend the money foolishly. Besides, shouldn't this be local school districts and state responsibility?)
• $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program. (I did not know there was a milk crises. Don't you just love that title!)
• $100 million for citrus assistance.
• $74 million for peanut storage costs.
• $25 million for spinach growers.

Add it up. Just what I listed adds up to $2,213. The total pork sum is (drum roll please): $9.9 billion! President Bush only asked for $103 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The reader can go to the CAGW web site to read the complete list if you want.

Here is the catch-22. Imagine you are a fiscally responsibility Congress-person (yea I know that sounds like an oxymoron) that does not like pork but wants to monetarly support the military in the battlefield. What do you do? If you are that Congress-person and vote against the bill then it will appear you don't support the troops. You know that your opponents will use that against you. The end result--you vote for the bill. As Glenn Beck says (hat tip to him for bringing this issue to my attention on his TV show) the troops are for sale. That is really sad.

If people are really concerned with deficit spending and fiscal responsibility in government then you either need line-item veto for the president or law that says you cannot add riders to bills if you are against the line-item veto. Those are the two solutions. If you do the latter solution then the bill should be easily stated in one sentence. For example this bill could state: Funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan only. I got this idea from my college years. When you write a procedure for a program it should have only one function. That way it is easier to debug and test. I think line-item veto is the easier solution to implement though.

Basically, pork happens for two reasons. Politicians offer money to their constituents. The constituents take the money. Supply and demand. The politicians have no self-control to stop the supply and the constituents enable the politicians by demanding more money. If constituents did not take the money then the vicious cycle would diminish eventually.

Woman Trusts Sat Nav Too Much

A woman in England put too much trust in her satellite navigation of her car. She followed the directions it gave her and drove into a river! Evidently, the satnav did not tell the woman to slam the breaks on or to go around the swollen river. She survived but her Mercedes SL500 did not.

The issue with sat navs is you have to keep them updated especially if you are going on a trip. Even in this case I don't know if it would have mattered. The sat navs cannot direct you around fallen logs in the road, tornadoes that happen to form in your path, or even in this case flooding rivers. Maps only represent the landscape. Electronic maps are no different. You still have to be alert and use those cells between the ears when driving.

By the way, the article does not say if the woman was blonde or not (yea, I know I am terrible, but I could not resist!)

Global Warming Heretics

It appears that global warming is now a religion or at least a strong ideology that cannot be questioned (that does not sound like science to me). You got that global warming fascist (Heidi Cullen) on the weather channel that wants to take away the AMS certification from any meteorologist who would dare question global warming. Isn't that nice. Then there are the global warming chicken-littles scaring everyone telling them if the world (mainly America it seems) does not stop global warming the world is coming to an end (sounds like one of those end-of-the-world cults to me) with floods, drowning polar bears, etc. Never mind those Islamic terrorists who wants to make the whole world one Islamic state--we'll just forget about them when global warming is around the corner waiting to get us. I don't know but trying to stop global warming is like trying to prevent tornadoes, blizzards or hurricanes from forming. Isn't that weather control? Good luck on that one. Leading this religion is of course the prophet Al Gore who declares that global warming is immoral on the Academy Awards. Great, we are all going to hell for something that may or may not be our fault.

With every religion you have herectics--global warming is no different. Let's start with University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer. He says high-energy rays from distant parts of space smashing into atmosphere could cause global warming. Isn't that interesting. Then there is Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa. He claims that claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. After the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Rush Limbaugh interviewed Dr. Roy Spencer on his talk show. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville and served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. He made a comment that weather actually cools the planet by "short-circuit[ing] 60% of the greenhouse effect warming that the greenhouse effect is trying to make on the surface of the Earth. If it weren't for the cooling effects of weather, the average surface temperature over the whole Earth would be about 140 degrees Fahrenheit." Ponder that for a while next time you are stuck in the rain. The names I've given here are not the only heretics. There is at least ten more I've found.

Group Thinking Clouds Clear Decision-Making

I believe this study is essentially true. If you think about most revolutionary inventions and scientific ideas come not from groups but from individuals. From Albert Einstein's theory of relativity to the invention of the light bulb to the airplane (okay, here there were two people--but that is still not a group)--all came from individual people. There are not many committees that come up with cutting-edge ideas.

The article did not go into why groups cannot come up with alternative solutions but I have a theory about that. I think the reason why is because people in groups are afraid of their ideas being criticized or ridiculed. You have to be a brave person to go against the grain. By the way there is nothing wrong in criticizing an idea or theory--as long as you don't attack the person himself. That is what makes democracy great--each person expressing his/her opinion. Groups have a hard time coming up with creative ideas if there is no-one in the group that is not a leader or at least a catalyst.

Congress' Symbolic Non-Binding Resolution

Glenn Beck on his television show has a brilliant comment about supporting the troops but not the mission. As he put it "hating the game, but not the players." When the troops are killing in your name you cannot say you don't support the mission when that is part of the mission. He said that you are either in full support of the war and the mission or your not and you have to withdrawal the troops from Iraq if you are not. You cannot have it both ways. Try to win the war or cut-and-run. That's the two options you have.

This Congressional symbolic non-binding resolution is really stupid and does not help the troops over in Iraq at all. All it does is bolster the spirits of the enemy. They see America's rulers not agreeing about winning the war. How does cutting funding of the war help the troops? It does not help. This action is the equivalent of taking their ammunition away from them. Leave them in Iraq and give them the military and moral support they need or completely withdraw them from Iraq. Period. You don't play stupid games with our military when their lives are in danger.

All this symbolic resolution is political pure and simple. If Iraq stabilizes that puts President Bush in a positive light. The Democrats in Congress cannot have that when there is a presidential election coming up. That increases Republicans chances of winning the Presidential race the Dems think. But the Democrats are not realizing (or maybe do not care) that if Iraq stabilizes then not only does that help President Bush but America and the whole region over there. As Bill O'Reilly would say the people behind this non-binding resolution are not looking out for America. So, why doesn't the Democrats want America to win in Iraq? One, they think they got elected by anti-war voters. Possibly. But there is another possibility. It could be that they got elected because the American public wanted to win the war and did not think the Republicans that got voted out were not doing a good job of running the war. Two, is the Dems are trying to appease the far-left anti-war cook groups. But these groups want the troops out of Iraq period. They are not going to settle for anything less. Those are the two basic reasons why the Democrats are trying to straddle the middle of the line. They don't want to appear against the troops while they want to appear against the war. Like I said make a choice. At least during the Vietnam war the Dems back then were against the war and the troops (who by the way were drafted). They were at least consistent.

I should say that criticizing the execution of the mission is not being unpatriotic. You can make the argument that President Bush should have put more troops in early, etc. But if you don't want America and her allies to win in Iraq then you are unpatriotic and border-line treasonous. That is almost like a fan not rooting for his hometown to win in a sport. It does not make any sense. Maybe every presidential candidate should be asked "do you want America to win in Iraq?" Hopefully a reporter will ask that question and the candidate will have the guts to answer the question. If the answer is no or the candidate dodges the question--do not vote for him/her.

Black History Month

In honor of Black History Month I would like to share the non-fiction books I've read by black authors.

         Thomas Sowell:
            The Vision of The Anointed. (1996)
            Basic Economics. (2003)
            Applied Economics. (2003)
            Black Rednecks and White Liberals. (2006)

        The Ten Things You Can't Say in America by Larry Elder (2000)

        They Think You're Stupid by Herman Cain (2005)

        White Guilt by Shelby Steele (2006)

        Time Traveler by Dr. Ronald L. Mallett (2006)

I've probably read more books by black authors but these are the ones I remember. Then again, I only pay attention to the content of the book not the race of the author.

The reader might want to check out the Black Inventor Online Museum, and Black Enterpreneurship Hall of Fame.

By the way Barack Obama is not the first black presidential candidate. Ever heard of Alan Keyes?

Self-Erasing Paper

Xerox is developing cool technology. What they are doing is inventing self-erasing paper that erases itself within 24 hours. That is really neat.

I hope when this comes out in the market place that Xerox distinguishes this paper from normal paper. Otherwise you might have someone write something down on this self-erasing paper accidently that (s)he wants to keep permanently. Oops!

Congress Capping CEO Salaries

The Congress is thinking about putting caps on CEO salaries. They think that CEOs do not earn what they are worth. That might be true. But what right does Congress have to determine what maximum anyone earns? The free market should determine this. In this case the salary of CEOs is a agreement between the board of the corporation and the CEO. Indirectly the stockholders of the company influence CEO pay electing the board members. So, what if the CEO is not earning his/her pay. If the business is not making profits then that only affects the stockholders and employees. No-one else. I don't think Congress is earning their pay either but their cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) keeps going up annually automatically unless the Congress votes not to accept the COLA (like they would do that). Know any businesses where the salary keeps going up automatically? I don't think so. But I digress.

To get a perspective of CEO salaries let's look at other people's salaries from Forbes.com.

Steven Spielberg	$ 332.00 mil.
Capital One CEO Richard D. Fairbank	$ 249.42 mil. total compensation
Yahoo! Ceo Terry S. Semel	$ 230.55 mil.
Oprah Winfrey	$ 225.00 mil.
Tiger Woods	$ 90.00 mil.
Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray R Irani	$ 80.73 mil.
Tom Cruise	$ 67.00 mil
Bruce Springsteen	$ 55.00 mil
50 Cent	$ 41.00 mil
David Letterman	$ 40.00 mil
Genzyme CEO Henri A. Termeer	$ 36.38 mil. (A pharmaceutical company).
Kobe Bryant	$ 31.00 mil
Walmart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr.	$ 10.46 mil
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer	$ 1.03 mil.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt	$ 0.03 mil.

If you look at the list above you will see that director/producer Steven Spielberg yearly salary is more than the top CEO. Do you think Congress is going to put a cap on his salary? I doubt it. Oprah Winfrey makes more than Occidental Petroleum's CEO and Walmart's CEO put together. Is Congress going to put a cap on her salary? Again, I doubt it. And I would not want Congress to put a cap on their salaries either. Let them make as much money as they want. As long as their are making it legally and not giving money to terrorist organizations, it is not of Congress or anyone else's concern. I read some of the lyrics of 50 cents. I think they are stupid and even insulting. I personally don't think he is worth 41 million dollars, but his fans do. They keep buying his music. Would it be right for me to tell him he can't make anymore money? Evidently, Congress thinks it has a right to do that on certain segment of the population.

Everyone's salary is dependent on their talent and skills on the job. Not just CEOs. That is why I included non-CEOs in the list.

What this really is just another example of punishing the successful. Or as liberals call it "economic justice." That is another name for socialism. Liberals in the Congress want the poor to believe if they cap the salaries of CEOs that this will somehow make the poor feel satisfied or happy in someway. Getting some kind of revenge on the rich. But that revenge feeling is a false feeling and does not last. It definitely does not help the poor. Being wealthy is not of itself evil. Just as being intelligent does not make one self necessarily good. It is what you do with those powers that determines your moral worth.

Talking about Congress here is their salaries:

Speaker of the House	$212,100
Congressional Leadership of the House or Senate	$183,500
Congressman	$165,200

Do you think they are worth that much money? Do you think they would ever consider capping their own salaries?

Hillary Clinton's 2003 Speech

In 2003, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech to an anti-war group called Code Pink. In this speech she talked about the soon-to-be Iraq War and how she supported it. Why would anyone try to convince a group that is militant against any kind of war to support a war beats me. I'm thinking they thought she would have done a different speech and that's why she was invited to speak. I'm guessing. If you do not want to watch the eight minute video of the speech you can read her speech below:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for more than a decade. If he is serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking to people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation. With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing, and we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.

I wonder if the drive-by-cloned-media is going to show this speech? Naw. Now of course Hillary is against the war. Then again in 2003 she was not running for president. Notice what I highlighted in bold. She said she "carefully reviewed the information..." about going to war. That's interesting because now she is blaming President Bush for tricking her about the war. That begs the question. How can a so-called simpleton like Bush trick the world's smartest woman? Hmmm. And Hillary Clinton wants to be president?

The Reversing Universe

Physicist Peter Lynds has come up with a new cosmological theory of the universe. His theory says instead of the universe collapsing to a singularity in a big crunch then expanding into another big bang, the universe will reverse itself before it reaches its singularity. Lynds says the universe has to reverse so the laws of thermodynamics are upheld.

For you wanna-be-time travelers, the article mentions time traveling is not possible according to this theory. Sorry.

Ethanol Economics

I don't think it is a necessary good idea that we use food like corn as a fuel source. When you use corn (moonshine, er I mean ethanol) as a fuel source that will raise the price of corn. Grain farmers who usually do crop rotation will now do less crop rotation and plant more corn especially when the demand for it rises. Take for instance, the island of Jamaica. Partly because of ethanol the price of chickens in Jamaica is going to increase. Why? Because chickens eat corn. When corn prices go up because of ethanol demand then eventually chicken prices will go up because chicken farmers will shift the cost of the corn to the consumer. Any product that uses corn will see an increase in price. That is hardly ever discussed in the ethanol debate. Another point about crop rotation to think about. If a farmer does less crop rotation and plants more corn instead of wheat or barley then there might be a shortage in those crops that he decides not to plant.

I think it is better if we are going to use ethanol as a fuel source we use a non-food source. For instance, trash. Researchers are developing a new system for converting trash into ethanol and methanol could help reduce the amount of waste piling up in landfills. Or how about switchgrass and wood chips? A company called Abengoa Bioenergy in Chesterfield, Missouri has developed a process that converts switchgrass into ethanol and methanol.

Interestingly enough some guy has a make-it-yourself ethanol web site. He even shows a diagram of his still. He mentions if you do this you have to get permission from the ATF though.

One final thought on this issue. I believe that government should not endorse any specific alternative fuel source. There might be a better fuel source better than ethanol in the future that we don't know of. Let the free market decide what the best fuel source would be.

A Test for Ghost Whisperers

I have a good test for ghost whisperers (gw)--ie people who talk to spirits that have not "crossed over" to the other side--to see if they can actually talk to spirits or not. What you do is this: Take a card from a full shuffled deck of playing cards and have them have the spirit tell the gw what the suit and value of the card is. Now, obviously the spirit should be able to see the front of the selected card and the gw should not be able to see the front of the card. If the gw is able to name the card this a real good indication that the person can talk to spirits. The probability of the gw just guessing the card is 1/52 or 1.92%. Of course, you can do this test more than once and see if the person can tell you the card to rule out chance. And of course this test can be done by different testers with the same gw.

It is probably a good idea for the experimenter not to see the front of card until the gw tells him what the card is. This is called a double-blind test. That way the gw cannot see the reflection of the card in the persons eyes or glasses. I suppose though that the experimenter could wear dark shades to eliminate that possibility.

My way is a good way to test the gw because it does not rely on having the spirit relay personal information to the gw about the experimenters life. If the gw tells a researcher that (s)he is acrophobic from the spirit who knows the researcher and (s)he is acrophobic that could just be a good guess. After all acrophobia (the fear of heights) is one of the most common fears of all. Plus you don't know if the gw had previous knowledge about the experimenters life or not to give answers about his/her life. The deck of cards method is independent of any knowledge about the experimenter.

What does it prove if the gw passes the test? Obviously it proves that the gw is authentic and there might be more like the testee. More than that it proves there is life after physical death. Of course to religious people (like myself--although I think it would be good to know if there are authentic gws) you don't need this test. Atheists might discredit the test. Agnostics might pause and even be persuaded. It's hard to say.

And if the gw fails the test? Well, it is a lot harder to prove a negative result. The gw could be fake. This does not prove however life after physical death does not exist. It only proves the gw claim is false that (s)he is a gw or for some reason that the spirit is not cooperating with the gw, but there is no way for a non-gw experimenter to know that.

Detecting a Suicide Bomber

A Virginia-based company is creating a system that detects suicide-bomber suspects from a safe distance. The CounterBomber system shoots low-power radar beams at a suspect bomber. It is even able to track the suspect as he walks. Future versions of the system will have "gait recognition" software. This software will be able to analyze anomalies in a person's gait to see if he is carrying a heavy object or putting something on the ground.

Invisible 'Radio' Tattoos

LiveScience.com reports that a company called Somark Innovations is making RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) ink for cattle. The tattoos can be colored or invisible.

What's cool is this technology in the future could be used on troops to keep track of them on the battle field. For instance, it could be used to rescue soldiers and prevent friendly fire.

What a rich high-profile person could do is when they have a child that is born is to put this on the child. That way if the child is kidnaped the police would be able to locate the child easier. This technology could be put on prisoners just in case they escape but if a person can wash the ink off (the article does not say) that would not be of much help.

The Iraq War & Other American Wars

It is interesting to compare the Iraq War to other American wars. I am not going to do all American wars just a good representative sample. All the deaths are American military deaths and the deaths per year are rounded.

The Iraq War which has lasted so far three years have killed 3,017 deaths. This comes out to be 1006 deaths per year.

The American revolutionary war caused 8000 deaths and lasted for eight years. The deaths per year for this war was 1000 deaths per year. Pretty close to deaths in Iraq. Historians say one-third was for American independence, one-third was against the war (Tories were probably thinking those Brits weren't that bad why do we have to fight them?), and one-third did not care either way.

The Civil War lasted four years. In those four years there were 204,070 deaths. That's a big chunk of the population. The deaths per year were 51,018. A much bigger rate than the Iraq War. Even this war had it's detractors. Some of the population thought President Lincoln should have let the south succeed--succeeding was in their constitutions.

Then there is World War I. That war which lasted two years was a cost of 116,708 American deaths. And the death rate per year? 58,354. Trade unions and pacifists were against this war. Trade unions were initially against this war because they thought it could only mean workers getting killed in the interest of their bosses.

Then there is World War II. The rate of death for that war is 135,767 per year (407,300 deaths / 3 years). The isolationists like Charles Lindbergh thought that war was none of our business. Hitler was not bothering us. That changed when Hirohito bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on America.

As you can see The Iraq War has the lowest rate of death. For those of you who think it is a waste of time because it costs money well all wars cost money. After all it is because of the Civil War Americans have to pay a national income tax. That is how Lincoln paid for the war.

If this "civil" war was just between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis then we might get away with cut-and-running like we did in Vietnam and Somalia. Or we could get away with moving the troops away from the fighting but leaving them in the country to guard the border and infrastructure. But there is third element that the drive-by-cloned-media does not mention a lot and that is Al Qaeda. This is not a pure civil war like the American Civil War. Al Qaeda is involved in it. Iran have sent their terrorists in it to. If we withdraw too soon, Saudi Arabia said they would send their Sunnis into the country. The whole thing would be more of a mess than it is now. It is not so much about making Iraq our friend, but to make it a buffer against terrorism. American national security is the issue and will always be the issue (it is too bad President Bush does not mention that enough when he gives his TV speeches. He needs to remind the American public that over and over again.) As Clinton might have said during his campaign: It's National Security stupid! Here is something to consider about the enemy (the Islamofascists) are not afraid to die, are patient, don't care about polls, and thrive when countries are unstable like Iraq (remember Afghanistan? It was unstable before we got rid of the terrorists. And they still are trying to cause trouble.) I wish the United Nations would help out in the war on terror but they won't until it is too late like it was almost too late when Hitler was conquering nations.

Humans Virtually Inhabit Robot

In Germany, university researches have created a robot where a user can virtually inhabit. The robot allows the operator to tactilely sense via gloves what the robot senses when it touches something. Also, the operator can control the movements of the robot. The operator can also see with goggles what the robot sees and hears what the robot hears. The article did not mention this but this is telepresence technology. Telepresence is where a person experiences a location via a robot without him/herself actually being there. The person actually thinks and feels (s)he is somewhere else. Sound like daydreaming doesn't it? Telepresence is a close cousin to virtual reality.

Actually, what the German researchers did is quite an accomplishment. Next to simulating smell, the tactile sense is tricky to simulate. Think what your skin can sense. It can sense touch, pressure, temperature change, and pain. Pain I don't think really needs to be simulated by a robot glove. I don't see a use for that for telepresence. Temperature change sense does not need to be simulated either. You can have a thermometer on the robot to check for instance the temperature on a distant planet but the operator does not need to feel the temperature. Like wise for firemen using telepresence when rescuing people from a burning building. They know that the building that is on fire would be hot so a robot telling them how hot the building is would be redundant. On the other hand simulating touch and pressure is important because the operator does not want to crush anything fragile that the robot hand picks up. In this case, the operator needs feedback from the robot in picking up objects.

Now, if the researchers can now only simulate smell that would be nice but that is going to be much harder.

Senate Bill 1 (Section 220)

The Senate is planning to pass a bill that will discourage grassroots lobbying groups from forming. The bill will fine any grassroots group that does not report issues, employees, contractors and dollars spent in what is called "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The fine is up to $100,000. To me this bill is close to violating the freedom to assemble right.

It seems to and others that it sounds like the Senate does not want to be bothered with their constituents have to say. They don't want to be bothered with phone calls, emails, etc. That smacks of elitism. I can understand eliminating bribes from lobbyists--which is what I believe what the voters really want in lobbying reform--but not discouraging voters from communicating with them. When the legislative branch does not want to listen to what the voters have to say then you have the legislative branch potentially out-of-control.

For the reader who does not belong to a lobbying group you may think this bill is not important. But what if you wanted to join a special interest group or even start your own? What if you got your friends, family and neighbors together to email a Senator about a particular issue? This bill might discourage you from doing that. There is nothing wrong with lobbying groups as long as they don't bribe a Senator. A Senator might ignore one email about an issue, but it is hard to ignore 50 or 100 emails from different people about the same issue.

I should say this bill is sponsored by Harry Reid (D-NV). And it has so far 13 Democrats co-sponsoring it and four Republicans co-sponsors. It's funny that the Democrats say President Bush does not listen to the American people about the Iraq War when the people sponsoring this bill do not want to listen to the American people. I hope the President vetoes this bill if it reaches his desk.

Teams in the Fine Arts

In computer science there is a concept called team programming. This is where more than one programmer program on a large complex system (a program) because it would take one programmer a lot longer to do it himself. Also, it makes sense. Why handle a complex problem in its entirely when you can break it up into smaller easier to digest (mentally, ie) parts and have each programmer only worry about his part. This is in a nutshell is the team programming concept. Could this concept be applied to the fine arts? Let's explore that notion.

Painting. I think it could be applied here. In landscape painting, you have several elements that could be done by several painters (probably not at the same time). One painter could be responsible for the sky, another could be responsible for the mountain(s), another painter could paint the ground, and yet another one doing the trees. For every element in the painting, a corresponding painter could paint. The same for portraits. Break up the face into eyes, ears, mouth, etc.

Literature. Here again this can be broken up. One writer is responsible for dialogue, another one could write the details of the setting, and maybe another one who is responsible for the plot.

Music. Music has already been doing this in a way. Where you have one who is the lyricist and the other one who is responsible for the melody. Technically, this is not a team, but a dual. A team is composed of at least three players. Musicians other than soloists sort of apply the team concept. One person sings, one plays the percussion instruments, one plays the keyboards, one plays lead guitar, etc. as in a rock or country band.

How realistic are these scenarios? Not very realistic. Artists tend to be individualists and their creations are a part of them.They have a hard time detaching themselves from their creations. (Actually, I believe that anyone who creates has this emotional reaction.) Also, the fine arts is about communicating emotion especially in music and painting. It is not about solving problems like computer science is. This maybe why you don't see team painters for instance.

Unions and Secret Ballots

Unions are proposing "card-check" legislation that would eliminate secret balloting during representation elections. Where are you ACLU? I mean this to me would be a civil rights violation. Then again this fits the behavior of most unions--worker intimidation. One local chief a union confessed to the Wall Street Journal that "we don't do elections." Well, isn't that nice. With the democrats in charge now that legislation might happen to the detriment of the union members.

If you think this kind of intimidation is rare you would be wrong. In 1996, A West Virginia miner was shot dead for working during a strike. Want another example a little more recent? In 2004, a worker who opposed unionization has his house "put on the map" by flyers put in the plant that had the worker's address and phone number on it and this message "Jeff Ward lives here. Go tell him how you really feel about the union." Mr. Ward had the plant cancel its recognition of the union because the workers never had a chance to vote for or against the union. The two examples sound more like organized crime than organized labor. That's why I like right to work laws that make it illegal for unions to force or coerce someone to join a union.

I find it interesting that labor unions say they back the worker and yet call him a "scab" when he crosses the picket line. Unions should not endorse such behavior but they do and they probably even encourage it. I guess the unions only support workers if they go along with what unions want. Then again if workers don't join a specific union the union's leaders not only loses money from dues but also power.

I believe not only should people hold big government and big business accountable for their actions but also big labor.

The Death Penalty

I am for the death penalty for two reasons: One, when a country executes someone for murder you are sending a signal that for the ultimate crime you will get the ultimate punishment--death. After all serial rapists and other felonies can get a life-sentence. A country needs to differentiate between murder and other felonies. Two, dead murders cannot commit murder ever again. They can never be paroled. Murders with a life sentence have a possibility of being paroled. In all fairness to the death penalty opponents I will give some arguments why they oppose the death penalty.

One argument--and probably I think the best argument they have is--a country might execute an innocent person. True, this might happen but executing an innocent person has more to do with the actual criminal trial of the person than the punishment. After all an innocent person could go to jail too. Fault lies in the criminal trial itself. Justice is not so much about finding the truth about the crime than winning and losing. The prosecutor just wants to find the defendant guilty and the defense lawyer wants to find the defendant not guilty. Both parties use whatever legal means possible to win and meanwhile the truth gets lost. If you are going to execute someone the prosecutor has to have a lot of independent credible witnesses and/or incriminating hard physical evidence. You don't want an innocent person to be executed then reform the justice system. Besides a criminal does not get executed right away at least in America. There are always appeals. I would even let the execution delay a month so that the defense attorney or anyone else who thinks the person is innocent can investigate the case further. A month should be plenty of time to investigate. Along the same lines, if you let a murderer out of jail because of a technicality (for instance evidence that is obtained illegally) and he kills someone then an innocent person still gets killed. Either way an innocent person might be killed. In this case because the truth was ignored because evidence was obtained illegally probably not on purpose some else might die. Evidence is still evidence. I am not condoning police breaking the law, but if they obtained it illegally through an oversight of their own then it should still be allowed in a trial. It is the truth that should be the determining factor.

Another argument is the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. In his book Think A Second Time Dennis Prager has a good reply to that argument. He says if the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder then putting someone in prison is state-sanctioned kidnaping.

A third argument is the death penalty does not deter murder. Well, does putting a criminal in prison deter any crime at all? If that was the case then the crime rate should be zero. I mean if you are to the point of committing a crime you are not thinking about getting caught. You are probably concentrating and planning the crime itself. Also, most criminals think they can outwit the police and not get caught until they get on America's Most Wanted show. The only thing that stops someone from committing murder is a healthy conscience.

Number four reason against the death penalty: Executing someone is revenge by the state. No, it is not. When a person is arrested for a crime (s)he is given a jury trial before being put in prison or executed. Revenge is usually done by someone without a cool head and the victim does not have a chance to defend himself.

Bill O'Reilly has a unique argument against the death penalty. He says that executing someone is too easy. He wants to punish the murderer by having him do hard labor. Okay. I have a compromise to his argument. We can have the convict do hard physical labor up until he is executed. That way it will keep his mind off of his execution and keep him busy.

Executing someone is never a happy event. The victim is still dead. The victim's friends and family will still miss and mourn the victim. The only consolence the victim's significant others has is justice and knowing that no-one else will be hurt.

The Iraq War

Here is a list of ideas about the Iraq war from different people.

Greg Reason wants to divide Iraq into two states. He wants to divide it north with the Kurdish and south with the Shiite. Not a bad plan.

Here is Col. David Hunt's plan.

1. Fire Rumsfeld--that's been done already.
2. Fire at least two big generals.
3. Put a Special Forces officer in charge--I like that idea. He wants all the militias disbanded.
4. Bring home all the heavy U.S. divisions.
5. Arrest every corrupt official in the Iraqi Government and put them in jail.
6. Find out who is running the death squads inside the Iraqi Government, put them on trial and if found guilty execute them.
7. Leave three bases with a total of 50,000 U.S. troops in the north, central and southern parts of the country, and we continue to support the government with money, trainers and technicians.

Daniel Pipe's suggest "pulling coalition forces out of the inhabited areas of Iraq and redeploying them to the desert." According to him this "permits the American-led troops to carry out essential tasks (protecting borders, keeping the oil and gas flowing, ensuring that no Saddam-like monster takes power) while ending their non-essential work (maintaining street-level order, guarding their own barracks)."

Then there is the Iraq Study Group report. Reading this 160 page (yea, can you believe that) behemoth almost made my brain turn to oatmeal. There are 79 recommendations in this report! It almost sounds like they got together through ideas out and did not evaluate them. Basically, the group (made up of mostly retired bureaucrats--no military or foreign affair experts in the group) wants to create an Iraq International Support Group. Support group? Psychological support groups don't usually solve problems--they just give a person a way to vent their feelings to other people who share their particular problem. They don't solve problems because most don't have mental health professionals in the support group. Iraq does not need support now. It needs to become stabilized and secure.

The Libertarian Party wants to gradually move troops out of Iraq in increments of 11,600 per month. The party wants to redeploy 30,000 to other Middle Eastern countries. While the U.S. is withdrawing we should negotiate with Iraq nationalist groups not tied to Hussein's regime and start a direct-aid program with Iraq gov't to help them build their infrastructure.

Finally, we come to Senator Joe Biden's plan. He wants to "federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three largely autonomous regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad." Not a bad plan.

There are probably more ideas than these but these are the ones I know about. Whatever plan is taken Iraq first has got to be stabilized ( probably using a plan like Col. David Hunt's). And any plan that directly involves the Iraqi gov't has to be approved by them. They have to live with it. What do you think?

Ten Point Larry Elder Plan

The following is Libertarian Larry Elder's plan for American government reform with my comments.

1. Abolish the IRS. Basically, he wants a National Sales Tax (NST). If you have a NST then the 16th amendment has to be repealed or else you will have the NST plus the federal income tax. Not a good thing. For now a better idea is to have the flat tax similar to what Steve Forbes recommends in his book Flat Tax Revolution. Another thing to consider is that most states have a state sales tax. So, adding a NST will make merchandise more expensive to buy.
   
2. Reduce government by 80 percent. I like this idea. He wants to do this by eliminating most government agencies. I think every agency should be examined and this question should be asked of it: Does the U.S. need you?
   
3. End welfare, entitlements and special privileges. Another good idea. There was some welfare reform in the 90's but not enough. Is it fair for the government to decide who gets favors and who doesn't? Most of the decisions end up being political and not based on skills or performance.
   
4. Abolish the Minimum Wage. I agree. Let the free market decide what the minimum wage should be.
   
5. Legalize drugs. This one I am not so sure about. He wants to tax the drugs and use the money for drug treatment. If you are going to legalize drugs then you should have the same restrictions on the drugs as you have on alcohol consumption. I for sure do not want the government handing out drugs like they do in some European countries.
   
6. Take government out of education. This is a good idea. To do this you would need to abolish the Department of Education. He is in favor of vouchers (I am too) but if he wants vouchers this would conflict with his first suggestion. You cannot have vouchers if you have a NST because there would be no more IRS.
   
7. Drop the Davis-Bacon Act. I agree. It is interesting to note that four different presidents (including the present one) suspended the act for different reasons--two of which were for national disasters. If the act is such a good act why suspend it at all?
   
8. Eliminate corporate taxes. I agree. Having a NST would certainly eliminate the corporate tax. Let's face it you are just about taxed everywhere you turn. The corporations pay tax on stocks, the stockholder pays tax on the stock and even (I do anyway) have to pay intangible tax on the stock.
   
9. Charity from people not government. The individual person does a far better job at charity than the government does.
   
10. End protectionism. I am not for tariffs. All that does is to get you into a trade war with another country, and the consumer gets shafted. If country A does not like how country B conducts its trade then A should not trade with country B. The same goes for the individual consumer. You don't like a country's behavior toward your country--don't buy their product. Businesses like protectionism because that diminishes competition--the ideal environment for a business is no competition at all. Big labor likes protectionism because they think it protects the worker. Maybe. Neither is thinking about how protectionism does not protect the consumer.

Using Defaults Correctly

Defaults in computer programs I think can lead to precarious situations in some cases. For example, consider this prompt:

Launch nuclear missiles? Y/N Y is default.

God forbid if the user mistakenly entered another key other than 'N' when he meant to press the N key. This is exactly where defaults can lead to big trouble.

The example I showed I admit is a little bit ridiculous. In the first place the default would have been on the 'N.' In the second place there might not even be a default.

A more likely prompt is one where the computer asks the user if (s)he wants to delete a file and the default is on the 'Y' or if (s)he is sure (s)he wants to delete a file if the user wants to delete a file. In either case if the user enters a 'Y' both effects are irreversible or very hard to reverse. This I think is where defaults can be dangerous in those cases. Either have the default on the 'N' or eliminate the default entirely or to be more safe make the user spell out the words 'Yes' and 'No' since there is a less chance that (s)he will hit those letters in exactly that combination that to hit a single character.

Self-Repairing Technology

That You Tube video is kind of unnerving. But there are other examples of self-repairing technology.

In 2003, a group of researchers at Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley are trying to develop web site software that is able to recover rapidly when mishaps occur.

Engineers from Aberdeen, Scotland have invented artificial platelets to plug leaky pipes similar to the way biological platelets work when we get a cut. That is really neat!

Finally, self-healing automotive crash-barrier is under evaluation for use on America's highways. It is already being used at NASCAR pit stops.

I have always thought that if a person is going to invent some device for a certain problem see if nature has not solved the problem already. That is how we got Velcro®. For more examples of solving problems nature's way is the book The Gecko's Foot: Bio-inspiration: Engineering New Materials From Nature by Peter Forbes.

Mutant Deer Now Road-Kill

A Wisconsin man has crashed into a seven-legged hermaphroditic deer with this truck. After taking a picture of the mutant deer and sending the photo to experts he ate the deer. He said the deer was tasty. I wonder what kind of wine or beer a person serves with mutant deer? Hmmm.

I wonder how long it will take for some environmental extremist to blame the deer's condition on global warming (which we all know now is caused by cattle (shame on them!) at least according to the U. N.)

Partridge in a Pear Tree

My sister forwarded this to me:

There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me. What in the world do leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas? From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics. It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

• The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.
• Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.
• Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.
• The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.
• The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.
• The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.
• Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit - Prophecy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.
• The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.
• Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit - Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control.
• The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.
• The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.
• The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening and now I know how that strange song became a Christmas Carol.

May God grant you peace and happiness throughout this Christmas Season.

Merry Christmas!

Comparing Computer Science to Other Sciences

Computer science as a science is different in one respect from the other sciences in that it creates instead of discovers. Other sciences through experimentation and theory, the scientific method if you wish, try to discover the laws of nature. The computer scientist on the other hand create laws in the "electronic world." In a way computer scientists are like artists in that they create. True, they use the scientific method especially if a program doesn't work, then programmers have to go in and debug it, like other scientists solving a riddle. But it is that combination of art and science (which some people think of as being contradictory to one another, which I am not so sure are contradictory, but can be complementary to one another) that makes computer science as a field unique.

Computer science can help the other sciences' scientists with their skills by writing programs and letting the scientist discover the "laws" governing the program. In this way, a novice scientist can have a little practice discovering laws. A good program to use for this is mathematician John Horton Conway's cellular automation program Game of Life. It uses three basic laws that are deceptively simple, and when applied recursively leads to unexpected results. It is very interesting to watch the program run, to see all the different kinds of patterns it produces. All the scientist would do is watch the program run as many times as he likes to discover the laws that create the patterns. Of course, the scientist cannot be familiar with the program, because that is cheating, and in real life situations Nature does not allow you to cheat.

The Ingenuity of American Soldiers

I love human ingenuity. In a Newsday.com article it talks about American troops in Iraq using Silly String to detect trip wires. The troops spray the Silly String in a room. If it falls completely on the floor, there are no trip wires in the room otherwise there is. That's just plain clever! That is the very definition of ingenuity: thinking of ways to use an object for different purposes, not just its primary purpose.

A Squirrelly Lawsuit

A woman is suing a Chicago shopping center because a squirrel jumped on her leg in the center's courtyard. The woman got injured while frantically trying to detach the squirrel from her leg. She claims that the mall's parent company knew about this squirrel's behavior because it had previously attacked and harassed(?) other customers. The squirrel could not be located for comment.

I am guessing that the squirrel must have been male because it jumped on her leg. I put a question mark after the harassed word because I do not know if that word should be used when talking about wild animals. If the squirrel did harass the woman would it be sexual harassment? Or maybe sexual assault? Who knows.

Evidently, the woman must think that the mall owns this serial-harassing squirrel to stop its frisky behavior. If a bunch of renegade robins started swooping down on people in the courtroom would it be the responsibility of the shopping center to prevent that behavior too? Where does it stop? What is the shopping center supposed to do about the squirrel? Get a gun and shoot the thing? Then the mall would probably get in trouble with city ordinances about shooting a firearm out in the open. Not to mention being sued by PETA. I suppose that the mall could have tried to capture the squirrel, but that takes time. And if they did capture the perpetrator they would have to move him somewhere else. And what if they captured an innocent squirrel minding his/her own business. The guilty squirrel would still be on the loose waiting for his next victim to come along.

They could have called animal control, but I think animal control only deals with roaming pet dogs and cats and dangerous animals. Squirrels are wild animals and aren't that dangerous (frisky possibly but not dangerous).

This lawsuit is just another example of someone not taking responsibility for herself and abusing the court system just to make a quick buck.

Driver License Renewal for My Dead Mom

The title of this blog is absolutely true! Thursday of last week, my dad received a letter in a mail from my state's Department of Revenue addressed to my deceased mom who died four years ago. When I first saw the envelope I thought my mom owed state income tax (that'll probably be next!). Nope, I was wrong. It was from the DMV! The Division of Motor Vehicles sent my mom who is dead for four years driver's license renewal papers. The envelope contained all the papers you would expect: the License Renewal Exam, the Driver License Renewal Exam handbook and the thin cardboard you take to the exam station. Got to love government! I wonder if I'll get my driver license renewal notice when I am dead and gone! Ha!

Flatulence in a Plane

An American Airlines airplane was diverted when passengers reported the smell of sulphur from burning matches. Come to find out it was a woman who was lighting matches to conceal her flatulence. She has an unspecified medical condition. On a side note, there are at least 12 causes of flatulence. She had to board another plane. The BBC News web site did not mention if they took her matches away from her or not. The TSA allows you to have matches, but you cannot light them.

The woman should have acted innocent and hoped her flatulence did not smell. Sulfur smells stronger than most flatulence, and lighting matches only brought attention to the woman. She should have brought along some air freshener (although I do not know if that is banned or not on airlines) along and used that. That smells too but not as strong as sulfur.

The woman should have worried more about the sound rather than the smell. Unless she was sitting down on a sound-absorbing seat the sound would have brought more attention to her. Then again maybe the flatulence was silent--the silent ones sometimes can be deadly.

In all fairness to the woman there is not much she could have done. Although she could have gone to the plane's bathroom to let it out there. But even that would have been tricky. Definitely opening the plane's window let air the flatulence out would have been not an option.

Interesting Life Suggestions

I've been reading Dr. Paul Pearsall's book The Last Self-Help Book You'll Ever Need. In this book he takes on the self-help movement and here are a sample of his more interesting suggestions:

1. Lose Hope. Striving to keep your hopes up at the worst times in your life can be exhausting. Studies such as those recently conducted at the Harvard and UCLA Medical Schools show that hope does not promote healing, nor does it render cancer treatment more effective.
2. Give Up. Persevering is not the only way to demonstrate strength. Strength can also mean knowing when to engage in enlightened surrender, willingness to give in and move on.
3. Think Sad Thoughts. Trying to think only happy thoughts limits our ability to think creatively and critically.
4. Settle for Second (or Third or Sixth) Best. In any life endeavor, there can be only one number one. Relax and enjoy being one of the thousands who fall short.
5. Be a Pessimist. A little defensive pessimism goes a long way to building a good life. Unless you're a natural at trying to always think positively, the effort is stressful, exhausting, and limiting.
6. Be a Good Blamer. Finding the right person to blame is essential for good mental health.
7. Indulge yourself.
8. Bottle Up Your Anger. Research shows that although mindfully understanding your anger can be helpful, hostile expression of it weakens your immune system and literally hardens your heart and the hearts of those around you.
9. Don't Nurture Your "Inner Child"--Kick Its Ass. Look for your problems within your adult interactions, not within your own infantilized consciousness.
10. Face It, Your Family's Nuts. The only cure for dysfunctional families is to do away with all families. We all have at least one weird family member and usually more. A family is nothing more than a group of people irrationally committed to one another's welfare. A good family is a group willing to stick with you when most sane and discerning people would vote you out.
11. Delude yourself. Research shows that deluding oneself about one's partner--believing that (s)he is kinder and more caring and helpful than (s)he really is---is essential for a lasting relationship.
12. Stop Trying to Live Up to Your "Full Potential." Stop focusing on your potential and start thinking about doing the best with the talents you already have.

Well, how's that for upbeat happy thoughts? Believe it or not the author is neuropsychologist and is a member of a new psychological school of thought called positive psychology! I especially like suggestions 9, 10 and 11.

NASA Plans to Land Man on Asteroid

NASA is planning to land an astronaut on an asteroid hurtling through space at more than 30,000 mph.That is a pretty good feat if they can pull it off. The asteroid NASA has in mind landing on is Apophis. The reason NASA is trying to pull off this feat is so they can learn how to push an asteroid out of the way of earth's orbit. You don't want to fire at an asteroid because then that asteroid breaks up and now you would have smaller asteroids to worry about.

If Apophis struck the earth at a 45 degree angle traveling at 10.56 miles/second it would cause a 3.16 x 102 MegaTons TNT explosion. The creator size would be 1.86 miles in diameter and 0.256 miles deep. Other than that not much damage done and the sound of the collision would be 52 decibels (loud as heavy traffic). By the way, I calculated all this impact information from the online Earth Impact Effects Program using this additional input data:

• Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km = 621.00 miles
• Projectile Diameter: 320.00 m = 1049.60 ft = 0.20 miles
• Projectile Density: 1000 kg/m3
• Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
• Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

You can go to that web site and enter your own values if you like.

Not only do we have to worry about asteroids but meteoroids too. Scientists think that a single meteorite killed off the dinosaurs. When a meteorite impacts the earth it creates a special kind of glass in the crater called diaplectic glass. This type of glass is produced without melting.

The Germany & Austria Santa Ban

This Christmas season Santa Claus is being banned in markets in Germany and Austria. The reason for this stupid ban according to Ananova.com is that "anti-Santa campaigners claim Father Christmas was invented by Coca-Cola and detracts from the true spirit of the festive season."

Haven't these anti-Santa people heard of the Internet? All these pinheads had to do was to go to Snopes.com and check out the truth like I did. Santa Claus was not invented by Coca-Cola. I thought Germans and Austrians are smarter than that. Snopes.com says "Santa Claus was an evolutionary creation, brought about by the fusion of two religious personages (St. Nicholas and Christkindlein, the Christ child) to become a fixed image which is now the paramount symbol of the secular Christmas celebration."

As for Santa Claus detracting from the spirit of the festive season--that is stupid too. Santa Claus is the symbol of giving. If companies and people are turning the Christmas season into some commercial enterprise that is not his fault. Don't take it out on the Jolly Fat (uh sorry, I mean weight-challenged) Man in the red suit.

I wonder if there is anti-Easter Bunny campaigners in Germany and Austria. I hope not, but you never know.

Baby Locks Mom Out of Flat

In Bavaria, a 19 year old woman was locked out of her flat by her eight-month old baby. Eventually, firemen came and rescued her. I don't know, but I think the whole situation is suspicious. I think the baby faked not walking for a while so he could deliberately lock his mom out. Maybe he was mad at his mom for some reason, or maybe he did not like her smoking. Probably was quietly laughing at her for those two hours. You got to keep an eye on those eight-month olds. They can be up to no good sometimes.