OR, why we respect quitters.
It turns out it’s not that I don’t have an addictive personality (meaning I don’t get addicted to substances easily), it turns out I don’t have an addictive brain
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/science/26brain.html
I was thinking about all those people who quit smoking, especially those who were addicted for years and tooklong and hard to get un-addicted. They fought their own brain to do so. That is more impressive than I previously thought. But it also mean that addiction is in the brain, and is a physiological response to stimulus.
So people who overcome addiction actually use their mental abilities to get over something that their brain physiologiclly promotes. That makes quitting all the more impressive, to me.
Filed under: Culture, Science
Do they annihilate each other?
In a miracle of physics, no. See, there used to be this one trust, called AT&T, up until the arly 1980’s, when anti-trust rules forced them to break up. Ove the past twenty-odd years,we have learned that trust was not destroyed, but simply lying in wait.
Through machinations mostly boring, often scary, and occasionally funny (thanks, Mr. Colbert), AT&T (now at&t), is mostly back together.
Cingular Wireless follows an interesting path… Cingular was founded as a joint SBC and BellSouth venture. Cingular was a conglomeration of many small cellular companies from the 1990s. Meanwhile, AT&T decded to spinoff AT&T Wireless in 2000. Then, in 2004, Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. After acquisitions all around, including SBC taking over it’s old mama, AT&T (and renaming itself at&t). So SBC owned at&t and half of Cingular, which itself owned AT&T Wireless. Then, just recently, at&t bought BellSouth (the other half-owner of Cingular). So at&t now owns Cingular, and is re-branding them at&t.
That all make sense? Wish trust and anti-trust annilated each other now? I do.
Filed under: Culture, Tech
This week, the Senate said, “Bad boy, for spilling milk,” and then handed Bush the glass, refilled with milk, and walked away. The mess is still on the floor. Soon it’ll get stale and dry, possibly some will get soaked up by Bush’s footsie pajamas.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Richard Lugar makes some very interesting comments, basically saying that Congress needs to actually pull funding for anything to happen. The conscience of the Republican Party may be returning now that it has escaped the clutches of seductive power.
Somewhat off-topic, but interesting to think about, is how Senator Webb and Richard Lugar are very similar, from both sides of the aisle. It looks like the parties are starting to “redistrict” along new lines. Here’s my general take.
New Republicans: America-first mentality. Strong emphasis on sustaining national superiority. Dependence on “single leader”, patriarchal, and moralistic models of thought. Distrustful of representative government. Belief in an active government, like liberals, and emphasis on traditional values, like conservatives.
New Democrats: Traditional conservatives (who belive in small government) and traditional liberals (who believe in an active, progressive, government) all go here now.
The older folks are sticking in their parties, either by loyality or by habit. Lugar and Hagel, today, could easily caucus with Democrats, or Lieberman with the Republicans. I’m really interested to see where this shift leds us in ten-twenty years.
Filed under: Culture, Politics
Here’s my idea, in a really basic sense. Every good and every organization is assessed a tax based on its “resource footprint.” here’s how it works…
- Smart wonky people (SWPs) are hired to create something akin to actuarial tables, except for resource use. For example, your daily newspaper. Clearly paper is being used there, and ink. Paper can be “fresh” and recycled. Ink comes from several sources.
- SWPs calculate things thusly. The paper: if recycled, it takes energy and chemicals to recycle. If fresh, it takes time for the tree to grow, energy to cut and haul the tree, energy and chemicals to process into paper. There is also a similar accounting for ink.
- SWPs would then calculate an expense, to society, of things. For example, the footprint of fresh paper would be “x”, which equals “y” investment (ecologically and economically) to recoup. For example, if the recoup cost on top of regular cost is $0.01 per sheet, that gets passed along to the consumer. Then, buying and selling of recycled or footprint-light items actually becomes economically advantageous.
Creating economic advantages to thrift is a good thing – profit motive gets tied to footprint. If a resource-hog becomes resource-thrifty, the person (or company) would benefit.
This idea is not without its impediments. It’s really really rough around the edges it’s basically a consumption tax. One problem: Cars, for example, are more harmful the longer they are on the road. Since several of the resources used become more thrifty the longer the car is kept on the road (like windows or leather seats), then the tax should be based on reasonable avergaes, like four-seven years of life for a new car. Something like brake pads last approximately a certain number of miles, then it’s based on that average.
I would love for others to consider this idea and please add and respond. It is still in development, but I think it is a reasonable idea.
Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics
I love low-tech solutions to high-tech problems (see my previous RFID post and other post). Simply put, aluminum foil. I cannot take credit for the solution, but I think there’s something to be said for using some sort of foil protective cover to keep card info from being stolen.
http://www.rpi-polymath.com/ducttape/RFIDWallet.php
First, this is not a sure thing. There is some controversy over whether doing this, basically creating a Faraday cage, will work. Assuming it does, we have a simple, inexpensive and stylish solution. Okay okay… Most people don’t want an aluminum foil wallet. If you’re female, you might carry around a bag everywhere anyway. I have a solution. Create a foil-based “bag” (using duct tape). Those with bags can use the foil-based bag as satchel. Or something.
Well, if you’re fashion conscious (realspeke: superficial about your stuff and how they look, like me) there is also the market-based solution. Buy something that doesn’t exist to protect you from something that people are creating. Basically, the companies pushing RFID are creating a niche market: RFID blockers.
Yay. More money.One such market-based solution:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/elecom-intros-skim-prevention-kit-for-wallet-cellphone/
There are others out there which you can find online.
Finally, there’s a brute-force solution to the RFID passport problem. Fun for your “mad at the government” moments.
Filed under: Gadgets, Philosophy, Science, Tech, Weird/Funny
So… I decided to do a simple, informal test, by entering “hack rfid” into the Google search bar and see what came up. For the uninformed, see my post on what RFID is and how it works.
Here’s the search: http://www.google.com/search?q=hack+rfid
Note the results… Wired Magazine, Forbes, eWeek, Engadget (a respected technology blog), CNet News.com (a respected technology news company), and more. And most of the results explain how it has been demonstrated that RFID can be hacked.
Yay.
I’m on the trail of a solution, and I’ll post it once I’m sure it works.
Filed under: Philosophy, Science, Tech
I am holding an informal contest with a very simple prize: glory on my tiny little blog (which means I’ll announce the winner). Deadline: February 1st.
Here it is… Like the MasterCard commercials, present costs that helped “bring Saddam to justice”, in the words of President Bush.
To use a simple example…
1 t-shirt… $8
do-it-yourself iron-ons… $14
printer cartridge… $15
creating a lasting memory… priceless
Except do that with everything that led to Saddam’s execution.
Filed under: Philosophy, Politics
Just saw Who Killed the Electric Car? What makes me angry is that no one thing killed the electric car more than greed profit motive.
Car companies were (justifiably) afraid that electric cars would net them less money. Here’s why: electric cars have many fewer moving parts, and uses a lot less of after-purchase consumables (oil, filters, plugs, etc.). Car companies ctually make much more on these parts than they do on the cars themselves. When they sell a car to you, the expectation is you will need to maintain it, and you will need their parts. All car corporatons make big bucks on these parts. If someone took the total retail cost of all the parts in a new car, I believe the number is approximately 300-400% greater than the cost of the car. Car companies would be destroyed without this true profit center.
Of course oil companies lobbied against electric cars. I don’t even need to explain why. It’s the same reason they are for hydrogen fuel cells -you still; need oil to obtain the hydrogen.
The government is complicit. The rebate you get from buying a 6,000 lb. SUV is greater than that you get from buying a 2000 lb. gas-saving electric car.
Tesla Motors has created an amazing new electric sports car. Yum. But it’s still basically $100,000 dollars
CHALLENGE: Make an affordable electric car that meets these criteria:
- It is fully electric, like the General Motors EV1
- The range is no less than 200 miles
- It costs no more than $30,000 (base price). Note: the range must work a this price.
- It is fully compliant with US regulations relating to passenger vehicles.
- I can buy it in the US.
I would love to be able to sponsor an award, and make this a huge pubicity thing, a la the X-Prize. I’m trying to think of a good promise to make. I can’t promise to buy one because I have very particular safety tastes for my cars, and I live in New York. Any ideas? Sponsors? Anyone?
EDIT (4 Jan 2007, 10:43): Links added. Corrected maker of EV1 (don’t know why I put Chrysler in there).
Filed under: Culture, Science, Tech
Recent Comments