Innovations

As I am perpetually in child-like awe when seeing gigantic ships float and huge planes fly (despite my fundamental awareness of the science of displacement, lift, drag, etc.) I keep an eye out for new and amazing innovations. In this day and age we are spoiled for choice and bombarded with new technology that would have seemed "out of this world" just 50 or 75 years ago.

I stumbled across a couple of tiny innovative contributions recently which grabbed my attention. The first was while shopping for a cheap replacement watch band. As Photo 1 shows, if you've ever tried to change your Timex watch band (Rolex may be different, I wouldn't know) the band is held on by a spring-loaded pin. You have to find a tiny screwdriver or other object to compress the pin, release it from the hole, and slip your band out without the pin springing loose andshooting halfway across the room somewhere, resulting in a micro-search second only as difficult as looking for a dropped contact lens. Replacing the pin and band is nearly as difficult as you have to compress the pin, slip it in the side of the watch, and find the hole to release it into.

Lo and behold, imagine my child-like wonder when I looked at some watch bands such as the one I bought in Photo 2. Some clever person (a man or a woman no doubt) somewhere on Planet Earth (perhaps confined to a dismal dungeon and assigned to changing 500 spring-loaded watch bands per day) invented a built-in spring-loaded band with a small protrusion for compressing the spring. WHAT A NOVEL IDEA! Pull the latch with your fingernail, remove the band. (Photo 3.) Pull the latch, reinsert the band. (Pity the person who bites their nails. Discrimination is just everywhere, but it's still easier even with the tiny screwdriver.)

Have pity on me too, dear reader, but this kind of thing just amazes me. And all for a watch band which still costs less than 9 dollars USD in 2009. OK, so it doesn't do windows or provide whirled peas (world peace), but it's pretty neat.

The other item I noticed is a little more high-tech and more logically innovative, I just hadn't seen it before. I was at my allergist's office the other day and went to throw my breath-test tube in the waste basket as I usually do. There was a new waste basket with a lid (more sanitary I presume) but there was no handle or foot pedal with which to lift the lid. (Photo 4.) I couldn't figure how to open it so I asked the nurse. She told me to wave my hand over the little red area on top of the lid.

Lo and behold, imagine my child-like wonder when I broke the infra-red beam and the lid opened electrically. (Photo 5.) It stayed open long enough for me to discard my trash, then closed again to lie in wait for the next unsuspecting victim. "Feed Me! Feed Me!" you could almost hear it saying, like some reprobate from the Little Shop Of Waste Basket Horrors.

Oh well, I am easily amused and thus easily entertained. What WILL they think of next!

Paul Krugman is NUTZ! on climate change

Economics Nobel prize-winner Krugman now opinionates on EVERYTHING under the sun from the pages of the NY Times.  In his 28 June Op-Ed Betraying the Planet he says of the no-votes on the recent House climate change bill: “And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

As a climate change “skeptic” myself I say Krugman could be accused of inciting to riot or shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.  He cites a recent study: “Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees.”  I Bing’d\Googled and found the study announcement here:  Climate change odds much worse than thought.

As the announcement notes:

”Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, "we do the research, and let the results fall where they may," he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, "we don't pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds."

"…the spread of the odds” based on computer models.  I feel SOOOO much better.  Computer modeling in previous climate change predictions have been proven to be inaccurate.  Are we to believe they are better now?  As a former computer programmer my peers and I always said computers do exactly what you tell them to.  The problem is they are programmed by humans, who are known to make mistakes.

Climatologist Roy W. Spencer refutes the MIT study here: The MIT Global Warming Gamble.  He notes:

“Of course, as readers of this web site will know, the MIT results are totally dependent upon the climate sensitivity that was assumed in the climate model runs that formed the basis for their calculations. And climate modelers can get just about any level of warming they want by simply making a small change in the processes controlling climate sensitivity – especially cloud feedbacks — in those models.

So, since the sensitivity of the climate system is uncertain, these researchers followed the IPCC’s lead of using ‘statistical probability’ as a way of treating that uncertainty.

But as I have mentioned before, the use of statistical probabilities in this context is inappropriate. There is a certain climate sensitivity that exists in the real climate system, and it is true that we do not know exactly what that sensitivity is. But this does not mean that our uncertainty over its sensitivity can be translated into some sort of statistical probability.

The use of statistical probabilities by the IPCC and the MIT group does two misleading things: (1) it implies scientific precision where none exists, and (2) it implies the climate system’s response to any change is a “roll of the dice”.”

Hysteria-monger Krugman, he of the Al Gore\Nancy Pelosi school of “global warming is a settled science, don’t question it”, would better serve his fellow men and women by going back to reading Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (neither of whom with which he probably agrees) and learning more about his own economic field of endeavor.

We cannot bankrupt this country or reset our standards back to the Stone Age based on inconclusive science we do not KNOW enough about, nor should we attempt “geo-engineering” in any form when even scientists on the climate change alarmist side say we CAN’T DO anything about it.  No, we don’t have to “try” “something”.

Take a breath, remain calm, breathe… breathe… breathe…  Ommmm…  (Drift into peaceful meditative state.  Mentally direct soothing energy toward Paul Krugman.  Mentally direct the management of the NY Times to fire him.  Ommmmm.)

A Will for Health Care

Writer George F. Will, that is.  He wrote yet another, reasoned and rational piece in the Washington Post recently titled A Health 'Reform' To Regret.  The very same piece appeared in the Sunday, June 28, Denver Post with the title Don't make bad health care worse.

From my reading I don’t get that Will is saying health care is bad, but who is surprised the Denver Post would give it that slant.

Some of Will’s insights:

“Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices. Americans spent much less on health care in 1960 (5 percent of GDP as opposed to 18 percent now). They also spent much less — nothing, in fact — on computers, cellphones and cable and satellite television.

Your next car can cost less if you forgo GPS, satellite radio, antilock brakes, power steering, power windows and air conditioning. You can shop for such a car at your local Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Packard and DeSoto dealers.”  [Touche’, George, and eggs-ZACTly.]

“The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey, writing in The American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed — 55 percent.

But the health care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care — and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.

It is also because health care is increasingly competent. When the first baby boomers, whose aging is driving health care spending, were born in 1946, many American hospitals' principal expense was clean linen. This was long before MRIs, CAT scans and the rest of the diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal that modern medicine deploys.”  [Hmm.  More diagnostic care, more preventive care.  The idea, as I’ve always understood it, is that it is cheaper to prevent diseases than it is to cure them.]

“Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of "no." Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous. Furthermore, the First Amendment's lovely first five words ("Congress shall make no law") set the negative tone of the Bill of Rights, which is a list of government behaviors, from establishing religion to conducting unreasonable searches, to which the Constitution says: No.”  [I like that one.  What part of NO does the government not understand?]

“The public, its attention riveted by the fiscal train wreck of trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, may be coming to the conclusion that we should leave bad enough alone.”  [Is Will referring to bad deficits or bad health care?  You decide.]

Read the entire brief piece at the links above.

Debunking Canadian health care myths

Speaking of Health Care, this guest commentary in the Denver Post recently, Debunking Canadian health care myths, just smacked me in the face when I read it.  Despite the arguable debunking of myths throughout, the first and last paragraphs speak volumes:

First: "As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one." 

(If Canada is so great, why do you, a clinical psychologist, live here?  Love?  Money?  Better health care?)

Last: "It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life."

("...it has its merits.  ...She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised.  ...Waiting FOURTEEN MONTHS is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life."  Where do I sign up!)

(If the link doesn't work well, try refreshing it a couple of times or search thedenverpost.com.  Author was Rhonda Hackett.)

Clarence Thomas & Sonia Sotomayor

I was casting about for some reading recently and stumbled across the Clarence Thomas auto-bio My Grandfather’s Son – A Memoir.  I thought it might be interesting to read about a current Supreme Court Justice who might also have empathy based on ethnicity and race.  It turned out to be a speedy and thought provoking read.

Several points were very notable:
1.  Thomas grew up in VERY humble surroundings, dirt-poor in rural Georgia near Savannah, under the stern and disciplined upbringing of his grandfather.  The chapters on his childhood are truly inspirational.  (Thomas is 2 years younger than I am.)
2.  By his own admission he became an “angry young black man” during his college days, participating with student groups in marches and demonstrations, suitably attired in grubby fatigues and combat boots.
3.  He drank a LOT from his college days through the next 15-20 years or so.  He finally gave it up entirely.
4.  After going his own way during and after his college years he never fully reconciled with his grandfather, which has bothered him greatly.
5.  He is a very serious person, somewhat morose and saturnine IMO.
6.  Due to his hard working childhood he has always believed in achieving for one’s self and has opposed affirmative action and racial preferences on the grounds that it stifles racial growth and achievement, thus his life-long leaning towards conservatism.  (But he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 8 years.)  He came to conservative values via hard work, logic, and reason, not politics.  (He has read several Ayn Rand works, not that there is anything wrong with that!)
7.  He is an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.  (i.e. What does it mean in the terms that the Founding Fathers intended it as written.)
8.  He totally denies all the allegations by Anita Hill brought up during his nomination proceedings.  He gently portrays her as an average employee who was somewhat of a job\status seeking ladder climber without the accompanying skills.  Her accusations distressed him and his (white) wife greatly.
9.  He was raised and schooled in a religious (Catholic) environment, grew away from it during and after college, and has returned to it later in life.  He quotes a lot of scripture in the book.
10.  He speaks a lot about being black, and helping his people, throughout the book.  This was an interesting perspective to me because ‘this’ WASP did not grow up thinking about my own race or much about others.  I’m curious to read more of these perspectives.

What does this have to do with current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor?  Not a whole lot, other than that it is possible to grow up in an ethnic (racially disadvantaged, I dare say) environment and be committed to self-achievement.

Coincidentally I read an interview with Robert Bork the other day (The View from 1987), another Supreme Court nominee who was crucified during proceedings and did NOT become a Justice.  He makes some pointed remarks about Sotomayor, of which a few are:

”President Obama has spoken of empathy as his key standard for choosing judicial nominees. What do you think of that approach?

I don't know exactly what empathy means. I suppose at a minimum it means you want a judge who will depart from the meaning of the constitution when a sympathetic case arises. It does seem to raise a warning that we're talking about a judge who does not follow the law.”

“What are your thoughts about Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

I think it was a bad mistake. Her comments about the wise Latina suggest identity-group jurisprudence. She also has a reputation for bullying counsel. And her record is not particularly distinguished. Far from it. And it is unusual to nominate somebody who states flatly that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action. But I can't believe she will be any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

“As it's currently composed, this is sometimes called a conservative court.

I don't see it at all. It's a very left-leaning, liberal court.

Could you elaborate? Compared to what?

Well, compared to what the Constitution actually says. They tend to enact the agenda or the preferences of a group that thinks of itself as the intellectual elite.

How have you been struck by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito since they were appointed?

My general impression of them is quite good. The justice up there who I most admire is Clarence Thomas. I notice that when he and Scalia differ—it's not that often, but when they do—I tend to agree with Thomas. “

Read the entire brief article at the link provided above.

For a good (conservative) read about how the Supreme Court has practiced judicial activism almost from day one I recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution by Kevin R. Gutzman.

White Supremacists and Abortionists

REF: the Holocaust museum attack this one is annoying the heck out of me, to put it mildly.  Idiots, idiots, idiots.  I’m a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male (raised Methodist\Presbyterian, ancestral ministers in both on both sides of the family) and proud of it.  These White Nazis do NOT represent me in any way, shape, or form.  I don’t think they represent anyone on the entire planet except their fellow, misguided, miscreants.  Somehow, in my plain, ordinary, privileged-in-that-I-wasn’t-downtrodden, upbringing, I grew up thinking that people were just people, and, oh yes, some are white, black, brown, yellow, green, red, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim, etc.  (Gosh!  Some I grew up with were even ITALIAN!)

This shooter at the Holocaust Museum was supposedly smart enough to be a member of Mensa.  No offense to Mensa, and I’m sure they don’t claim him, but it goes to show you plain old Intelligence Quotient doesn’t necessarily make you very SMART.

I’ve been to the Holocaust Museum and it should be nearly-required viewing for every high school, college, or adult kid in America, not to mention Holocaust deniers from here to Iran and back, both ways around the world.

Just… stop… this STUpid… killing.  We’ll be lucky if someone doesn’t take a pot-shot at Obama sometime and set back race relations in America about a thousand years.  (Perhaps Obama could speak to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who had another case of foot-in-mouth yesterday: “The firebrand preacher told the Tribune newspapers that he hasn’t spoken to President Obama because a bunch of Jews are blocking him.  "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me,".“  I guess no one has a monopoly on stupid.  But I digress.)

Which leads me to my other mini-rant, about the killing of abortion doctor Tiller in Kansas recently. STOP… this STUpid… killing!  Despite my “intellectual” support of a woman’s ultimate right to choose, the record and numbers of abortions by Dr. Tiller make such support difficult to stomach.  STILL… KILLING THE DOCTOR is NOT THE ANSWER.

These criminals should be dealt with swiftly and to the fullest extent of the law.  The U.S. and the World has enough on it’s plate (don’t we always?) without having to put up with this insanity.  Idiots, idiots, idiots.

Bing…bada…Google

Not Bing… badda (bad) Google, but Bing… gooda (good) Google. I’m referring to Bing.Com, the newly released Microsoft search engine to compete with Google. It’s FAST, at least on the modest-speed mini-notebook I’ve been using from my collection. (I haven’t tried it on my hi-power laptop or slow-power desktop yet.)

I’m not a ga-ga Microsoft worshiper (who is?!) but I have to thank MS and its fallibilities for providing me the better part of a computer career in troubleshooting Windows PCs and interfaces. (Isn’t problem-solving and figuring things out what gets us through life and keeps us engaged while doing it?)

As a result I stumbled across Bing via my Hotmail and Windows Live access. Bing is the default search in use now on Microsoft-related sites such as MSN.Com and MSNBC.Com. What struck me about it was how FAST the responses were. That is part of what searching is all about, not waiting, and possibly watching whatever “in-progress” icon is being used. Of course your computer power and internet access speed will also have a lot to do with response time, but the Bing response time on MY laptop was as fast or faster as Google on the same PC.

Of equal, even greater, importance in searching, of course, is getting accurate results. So far it SEEMS to be good. Time will tell. If I find myself going back to Google for more information, then Bing will ultimately lose.

An interesting side feature of Bing is a preview mechanism. As you cursor up and down your results you will see a vertical line with a dot in the center along the right side of the results list, moving up or down to each result. If you hover your cursor over the dot you will see a preview of the result page, with links to the page or similar results. Novel idea!

As an aside, a couple of other information sites I like are About.Com and Wikipedia.Com. About.com came up for me recently when researching travel and I was amazed about how many places it took me for in-depth data. Wikipedia often comes up in search results and provides that amazing volume of info about almost anything. It tells you too when sources have not been fully verified and should be taken with a grain of salt. But the amount of information at our fingertips these days. Truly amazing.

Ah well. Bada-bing. Bada-Boom. Bing cherries. Bing, the elevator door opening. Aren’t you glad you asked me about this?