22 September 2008

blank checks

blank check to who?

Uh yes, it might also be a good time to consider whether handing over a 700 billion dollar blank check to Congress is a good idea.


Wall Street has its problems, but it would do well to remember that some of these were induced by government pushes for home ownership rate increases. The specific crazy motives and the idiocy of repackaging speculative loans (which come to think of it, is only stupid when it is done as dishonestly as it was) is Wall Street's problem. The policy shifts that made such moves possible is government's. I'd prefer to think that both should be punished in some manner rather than the many 'responsible' taxpayers who didn't decide to take out silly loans and aren't buried in credit debt who will be instead (or their children/grandchildren will be).

21 September 2008

less whining is needed

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/20/galveston.return/index.html

Incidentally, the people of Ohio can shut it as far as complaining about power outages from a wind storm. I think Texas is a bit ahead of us on the bitch list.

save social security?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/can-binge-drinking-save-social-security/

The funny thing is that this isn't a new concept. Smoking has the same (well, similar) effect on general mortality as heavy alcoholic consumption. There are two flaws with the assumptions: 1) Social security will remain as it is. I highly doubt that. And 2) heavy drinkers are essentially distributed throughout the general population at random, which studies have shown is usually not the case.

In fact heavy drinkers are generally distributed in mostly lower income jobs after college (not that rich people can't be alcoholics, but rather that they are statistically of a different sort than beer drinkers). Rather than redistributing 'wealth' from heavy drinkers to non-heavies, it basically redistributes scraps. Drinking in general, as has been known, is not by itself a cause of un-health, rather its extreme is. And this extreme is basically taken into effect by people who are too poor to deal with the effects (often referred to as 'college students'). In other words, even if they generate several billion dollars of extra social security monies that they won't live to see, wouldn't they also generate several billion dollars of other social costs; such as health care, lost productivity, accidental damages, and insurance claims? Wouldn't these off-set the positive externality of people dying off too fast to get their money?

so why exactly are we protecting these jobs?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_promises_to_stop_americas

They both get it in this one of course, but McCain has to wait his turn.

20 September 2008

the variety of rantings of a week long suspension

During the week of internet absenteeism caused by a few puffs of wind and falling debris, I had good cause to review a number of books. Given that it is rather difficult to read by candlelight, I probably didn't go through these as efficiently as usual. But I did have a number of interesting reflections. To me anyway.

One was that there are a surprising number of inventions that Americans take for granted, even to the point of assuming them as 'necessities' in a basic standard of living, that didn't even exist 100 years ago, don't exist at all in some parts of the world still, or are being replaced by new forms and new inventions that serve the same purposes. The basic facts of history and the inventive markets that were produced are not surprising (I've known about this sort of thing since I was a teenager). It is the subsequent review of them, in concert, that creates this startling reflection. Some of them even couldn't exist without other innovative processes developing in tandem; such as the current availability of fresh meats or vegetables with the specializing growth of cattle ranches, refrigeration, and canning all going on basically at once and in separate chains of development. I mention that one particularly because naturally without refrigeration, all I had on hand was canned/packaged goods that generally aren't very tasty without cooking (which I also couldn't do what with an electric stove).

I was therefore somewhat surprised, what with our uninformed public, to not see more agitation on the part of that public when the power was out for the better part of a week in many private homes. While I was somewhat disturbed by being removed from my more cosmopolitan concerns in esoteric issues (like the AIG buyout and federal bailouts or news from abroad), it wasn't like the world out there stopped existing. Merely that the direct and immediate surroundings took on a shocking importance, namely in my case that I couldn't really interact and communicate my thoughts with others (being as I am not employed by really intelligent collaborators to converse on weighty issues of the day). But I had to consider the following as causes of concern for others:
1) stoplights, I witnessed a number of major intersections where upon people were drastically confused by the absence of signals directing their meek driving behaviors. I've noted previously the specific absence of signage in other countries and the subsequent improvements in the ability of driving habits. Americans on the other hand did not generally acquit themselves well without civic reminders to treat such intersections as four way stops (really they should be seen as yield signs where stopping is a highly likely option). That people then stopped at any out of function signal was more amusing still, even those without traffic to oppose movement such as three way intersections with shared left turn (where one side should have continued unabated forward).
2) Cable TV. I think people were able to mollify this demand for 'entertainment', such as TV is capable of providing it, by attending movies or organizing communal events (barbecues for example). But considering the amazing near universal capacity of television and its various forms, I'm surprised people didn't complain as much. I guess food is sort of more important than TV. The one movie I attended was naturally quite a bit busier than I would have expected normally (Burn after Reading which had been out a while). I'm not quite sure what to make of this as a social matter in its effects.

Incidentally, I liked the movie and found greater amusement in the fact that several people, at its end, actually loudly proclaimed "What?!", as though they hadn't seen a Coen brothers movie before and therefore hadn't been paying attention as events unfolded. It was a bit formulaic and predictable in many ways, but it was worth the diversion. And Pitt was ridiculously funny as the village idiot sort.

3) Refrigeration. Since there were some dining establishments with power available, people of some means were able to continue eating fresh foods (albeit with some wait and greater expense). But there were still plenty of extension cords running across roads, presumably for at least the personal purpose of cooling food. Since that seems trivially idiotic (couldn't they instead pool their refrigeration units and food for a week?), not to mention potentially dangerous, people didn't really react to this private inconvenience with great esteem.

Things to do instead:
1) read and/or converse with others, spend time with loved ones or friends. I guess people did this. Eventually it gets old for most without the ever present diversions of modern technology. Reading I wasn't all that disappointed with. My options for socializing are somewhat limited.
2) Exercise. I didn't see very many people running or otherwise 'playing outside'. Most of the people picking up debris were either actively employed in that industry or were children employed by neighbours to aid. I was aware there were people who owned chainsaws helping hack apart larger debris for the first day or so, but there are still plenty of trees laying as if discarded on the front lawns of many a property. I myself availed the freedom from discourse to reactivate my exercise regimen with more gusto. I could always use candles to read with and without technological diversions available late at night, it was better to be tired earlier and so use less of the darkness. I can't say that was necessarily more enjoyable, but I survived being up early/ier. If nothing else, the breaking of a comfortable routine was a useful feature of this more primitive lifestyle.
3) Wander around and observe devastation. Plenty of people were doing this the first two days gawking from the middle of roads while others were trying to maneuver their vehicles around these unsightly mobs. I did little of this, being unsurprised when high winds cause a branch or tree to displace. Mainly I saw such things as increasing the amount of work necessary to attend to mowing a lawn or to restore electricity. It is not as though our region is a stranger to the disasters of wind (via the tornado or blizzard).


Edit: I spoke too soon. I noticed some old ladies in wheelchairs 'protesting' along a major thoroughfare with the eloquent phrase "DP&L sucks" on their signs. But there were only two of them. Also, the entire thing was pretty anti-climatic. The (my) power was restored after they played around with the transformer down the street and some associated debris for about 20 minutes. I presume there were some downed lines somewhere along the way that made that possible, but the actual work in my vision was pitifully simple.

surivival of the candlelighted

So after a week with no power and some eye strains from candlelight reading vigils (I'd rather read than not sleep), the internet is restored to me. I have a good deal to catch up on in worldly affairs.

Edit: In the future, I shall not disparage CNN's coverage of hurricanes. At least, I will not rant actively about it. The week of 19th century history reading was inspirational, but not particularly necessary to re-enact.

14 September 2008

spore piracy

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/drm_is_helping_spore_make_history_as_the_most_pirated_game_ever.php

"You have the power to make this the most pirated game ever, to give corporate bastards a virtual punch in the face."

The funny part of security features is that they tend to be annoying to people who actually legitimately do something and tend to be either easy to bypass or a major incentive to hackers to create an easy way around. Since security features are usually just lines of code in a dll, or within the executable files, it's been common for cracks to be around for decades. I prefer them to digging through and finding the CD myself and given that I'm accustomed to using them, there's a system of backing up files for updating purposes, etc. About the only thing I find more annoying than a cumbersome security protocol on a game is a series of advertising/intro movies. None of which obscure any actual loading of files going on, it's just random crap running on my screen. But again, that's an easy fix (usually deleting/renaming those movie files works in some form or another). The iTunes DRM on music files is also a joke. I suspect it's there to keep people prisoner to Apple. Again it's rather easy to get around.

What's the point of security that simply annoys people?

I would be more interested to see how many copies of Spore were downloaded before it was officially released. Since I haven't gotten it or played it, I can't say how effective a fresh copy a month ahead of time would have been. That's usually the true test of a good pirate. Getting around security is one thing. Getting a product to market ahead of its release, totally different.

13 September 2008

drug use banned in video games?

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/132329.20080910.Fallout-3-censorship-becomes-global/

Yes, that's a bit strange. Apparently Australia has a tougher convention on video games than America does with a wide ban on several games. But if having real world drugs in a game, with similar to real life effects (both positive and negative) is a no-no, then I don't see the reason for a ban. Based on previous fallout game versions, taking various drugs had temporary positive buffs and then longer term negative penalties...plus the risk of addiction which would cause health penalties periodically if you couldn't come up with the specific drug you had become addicted to. That sounds more or less like the real world elements and provides people with the specific choice of 'risk long term problems for potential short term gains'. Usually the best option was to carry the things around and sell them to merchants for cash because of the weight ratio of drugs usually being almost zero. My impression therein was not that the drug use was encouraged out of hand, but that it demonstrated a tactical/strategic gameplay choice (as it would in the real world in a sense).

So instead, it is necessary to use "fictional drugs" even though people could very easily extract the actual drug from the effects if they wanted to think on it seriously.

And yeah, I'll probably be getting that game..but not because of a silly ban.

oil spill comedy

Hilarious

Check out many others by these two: Clarke & Dawe. Aussies tend to do British style comedy better than Americans.

12 September 2008

I mean come on, they must think you’re stupid

"I mean come on, they must think you’re stupid"

Since that was the tail end of an Obama line post GOP convention (about a week ago), I have to answer: They don't think you're stupid, they know it. Did we miss the study in the Post, the basic 'person on the street', where people are in fact, stupid. I don't think the campaign strategists did.