Sunday, October 30, 2011

Scummy bankers! How to make politicians more transparent.

Members of the Committee on Financial Services...Image via Wikipedia
I hadn't read this when it happened, when it was found out, when it went to trial, or even when Citigroup lost and was ordered to pay millions of dollars.  It's definitely worth a read.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html

The corner of Wall Street and Broadway, showin...Image via Wikipedia

Several years ago, citigroup has a collection or package of mortgages.  It knows that they'll probably fall through.  It goes through and picks out the ones that are most likely to bust, about 500 million dollars worth, and then sells them to hedge funds and investment groups.  It is so sure that they're going to bust that it then shorts them. 

Shorting goes something like this from my understanding: you think an investment will do well, so you buy it, and when it has done well, you sell it to make a profit.  You think an investment will do poorly, so you sell it, and when it does poorly, you buy it back to make a profit.  Apparently you can somehow sell these items that you don't own, and then buy them back again at the altered value.  Except you wouldn't get them back again, because you didn't own them. 

After Citigroup sold them, and no longer had them, then it shorted them (knowing that they were going to go bust).  Basically they made more money than they were worth by selling them, and then made more money by betting that they would bust. 

Corruption!!!!   I really like the article's explanation and advice (from Thomas L. Friedman) This is a quote from the article: "One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street.
We can’t afford this any longer. We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know."

I really like number 1.  It's my idea as well from a previous blog.  "If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big, and needs to be broken up." 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 28, 2011

Rick Horowitz's views on "Birthers"

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is s...Image via Wikipedia
I haven't read anything quite so painful in a while.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-horowitz/rick-perry-gunslinger-mor_b_1035196.html  I was waiting for him to give it up and explain the sarcasm, because I honestly believe that around a fifth of adult readers won't 'get it' without some explanation. 

I agree with the sentiment, if not the methods.  On the other hand, it is kindof fun, and to some degree deserved.  An honest guy (who would never make
Texas Governor Rick PerryImage by eschipul via Flickr
it to high office) would denounce the discounted idea that a few still have about Obama's being foreign born.  An opposition politician won't embrace it since doing so would be negatively judged by many objective or moderate voters, but playing with the idea like it's still an open question is like... well, like what Rick Horowitz has posted. 

It is kindof fun... but that doesn't make it right.   
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

How much better is the $20,000 mattress you need to sleep?

IMG_3044Image by Neeta Lind via Flickr
I've been waiting for this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/your-money/mattress-not-usually-to-blame-in-sleep-problems-experts-say.html 

Finally found one.  Some official sounding stuff that matches my pre-existing beliefs.  :)  For all the people wanting a new mattress out there to solve your sleeping problems.  The expensive ones aren't really better than the cheap mattresses. 

mattressImage via Wikipedia

Do we really believe that thousands of years worth of our ancestors suffered a life time's worth of back troubles because the super expensive mattressses of today didn't exist?  We went out and bought an $800 dollar California King sized mattress, and it's nice, and I feel about the same as I did on the 9 plus year old queen sized one that we bought that was old and thing and squeeky. 


An example of a Trundle bed.Image via Wikipedia

There is no "science" of better sleep.  Well, not very good science anyway.  It's really the "science" called MARKETING, and we've all been had!  Almost as bad as "a diamond is forever" wedding rings in my opinion.  Lame!  (Don't worry, my wife never reads my blogs:) 

I love some of the articles I'm finding.  "When to buy a new mattress" courtesy of a company that sells mattresses.  You can also buy my free guide, "When to send money to Jeff" provided with no obligation and interest free. 

I think my favorite idea in the article is that "hey, there's nothing like a good placebo effect!" Yeah, if people want to convince themselves that they're sleeping better after paying thousands of dollars to someone else, then by all means, go for it.

This article does illustrate for me something that really annoys me, and that's how companies can mold the truth and create their own with time.  Everyone knows the many benefits of coffee, wine, breast implants, fake bakes, etc.  Any negative consequences get brushed under the rug.  Why?  Nobody makes any money telling you not to participate, but lots of people make money when someone buys/invests in these items.  Cigarettes were the same way until the last 10 or 15 years or so.  The people that make money from selling these products pay money to researchers to find even the smallest benefits, and these are advertised relentlessly, while negative indicators get no real advertising dollars. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 24, 2011

Caring for a dying loved one.

Eye deathImage by doug88888 via Flickr
Two different areas come into play when talking about what to do for a dying loved one.  Hospice care and Palliative care. 

Hospice care is covered by Medicaid or Medicare, for patients with life expectancies of less than 6 months, who have decided not to attempt any further agressive or curative treatments.  This usually takes place when a patient and/or family decide that further treatment will not successfully cure the patient, or that the probability of success is too low and the price in pain, time, or cost is too high.  Generally at the rehabilitation center I work at, patients won't get therapy if they are on hospice care, although there are exceptions. 
Spending on U.S. healthcare as a percentage of...Image via Wikipedia

Palliative care is different in several respects.  First, there doesn't seem to be an explicit form of payment for palliative services, although I could be wrong.  It is usually found in large hospitals, and run by doctors, nurses, chaplains, social workers and others.  A patient doesn't need to have less than 6 months to live and can pursue any and all cures.  The service is dedicated to the patient, in helping inform them about their diagnoses, and presenting the full range of options to them, without the practitioners' emphasis on the most agressive treatment.  In palliative care there is an emphasis on putting quality into the final days, months, or years of life. 

Apparently palliative care could save the health care system... or really the taxpayers, 6 billion dollars a year if it was implemented all over the country. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020025644.htm

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 21, 2011

You must forget more to remember better!

The most important part of remembering is forgetting.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018111938.htm  Not forgetting the things, but forgetting other background things that need not be remembered.  It makes sense.  The brain receives all sorts of information from all five senses, and it must "tune out" the majority of this information in order to focus on and remember the important things. 

Rodin's The Thinker at the Musée Rodin.Image via Wikipedia

Memory consolidationImage via Wikipedia
The idea of an inability to tune out less important information, or being unable to discriminate the important from the unimportant, is presented for multiple disorders, including autism and dementia.  For me, I think this happens when I try to remember where I put my keys.  I've put them in many different places, and which of these was the place that I most recently did so might be difficult to determine.
Happy Children Playing KidsImage by epSos.de via Flickr

On the other hand, other research says that the most important factor in forgetting is confusing, not decaying.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081212153204.htm  Basically, that similar memories confuse the brain into forgetting information more than the idea that a memory gets crowded out or overwritten by other memories.  This second article indicates that a better memory of something would be had by separating it from similar things in the brain. 
Healthy brain (bottom) versus brain of a donor...Image via Wikipedia

Loss of short term memory to some degree is normal for everyone, and especially of those that are elderly.  Loss of long term memory is not normal, and may indicate disease processes such as Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type, aka Alzheimer's disease.  Remembering where the car is parked is bad, waking up and forgetting where the bathroom in your house is will be really bad. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

250 years before Columbus came, Cahokia (in Illinois) was larger than London

Monk's Mound a Pre-Columbian Mississippian cul...Image via Wikipedia
I've always been interested in people (and peoples) that are different from what I know, and one of the more interesting, and frustrating groups is the Mississippians.  So frustrating that, oh, by the way there was this massive city (by most of the world's standards at the time) here in the United States, and no, we don't really know much about it. 

I figured I'd write about Cahokia after seeing this news article on Google News: http://www.reviewatlas.com/news/moncoll_news/x984143718/Archaeology-Day-field-trip-to-Cahokia-lecture-on-tap 

So just a little background on Cahokia.  It was inhabited from at least 1200 BC, although
Photo by Nathaniel Paluga of the reconstructed...Image via Wikipedia
most of the major settlement was from 600 AD through about 1400 AD.  Apparently the population peaked at between 8,000 and 40,000 people.  Big range there, shows how much we don't know.  That's the population range for the urban city.  There would have been a significant number of people that lived around there and farmed maize for the consumption of the people in the city. 

Not only do the mounds represent an amazing amound of work, but apparently the whole area used to have small hills, which were leveled by removing the high ground and filling in the low ground for a large plaza.  This was originally thought to be flat because of the river, but nope.  It was the people that did it. 

There are some burials that appear to be sacrificial, and some violent, including people that were buried alive, mostly around 1000 AD. 
Artist's Reconstruction of Monk's Mound at Cah...Image via Wikipedia

Many of the mounds that were in present day St. Louis were destroyed and their contents used for building projects and fill.  On top of Monk's mound, which is the largest of the mounds, there used to be a 5,000 square foot structure on top. 


The Cahokians used copper at least for ceremonial purposes, and traded a lot with other groups across North America.  We have no idea what the Cahokians called themselves.  The name Cahokia comes from a small nearby group of Native Americans living in the area when the mounds were first known to white people. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 17, 2011

How many kings are you descended from?

Mormon GenealogyImage by More Good Foundation via Flickr
I finally got into my genealogy, and quickly found my way back 72 generations into the BC period.  At first I was excited as I found names I recognized further back in history.  After a while though I seriously doubt the credibility of the record.  I'm sure the people that collected the genealogy were sincere enough, but I just don't think biblical figures, or their cousins, travelled to England, or Germany, and founded royal lineages. 

Among royalty a long time ago, it was a big deal who your ancestors were, and really what evidence do you have to show to prove that such and such long dead person was or wasn't your ancestor.  I'm sure to a certain extent the record is correct, but I think once you get into royalty, all bets are off.  A nonfamous person with nonfamous parents has nothing to lose or gain when registering the names and info of their parents.  Royals had a lot to lose by admitting to non royal ancestors, and a lot to gain by claiming other royals and the most famous historical figures. 


Genesis genealogyImage via Wikipedia

So I may be related to Charlemagne, Edward I Longshanks, and Charles Martel "The Hammer," just like probably the majority of people of European descent.  King Lear and old King Cole are questionable.  Are they really even historical?  But Attila the Hun?  Anna the cousin of the Virgin Mary?  Julius Caesar?  Joseph of Arimathea?  The whole of the Old Testament major players through Anna who showed up in Cornwall? 



Joseph of ArimatheaImage via Wikipedia

What seems really obvious to me is that when you're looking at your ancestors, they're pretty much innumerable.  2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great greats, 32 great great greats, etc.  After 10 generations you've got 1024 different people.  That's 1024 different last names (probably less because some of those people will be related to each other) that you can say "oh we might be related, because I have that same last name in my ancestry!"  I'm probably related to more than half of my graduating class in high school, although I moved there from across the country, and know of no actual relations to any of them.  Well before you get to 72 generations (like from 8 to 20) you start running into this thing where there weren't really that many people around in a community or country, so you end up having ancestors among almost all the recorded people, and those that weren't recorded just become dead ends.  Probably there will be a bunch of people where one person had multiple children, and some generations later, two of their descendants married each other, so the tree connects to itself.
Julius Caesar, accepting the surrender of Verc...Image via Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_descent  This site mentions a study that theorizes that more than half of all English people are descendants of William the Conqueror. 

Genealogy Center at the Allen County Public Li...Image by amyc500 (FamilyTrees) via Flickr

The largest web site of free genealogy is https://www.familysearch.org/ from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I'm guessing it's also the largest site to find genealogy as well. 

The biggest question about the genealogy of royalty as far as I'm concerned is also very basic.  As Americans, most of us believe that "all men were created equal," and if that's the case, who cares about it anyway.  I'm more interested in learning about the real people, that lived and loved and died, who worked and played and made hard decisions that affected their (my) family.  I see the generations and there's always the couple that started on another continent and came to these United States, and I want to hear their stories. 
18th-century depiction of King Lear mourning o...Image via Wikipedia
If any of my siblings are reading this and want to see the actual lineage, name by name, then I'll give you a hint.  It's up Nana Chris's lines.  For everybody that doesn't have any history of genealogy work to speak of, then good luck.  If you work at it, usually after a few generations you'll find yourself running into the lineages of others that have already done a lot of work on extending their lines, and it's like "free ancestors" for you!  Depending on your culture, you may be able to go back thousands of years, or as few as three or four generations before running into major barriers.  Good Luck!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Death by Alternative Medicine: Steve Jobs

SAN FRANCISCO - JUNE 09:  (FILE PHOTO) Apple C...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
I was just reading this article about Steve Jobs.  http://gawker.com/5849543/harvard-cancer-expert-steve-jobs-probably-doomed-himself-with-alternative-medicine 
LONDON - JUNE 15:  (FILE PHOTO) Steve Jobs, Ch...Image by Getty Images via @daylife

According to this expert, the cancer which killed Steve Jobs has had a 100% survival rating for a while, and the only people that die from it are people that stay away from mainstream medication and keep seeking alternatives... Or people with no money to pay for treatment.  But we don't talk about those people, because it makes us think there might be something wrong with this country.

Anyway, the point is... alternative medicine is great.  When alternative medicine is effective, they start calling it... medicine, and doctors start prescribing it all over the place. 

Most of these old alternative medicines that have been around for a long time and are still "alternative" have had scientific studies done that show that, in some cases, there is a placebo effect, and in others, no effect at all.   

So, for those that need heavy hitting western medicine, please, please do what you can to get it.  Alternative medicines are fine and nice, but evidence based medicines will be better 99% of the time.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Why extinct dinosaurs keep getting bigger!

Tyrannosaurus rex, a theropod from the Late Cr...Image via Wikipedia
I sometimes ply www.sciencedaily.com for blog ideas.  Today I found two articles about well known dinosaurs, both of which are now officially considered physically bigger than they were several years ago.

These include the Tyrannosaurus Rex http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-science-trex-idUSTRE79B76D20111013 which is now thought to be 30% heavier, and a species of giant pterosaur, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013085107.htmwhose wingspan has been increased to 7 meters. 
Pterosaurs on the South BankImage by Ben Rimmer via Flickr

Why is it that these sizes have been changed after knowing of the species for so long? 

There can be only one logical explanation.  A conspiracy!  The government thinks people will go nuts, just scared out of their minds, if we know how big the dinosaurs were all at once.  And if you believe that, than I have a bridge for sale at a great discount for you!

DinosaursImage by CameliaTWU via Flickr


The real reason why this happens, according to my great wisdom, is the scarcity of the fossil record.  Pretend some future race had found the fossils of 20 humans.  Then they took the largest of these sets (some of which were fossils of men, women, and children) and decided that the largest set represented the maximum size of a human being.  What are the chances that they actually found the largest set that has existed.  Virtually nil.  As more bones are uncovered, occasionally a larger specimen will be found, and the "maximum size" will be increased. 

It is a very conservative approach in science that is praiseworthy in terms of not overstating the actual sizes of dinosaurs, but, it will virtually always be corrected multiple times over the years.  I have two better ideas. 
LAS VEGAS - SEPTEMBER 30:  Enya Kim from the N...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
First, and the most fun, is to simply state the best size.  For example, if you think that it would be cool if the dinosaur was way bigger, than just say that it's way bigger.  Then life size replicas could be absolutely huge.  Like the sabretooth tigers in the movie 10,000 BC.  Or Clifford the red dog. 

Second, and less fun, would be take the theorized measurements of all the fossils of a species that have been found so far, and place them on a standard bell curve.  You should end up with most fossils in the average range, some in the small range, and some in the large range.  The 99.5% number will give you a size, and that will be the maximum size of the creature. 
DinosaurImage by Richard Elzey via Flickr

Advantages: Changes in the number over time will be smaller, providing more continuity and less need to revise textbooks etc.  Also, this will produce larger maximum sizes almost invariably for dinosaurs.  And bigger sizes are always cooler.

Disadvantages: Occasionally, some of the dinosaurs will be found to be smaller in reality than was previously hypothesized.  The very small number of fossils, varied ages and genders, and questions of fossils being the same or different species may make a bell curve impossible in a lot of cases.  Also, since the size of a creature based on a usually very incomplete fossil takes into account many educated guesses (the new T-rex weight is based on soft tissue measurements using crocodile and bird soft tissue averages), the "size" of any specific dinosaur fossil may change, which will then change the bell curve produced by its previous placement. 
Dinosaurs, Crystal PalaceImage by Pete Reed via Flickr

Still, at the end of the day, I think it's worth it, when possible, to use statistical averages to provide a more realistic and credible claim to the maximum size of extinct animals. 


Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Evidence of a real mega-sized kraken!

The Legend of The Kraken Tennyson's poem is ba...Image via Wikipedia

This article is very cool.  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/12/kraken_killer/  For those looking for evidence that other creatures have also gained a significant amount of intelligence, in some ways rivaling humans, look no further. 
A screenshot from the film Creature from the H...Image via Wikipedia

30 meters long!?!  how long is that in feet?  Seriously, because I can't remember.  In any case, we now have a mega creature to look at, study, ... wait.  There's no fossil?  Don't give me any of that "invertebrate means no bones means no fossil" stuff.  No PhD feller should be able to make such a claim with zero physical evidence.  Right? 

I've decided I want that job.  By the way I found evidence of a giant mega-fauna creature... previously unkown to science, right in my backyard.  I'm charging money for viewings. 
The Gloucester sea serpent of 1817.Image via Wikipedia



Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Are Mormons Christians? Or a cult?

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...Image via Wikipedia

As a Mormon, I'm always interested in hearing about other groups' views of the church.  There has been a fairly long standing debate on whether Mormons are Christians.  What surprises me is all this talk about the difference being over the issue of the Trinity concept.  There are many differences between Mormons and any other Christian church.  Picking this one difference of the Trinity is such a minor thing.  Basically, Trinitarian Christians think that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are mysteriously and unknowably one.  Mormons think that they are physically separate, but completely one in purpose.  The trinity concept does not come from the Bible.  It comes 300+ years later. 

Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected J...Image via Wikipedia

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d2552bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
The preceding link is from a talk by Jeffrey R Holland, an apostle of Jesus Christ.  Or, for those that aren't Mormons, he would be called a "Mormon apostle."  He talks about the trinity idea vs. the LDS (Mormon) idea of the Godhead, which means physically separate but otherwise united in all ways.  For the most part, he uses verses from the King James version of the Bible.  And yes, Mormons believe in the same Bible as other Christians, although we believe in several other inspired works as well. 
US LDS percent 2006Image via Wikipedia

Percentage of Mormons in the population of each state as of 2006, I think. 

Anyway, one of my major peeves with this issue is, who gets to decide if a church is Christian or not?  Another article touching on the subject is: http://jenny-evans.suite101.com/the-mormon-alternative-to-the-trinity-a126543  I would guess this was written by a Mormon as well, because what is written seems to me to reflect the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints perfectly, and I don't read anything negative or attacking the church in it.  Either she is LDS or she is very objective and well studied about Mormons.

Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber ...Image via Wikipedia

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Realistic fantasy warriors in art

warriors side second looks2Image by auchard via Flickr
I'm a fantasy enthusiast.  But I do have a realistic bent.  Lately, my realism has led me into... well, history.  I'm reading Le Morte D'Arthur, and Xenophon's Anabasis at the same time.  These are actual... well ok, one's mostly fictional, and the other is heavily embellished.  But they are real in terms of representing life as it was 1,000 to 3,000 years ago.  Well, not really real, in terms of representing a partisan aristocratic view involving inherent assumptions of natural inequality... for the most part. 
WarriorsImage by Passetti via Flickr

Anyway, I read history, and fantasy, and was once involved with Elfwood.  I like the fantasy warrior art, but it is so shallow... and modular in terms of always catching the person at the picture perfect moment... and without food, water, a tent, enough clothing to be warm, armor that can be moved in, and that actually would work at all in battle, etc. 



ArmorImage by peterjr1961 via Flickr
People draw armor similar to what one puts on for Halloween.  You imagine up the craziest thing, make it, wear it, then go home.  The real stuff wouldn't even be getting put on except for the real thing, and might take hours to get into and out of. 

Now take a look at this guy's armor below.  Really?  Is it because all the computer generated enemies always strike at his shoulders?  He can't turn his head.  he can't raise his arms at all.  He can't bring his knee to his chest.  He can't fight anyone to the sides or behind him without turning his whole body around.  Even getting his hand to his mouth to eat would be uncomfortable. 

http://wowwhimsy.wordpress.com/category/gear/

And then we get into worse waters. 
But you get this fantasy stuff like this:
ArmorImage by Ramona.Forcella via Flickr
This isn't about protection, or combat... it's about lust.

Here's another one.  Really?  It's a combination of wanting to show that she's fierce and ready for battle, and wanting to show as much skin as possible.  It gives new meaning to the term breast plate.  Yep.  There's just one.  And it almost covers one side of her bikini top. 



http://wweapons.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html 

And then at the end of the day we are struck with reality again: real warriors that have long histories of success in their cultures have been carrying about this amount of equipment for 3,000 years, starting with the Greek panoply. 
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/03/13/amelioration-of-battle-space-weight-and-women-in-combat/
But seriously, all you artists and writers out there.  If you can include these things, it can make a brief floating whisp of a picture or setting into a fleshed out and memorable experience.  Take Lord of the Rings for example.  You've got Lembas bread, tomatoes, Aragorn hunting some type of animal in the wild, cheese, all kinds of foods and food related scenes that bring realism.  They travelled with Bill the pony, who carried a lot of their equipment until they lost him. 

http://kjswanson.com/blog/2010/01/one-meal-to-feed-them-all-one-meal-to-find-them-one-meal-to-bring-them-all-where-watching-movies-binds-them/

It seems that for Fantasy art, the only equipment that may be used is weapons and armor.  I think every creator of fictional work needs to ask themselves a few basic questions while designing their final product.  What do they eat and drink?  Where/how do they sleep?  What would they learn by using all five senses?  How do they deal with hot/cold or wet/dry environments? 

I wouldn't say a full set of equipment for a multi-day journey is always needed.  If a place is near where there is food/shelter, or if there is a large force with a supply or baggage group, then there would be no need.  Obviously, most fantasy art that includes environment puts people in an unfriendly or uninhabited environment, where a person would have equipment with them. 

Come on friends, let's keep it real!
Enhanced by Zemanta