Impulsive Behavior Can Make Life Hard

This is almost a "duh, so what." What I mean by the blog title is if you are impulsive as a child, later on as an adult you will live a much harder life. In his book The Time Paradox (2008) Dr. Phillip Zimbardo talks about a simple study that was done at Stanford University's Bing Nursery School. In this study four-year-olds were given a choice to eat a single marshmallow now or wait later on for two marshmallows. Some kids at the marshmallow later on and others waited for the two marshmallows. It did not matter what the reward was--same behavior.

Later on when the kids grew up they were interviewed. The kids who resisted the single marshmallow had developed a range of superior emotional and social competencies compared with the children who had eaten the treat immediately. The non-impulsive adults were better able to deal with adversity and stress, and they were more self-confident, diligent, and self-reliant. Even the intelligent was higher with the non-impulsive adults. It is something to ponder. I guess according to this study patience is its own reward.

Islamic Nations Push to End Free Speech at UN

From Newsmax.com (December 17, 2008):

GENEVA — Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, which have gathered strength since the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad two years ago, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. anti-racism conference planned for next year.

The European Union rejects suggestions by Algeria — backed by other Muslim and African countries — that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.

Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva. [more]

Substitute "the world" with "UN" in the title and you have what the Islamofacists really want. No criticisms of Islam at all in the world. It doesn't surprise me though. You don't hear Christians, Jews, Hindus or the other religions want to ban criticisms of their religions. Sort of makes a person wonder if Islam is so strong and secure a religion why can't it take any criticism? No believer likes its religion poked fun (like Monty Python's the "Life of Brian" movie which made fun of Jesus Christ, or the new movie "Religulous") or criticized, but if they have a strong faith it should not matter to them if it is criticized.

I am glad the other countries are standing up against these Islamists. If they don't then that is exactly what the Muslim fanatics want. Total fear or submission.

eHarmony.com potential issue

I believe I found a potential issue on eHarmony.com's site. It does not filter out or allow the subscriber to filter out people (s)he does not want to date such as relatives, exes (that would be funny, if the service matched you with your ex), etc. I looked at their website closely and did not see a filter of any kind. Since I don't use their service I cannot say for sure they don't have filters, but just reading the description of their service I did not see any.

The tricky part is to create a filter. One possible way is to have the subscriber create a "block list" of people who (s)he never wants to be a potential mate. This list could contain at the very least the person's first and last name. Maybe a middle name or initial. To rule out people with the same name you want to date, a birthday field could also be included so you don't get false positives.

Is this really a problem? It could be if you have a lot of friends or relatives who use the service. It is interesting to note that eHarmony does not do background checks. So, you could potentially be dating someone who is secretly stalking you.

Good Code, Bad Computations: A Computer Security Gray Area

ScienceDaily (2008-11-03) -- If you want to make sure your computer or server is not tricked into undertaking malicious or undesirable behavior, it's not enough to keep bad code out of the system. New research shows that the process of building bad programs from good code using "return-oriented programming" can be automated and that this vulnerability applies to multiple computer architectures. [more]

Basically, a hacker hacks a website for example and rewrites some of the existing code instead of injecting his own outside code on the website to do some potentially malicious behavior. Good job for the researchers for imagining the unimaginable.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 12

• I may not know anything about how match-mating services (like eharmony.com, match.com, etc.) work but wouldn't their customer base drop off if they were really worked? Eventually, everyone looking for a soul mate will be happily married and won't need the business again. One exception would be is if their spouse died then they would use the business again.
• If people could record their nighttime dreams on DVD, it could be useful (you could playback a problem you solved for instance) and it could be potentially embarrassing (your erotic dream could get uploaded to Youtube). Either way dream interpretation psychologists would find the technology helpful to them in dealing with their clients' issues.
• Don't own a pet that can kill you.
• They should make alimony optional. From a feminist point of view I would think a man paying alimony to a woman would be disrespectful. I mean it says that a woman still needs a man monetarily even when they are divorced. Most women work now so why do women need alimony? Child-support I can understand. But alimony in this age where men and women are supposed to be equal? And what about a man getting alimony from an ex-wife who has more money or a better paying job than he does?
• The difference between a good man and an evil man is that a good man feels bad when he has to kill a person even in self-defense, war or in justifiable homicide.
• I wonder what a pro-abortion woman would think of a pro-life woman sacrificing her life for her unborn child. That is to say giving birth could put the mother at serious harm or even death. After all doesn't the mother have that (pro-)choice to sacrifice herself for her child?
• Two monkeys swinging in a tree is better than one monkey throwing poo at you.
• If everyone worked for the federal gov't then who would pay their salary? It is the private sector who pays for the federal employees salaries. Without the private sector there is no government workers.
• In the heart of every liberal lurks a Marxist anxious to come out.
• It is better to have the gov't poor than the private citizen poor. A rich gov't and poor citizens only leads to oppression. Like Cuba and the defunct Soviet Union.

Russia, Iran and Qatar Discuss Forming Gas Cartel

From Newsmax.com (October 21, 2008):

TEHRAN, Iran -- Russia, Iran and Qatar made the first serious moves Tuesday toward forming an OPEC-style cartel on natural gas, raising concerns that Moscow could boost its influence over energy markets spanning from Europe to South Asia.

Washington and Western allies worry that closer strategic ties between Russia and Iran could hinder efforts to isolate Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. In addition, the United States opposes a proposed Iranian gas pipeline to Pakistan and India, key allies. [more]

That sounds like something directly out of a Joel C. Rosenberg novel like The Ezekiel Option (a great novel by the way). In the novel, Russia and Iran team up against Israel (actually almost all the world is against Israel) and the president of the United States has to make a decision to support Israel or not. His novels are based on observations of the world and Biblical prophecy.

America only imports 18,352 million cubic feet of natural gas per year from Qatar. None from Iran and Russia. Most of the natural gas comes from Canada, Egypt, and Trinidad (yea, that's right Trinidad). The article mentioned Mexico but we only get 54,062 million cubic feet from them. Not bad, but not nearly as much from the above three. So that cartel won't hurt America too much. Although, The Wall Street Journal makes a good point that a natural gas cartel won't have much control over prices as much as an oil cartel does because the natural gas market is fragmented. This is just Russia trying to exert more control over their neighbor's economy. Iran maybe thinking the same way. Still, them teaming up in anyway makes me nervous.

This cartel makes sense politically. Russia and Iran has become partners in different deals so I can understand them teaming up. Qatar and Iran has teamed up too. June of last year they have backed a Hamas coup.

The Drive-by-Media Attacks Again

What the drive-by-media is doing to "Joe the plumber" (Joe Wurzelbacher) is just terrible. He is just a working guy that asked a politician a question and because of that he gets an anal exam from the media. Is he really a licensed plumber? Was he a Republican plant? All this is really misdirection from the media and the Dems. Look over here (Joe) and not at the real story (Obama showing his true colors). This isn't much of a story. It seems that either Obama is getting over confident about the polls and letting his guard drop or he must have not realized his conversation was being filmed. Either way Obama being a far-right liberal is not surprising to me. The American Conservative Union website rates Obama an eight from a scale of 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) of being a conservative. An eight! Can you believe that? That's almost a Communist! On a side note Google's search engine got bogged down when users did a search for Mr. Wurzelbacher.

Mr. Wurzelbacher's dealings with the media reminds of another working guy that got overly scrutinized by the media: Richard Jewell. If you remember he at first was declared hero by the press because he found a pipe bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia then later on the press declared him a suspect. He never was charged and later on was exonerated. He died in August 2007 from natural causes. He had diabetes, kidney disease, and severe heart disease. What the drive-by-media did to him did not help his situation.

In America the press has freedom from gov't influence, but it seems anymore they are abusing that right. It does not give them the right to ruin people's lives or give them an anal exam. There is such things as ethics and responsibility. The media never investigates their friends (Obama, Bill Ayers) but they will put a microscope on their perceived enemies or enemies of their friends. Or they will attempt to discredit people or events that could potentially negatively effect their friends. Mr. Wurzelbacher was just being an informed voter. He was just inquiring about Obama's economic policy in a calm respectful manner. What's wrong with that? We should all be that curious about people running for office. That's what makes the political system a better system. Mr. Wurzelbacher did not even say who he was voting for. For just being a curious and doing his civic duty he got a rectal exam from the media.

Anymore, the media is not about reporting the facts it is about agendas. One agenda being discredit your enemies and protect your friends. You don't have a genuine media anymore when you do that, you just have a propaganda machine. And that is just plane sad.

A Conservative Candidate Strategy

Here is a tip for a republican or conservative candidate that is running for office:
Differentiate yourself from your opponent. A political candidate is like a product you would buy. If you are buying a car and two cars are very similar to one another it does not matter very much which one you buy. You have to stand out from your opponent. Glenn Beck said about the second presidential debate it was like watching a Marxist (Obama) verses a bad Democrat (McCain). Don't be your opponent!
The way to differentiate yourself is to talk about conservative principles passionately in your own voice without using the word conservative. People who aren't politically savvy do not know what a conservative is. Talk about how entrepreneurs are the engine of the nation. That we should not punish the successful by raising their taxes. Control gov't spending. That gov't isn't the solution to most problems. That the rich, the poor, and the middle class are all Americans. Playing divide-and-conquer helps no-one other than the divider himself. President Ronald Reagan did not have to mention the word conservative. He did not have to. What he said resonated with most Americans because most believed that America is an exceptional country like he did. He got his message across without worrying what the press thought of him.
Secondly, a conservative needs to go on offense. Put the liberal on defense. Make him show his true ideology. What do you have against wealthy people? How are you planning to pay for all billions of dollars given to the United Nations for the poor overseas? Name three things you love about America?
One last thing, Reagan did not worry about the independent vote. If an independent is a conservative he will vote for a conservative candidate anyway.

The Intelligent TV

Here are some of my idea for the intelligent TV. This TV could:

• Turn down or mute the volume when a commercial comes on.
• Turn itself off when there is no-one in the room. It could do this by reading heat signatures in the room. There could be a time delay before it turns itself off.
• Mute/turn down the volume/turn itself off if all the viewers fall asleep. You don't want this action happening if someone is still watching the TV. Again a time delay could be set.
• Mute itself if a phone rings in front of the TV and you pick up the receiver. The trick is having the TV unmute when you hang up or if you don't pick up the receiver.

All functions above can be toggled.

Son of Stimulus Package

If Nancy Pelosi is talking about another huge ($150 billion) stimulus package (like the first one worked really well) what the gov't should do to get people to spend money is to send out a gift card to a store of a taxpayer's choosing. Otherwise if you just send out a check the taxpayer would just deposit it in their bank account. This is how the idea would work. When the taxpayer fills out the tax form (s)he can indicate what store (s)he wants the gift card from. The only problems are is that it will take longer for gov't to get the cards from a specific store and the store may not have a gift card in that exact mount. The gov't may have to send out out multiple cards. Hat tip from the Glenn Beck show about this idea although the guest's suggested was to send out coupons to the taxpayers. I think the guest was joking. But sending out coupons to the taxpayer restricts the taxpayer to one particular product.

Actually better idea is to send out a debit card with the exact amount of the "refund." That way the gov't does not have to worry about what stores the taxpayer goes to.

An even better idea than the above two is just scrap the stimulus package and cut every one's (not just 95% of the population) taxes and cut the payroll tax too.

Elderly riots?

Bill Clinton crony James Carville has suggested that if Obama loses by a close margin that "it would be very, very, very dramatic out there." Hmmm. Sounds like he is suggesting (and other Libs are suggesting this too) that there will race riots.

What about the flip side? What if McCain loses by a small margin? Couldn't be possible that the elderly would riot? I could see hordes of elderly people entering the streets very slowly with their canes and walkers about to protest Obama getting elected then forgetting what they came out in the street for in the first place.

The question is would Obama do the Al Gore and have a recount and turn the country inside-out if he does loose by a close margin? It depends on how power hungry he is.

Operation Chaos Part 2

If Obama becomes president and the Congress and the House become even more liberal, what the conservatives could do to possibly block stupid spending bills from passing is to put innocuous riders on them that will tick off the libs. For example, a national holiday for President Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and President George W. Bush (the holidays do not have to be on all on the same bill). See what happens when you don't have line-item veto? Operation Chaos continues!

Putting A 'Korset' On The Spread Of Computer Viruses

ScienceDaily (2008-09-15) -- Prof. Avishai Wool and his graduate student Ohad Ben-Cohen of Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Engineering have written a program called the "Korset" to stop malware on Linux, the operating system used by the majority of web and email servers worldwide. They have modified the kernel in system's operating system so that it monitors and tracks the behavior of the programs installed on it. Quoting from the article:

If the kernel senses abnormal activity, it stops the program from working before malicious actions occur. “When we see a deviation, we know for sure there’s something bad going on,” Prof. Wool explains. [more]

Interesting article. Their approach could probably work on PC's, Apple computers, cell phones, or any other computerized device that contains software. I have always thought that individual software programs could use a similar approach by monitoring their pgm size and date modified. If either of the two have changed since installed on the computer then the pgm would not run and alert the user of a possible virus attack. Of course, if the pgm gets updated then the pgm would take this into account. On a similar note, I found this patent on the web:

A computer virus trapping device (10) is described that detects and eliminates computer viruses before they can enter a computer system and wreck havoc on its files, peripherals, etc. The trapping device (10) creates a virtual world that simulates the host computer system (28) intended by the virus to infect. The environment is made as friendly as possible to fool a computer virus into thinking it is present on the host (28), its intended target system. Within this virtual world, the virus is encouraged to perform its intended activity. The invention is able to detect any disruptive behaviour occurring within this simulated host computer system. It is further able to remove (52) the virus from the data stream before it is delivered to the host (28) and/or take any action previously instructed by a user (38).

Both are good ideas. Instead of removing a specific virus by its "DNA" or virus-print, you are removing any virus by its behavior. If a virus changes then the anti-virus companies have to update their anti-virus pgm. They always have to play catch-up.

Computer Hardware 'Guardians' Protect Users From Undiscovered Bugs

ScienceDaily (2008-10-01) -- As computer processor chips grow faster and more complex, they are likely to make it to market with more design bugs. But that may be OK, according to researchers who have devised a system that lets chips work around all functional bugs, even those that haven't been detected. [more]

This is pretty cool. Here is more from the article:

The approach keeps track of all the configurations the firm did test, and loads that information onto a minuscule monitor that would be added to each processor.

The monitor, called a semantic guardian, keeps the chip operating within its virtual fence. It works by switching the processor into a slower, bare-bones, safe mode when the chip encounters a configuration that has not been validated. In this way, the monitor would treat all untested configurations as potential threats.

Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

FactCheck.org lists on their website who they think caused the economic crises. Guess what, it's almost everyone. Below is their list. Count how many times the gov't is listed.

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

I counted six times the gov't, three times the private-sector and once the consumer. The last one included everybody. Will the economy eventually recover? Of course it will. It is a dynamic non-linear system. Those systems have a strong tendency to self-correct. But if you tamper or mess with them too much they can become chaotic and never recover their previous state. When it comes to the economy, it is the gov't (especially Congress because they enact the laws) is the one who can really make things worse. Gov't can screw up the natural workings of the economy if they do not know what they are doing. Which is most of the time.

Obama's Four Point Financial Plan

Here's is Barack Obama's four point to deal with the financial crisis:

1. Obama calls for subsidies to "working families" to beat high food and energy prices. That only drive up the price of food and energy even more because the suppliers of both will know that families are getting the subsidies, so they can raise their prices more. Also, does this include all working families? Or is there a income limit? Isn't this just wealth re-distribution? You want lower food prices then stop all subsidies to farmers. You want lower energy prices then increase the supply for energy like oil, nuclear, compressed natural gas, etc. And how about lowering the tax on gasoline.
2. Banks would subsidize bad borrowers to "protect homeowners and the economy." Why stop there. Let's have banks subsidize people borrowing money for cars, motorcycles, motor boats and other expensive items. Maybe the banks should not have gave loans to people who can't repay them. Normally, banks don't do this but in the 90's the gov't put pressure on banks to give loans to borrowers who couldn't pay off the loan because of political correctness. Think about it. Why would banks give loans to the poor? Banks like any other business are there to make a profit. The borrower has to show he can pay the loan off. It's called collateral. I suppose there are some unscrupulous bank loaners who gave loans to people just to resell their home when the borrower defaulted. If the bank had unscrupulous business practices it would not be business very long. Word would get around. A bank does not really want someones home. They have to pay someone to mow the lawn and do other upkeep on the home to sell it. There also has to be a market to sell the home. Banks really don't want to be bothered with that. Keep in mind nobody forced borrowers to borrow money. It's called free will. And along with free will comes personal responsibility. A borrower should know if he can pay back a loan or not. If you have the bank subsidize financially stupid borrowers then you are encouraging bad behavior. The borrower will not learn a lesson. It's funny banks are accused of being unscrupulous for making loans to bad borrowers but it is okay for states to have lotteries. You know who buys lottery tickets? The poor or working class. Very few rich people buy lottery tickets. They don't have to. Isn't the state taking advantage of the poor?
3. Obama seeks "new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions." More bureaucracy. Great. It is the gov't that caused the housing mess in the first place.
4. Obama seeks to empower unelected foreign entities to the same "globally coordinated (rescue) effort." Yea, right. How is Obama going to persuade other nations to help out? By sure will alone? I can see Iran, Russia, China and other dictatorships like them helping out. Friendly nations may help out but they have their own issues. The UN has been completely impotent where comes to world affairs. Iran anyone? America does not need another bureaucracy in the mix. One is enough. Then Obama wants to give billions to the UN to feed the poor countries. That's like throwing money into a black hole. Plus the leaders say that will only screw up their economies. Any corrupt regime who gets any money will take it for themselves. The starving people won't see any supplies or food.

Barack Obama Test

The Barack Obama Test which was written by Bradley S. O'Leary who is the author of The Audacity of Deceit (I have not read it) tests to see if your beliefs/positions are in align with with Obama's beliefs. I took the test and my beliefs/positions are not in align with his. According to the polls that Mr. O'Leary uses it seems that neither are America's positions are in align with Obama's either. Only one question (Defense question #2) did Obama agree with majority of Americans.

What is interesting about the test is that Obama says doctors should not give medical care to a fetus that survives an abortion. I thought universal health care means everyone. Then again he is pro-abortion and said he did not know when life begins. Er, okay. According to a Zogby poll 67.8% Americans and 68.1% of American woman think that an abortion surviving fetus should be given medical care. I do too.

And then there's this question: Do you agree or disagree that it should it be illegal for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang? Obama agreed with 12.4% of Americans polled that said it is okay if a convict on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang. Is this just common sense? Why would anyone want a convict on probation to associate with fellow gang members? They might hide him out somewhere. Actually, if the person is a threat to society or a flight risk he should not be given bail period. I think I get it though. Obama (and probably most liberals) say they have a constitutional right to do so. I don't know about that. If a convict does this and he is on bail he is stupid to do this illegal or not. Because doing it shows his guilt right away.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Money to Legislators

It's no wonder why Congress won't have investigative hearings on Freddie and Fannie like they do the oil companies. They are taking money from the two. OpenSecrets.org reports that Freddie and Fannie have given the total of $4,844,572 to the 354 legislators. 57% of that sum goes to Democrats. Like one of the comments noted on OpenSecrets.org this should be a conflict of interest since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a gov't created organization. Here are some notable legislators:

Dodd, Christopher J.	$165,400
Obama, Barack	$126,349
Kerry, John	$111,000
Reid, Harry	$77,000
Clinton, Hillary	$76,050
Pelosi, Nancy	$56,250
McCain, John	$21,550
Hatch, Orrin G	$18,250

Congress won't investigate because they would have to investigate themselves.

Why Government Can't Create Private-Sector Jobs

To run a business is not an easy job to do. You have to have business know-how, a viable vision of what your business is going to produce, and certain traits to succeed. These traits include (among other): individuality, problem-solving, self-confidence, realistic outlook, conceptual ability, drive, determination, patience and a positive attitude. Also, as part of the business know-how a successful entrepreneur has to hire good management, find sufficient capital, find a good location, don't over expand the business too fast, and have a realistic business plan. Sorry, I don't see how government can create entrepreneurial jobs with what I described above. What does gov't know about realistic business plans? No fast over-expanding?, Good management? Individuality? Very little. It's not in its vocabulary especially the over-expanding part.

Even if gov't somehow created a business with the right management are they going to insist management pick certain employees? And how is gov't going to guarantee the business survives if the business does not have customers? Give it loans or grants? That's just burning tax-payers money. The Soviet Union tried testing people for certain jobs. It did not work. Mainly, because even if you find someone who has know-how to run a business, (s)he might not have the drive or passion to be an entrepreneur.

Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. It takes a very special individual to be one. Honestly, I don't think I could be one. I admire anyone who uses his own money to start a business and tries to fulfill his dream even he fails.

The best thing gov't can do for the private sector is to just get out of the way. Let the free market decide. It may not be perfect, but gov't is even less perfect.

'Sexist' witch burning banned

From Ananova.com:

Government busybodies have ordered a medieval village to drop a witch burning drama from its birthday pageant - because it's too sexist.

The spectacular blaze - featuring dummy witches - was to have been the highlight of the fair to celebrate the 900th anniversary of the ancient Polish village, Zielona Gora.[more]

Monika Platek, head of Poland's Association for Legal Education said this about the witch burning drama: "The stakes where women were burned were the result of profound misogyny [hatred of women], discrimination against women and ignorance." First, these gov't busybodies are just plain cowards. Then again they are bureaucrats after all. Second, how do you get profound misogyny and discrimination against women from witch burning? I can see ignorance. This was the middle ages after all. But misogyny and discrimination? Come on! If women were burned at the stake because of the two above reasons then there would have been more woman burned that there was. Also, there would have been no "warlocks" killed (the male version of a witch) if the reason was because of sexism. And there were "warlocks" killed. The generally accepted reason people were burned at the steak was because the Puritans thought they were devil worshipers. I think Miss Platek is being way too sensitive.

Interestingly enough, Donald Tyson in his article "The Truth About Witches" said that "a charge of witchcraft was an easy way for a rural woman [my italics], who usually possessed little or no power, to destroy another woman she hated." Hmmm. Let's see, maybe the accuser pointed at the accuse and yelled out in front of a group of people: That witch stole my boyfriend! The group of people heard the word "witch" then the imaginations of the crowd got going. And if the accuse was strange looking and had hardly any status in the community... You can see what happened next.

By the way, it was not only Christians that had witch hunts. Fundamentalist Muslims do it to this day. Look up Fawzi Falih on the Internet.