Google is Mapping the Oceans in 3D

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9931412-7.html?tag=nl.e703

Thought you may find it interesting

Altruism, good or bad?

So I had a great discussion here at Chez Plotz about altruism.  One of us arguing it as the savior of the the planet and human race and the other its ultimate downfall.  I'm going to talk  about the latter which is easier being it is my point of view.  

Throughout history we have been brought up on the view that to give you life or your money for a great cause, or even better for someone you don't know is one of the greatest feats someone can achieve.  And that a truly altruistic human is great and wonderful.  Well look at our history, there is a lot of good but there is damn sure a lot of bad.  I think altruism is a gross perversion and is another type of control.  When your best interests or lost and given away it grains against everything you are and become something that you don't want.  That something starts to rage against itself because it has essential told itself that it is not good enough to survive and thus gave away to something better.  The crux is if that person was a stranger you don't even know if you made a good decision.

In my un-humble opinion our world would be better served and lived in if altruism became the greatest sin (sorry about the term but it was the best I could come up with).  I mean happiness is what drives us, and if your actions were taken with yourself in mind in both the immediate and more distant future how could this not become a better place in which to live.  I guess it comes down to how you view yourself, if you see yourself as the most important thing to you than this philosophy makes prefect sense.  But if your fellow man is more important than self well I guess this sounds like a terrible and heinous direction of life.  But I will argue that the later does not know life because by loosing the first recognition of self they have already lost part of life already and have very little grounds with which to defend it.  Unless they realize that they are worthless, which most are not, then losing self would be tolerated but still not wanted.  

It seems that when establishments (society, religion, government etc) gain power and influence the first thing they preach and try to implement is a loss of self and altruistic actions.  But they will never put it in those terms.  It is after all what allows them to stay in their positions of influence.  But ones happiness is the only realm of influence that a person truly controls, and it is that acceptance in which I think can truly make the world a better place.

-Zachary

Re: Glassbooth

My results:

Ron Paul - 63%
John McCain - 57%
Mike Gravel - 53%

I think these types of quizzes can be useful to the uninformed voter as a tool to narrow down the candidates to those they may be interested in. That way they will (hopefully) go find out more about those they have common beliefs with. I agree with Timmy that some question may have been misleading and it was difficult to answer some of them.

Talking to people in SF, I've realized more people than I previously thought have no idea what the candidates platforms are but still enthusiastically support a specific candidate. Everyone out here either supports Obama or Clinton but actually doesn't know the difference between the two candidates. Beyond that, they actually have no idea the difference between Obama or Clinton and McCain! When you ask if them if they support universal health care or allowing immigrants to become citizens their opinions are very different than the candidate they are supporting. Granted, I doubt anyone fully agrees with any one candidate on all matters. It seems like there are a lot of "bandwagon fans" out here in the sense that they will support whoever is most popular at the time with their friends, city, or country.



Congratulations, Dr. Plotz!

Glassbooth

Well done, PORKCHOP!!!- I like that site. My results were interesting...to say the least.

McCain: 67%
Ron Paul: 67%
Obama: 53%

At first, I posted my similarities with each candidate - but looking at the questions, I noticed that the results were very misleading. For example, on immigration - I care more about allowing people to work and giving them working permits and ending this H1B visa shit. "Fences" didn't even enter my mind - although I hate fences of any kind. I am more concerned about 'glass ceilings,' discrimination, and losing competitive advantage in the world.

I am also in favor of a fairly strong police force that has the power to take down bad people (terrorists, gangs, etc) - but I don't agree with most provisions of the Patriot Act. In fact, I don't like "acts" at all since they usually contain hundreds of "acts" and pass them through as one. Issues should be voted on one at a time or in small groups. Some of these were great - some challenge my liberty so much that I considered forming a militia (thanks to the 2nd amendment).

I like the idea - but I don't like the questions. It needs to be more detailed and nuanced.

How'd ya like them apples

Since 2000 the federal government has doubled its spending on school, with no increase and many times a decrease in how well the kids are doing.  Does this say we should spend less, spend more, or spend differently.

My opinion runs with all of the above, but in different degrees.   I think free high school education is one of the few things a government should do, and it does not appear to be doing it well (surprise, surprise).    But what we are doing is obviously not working, and think focusing on standardized test scores is one of the problems with this, not to mention that property taxes pay a significant proportion of schools incomes.

Not only that private schools are charging tuitions that are more than most colleges, it is a crazy thought to me to spend that kind of money on high school, but I may have to for my kids especially if I end up in the Big Easy as it is looking most likely, or if Galt's Gulch ends up being in norther California (the other place I may live) I will still be paying for that private school

So this is defiantly a case of more not necessarily being better, and was curious on the thoughts of others on the dismal state of our schools.

-Zachary

My candidate

So I took Ms. Ward's online quiz for a political candidates and I was found to support Mike Gravel 65% and next in line was Ron Paul 61%, Mr. Obama 58% and McCain at 56%

The first makes sense as Mr. Gravel is now planning to run with the Libertarian Party, who I firmly support but the libs front runner is one Mr. Wayne Root, who looks better than Gravel to me at this point.  

But a 65% match rate to me is still way to far off to vote for, I mean would you buy a car that only matched you at that level, I wouldn't and I sure as hell don't want the man running my country to match only at that level.

Other should take the quiz, I am curious to see your marks get you.

-Zachary

Nice find Jackie, and nice to hear from someone new

Who You SHOULD Be Voting For

So because this blog has partially turned into a conversation between Zac and Timmy that everyone can silently ponder about, and partially because this election is the one that I have paid the most attention to in my young voter life, I thought I would share this with you.

My goal is not to pitch for one candidate over the other. To be honest, I don't know enough about one specific candidate to feel passionately enough to sway your strong opinions one way or another. On the radio this morning, they were interviewing a webpage creator who has made it easy to show which candidate cares the most about the issues that matter the most to YOU. On the first page you rank which issues matter the most to you. There is a 20-point scale. You can give as many points as you'd like to 14 different topics, as long as you don't exceed the allotted 20 points. As you continue through the site, it asks you more detailed questions about your chosen issues.

Check it out: http://glassbooth.org/ and take the quiz. It takes less than 10 minutes and I think it will be very interesting to see whether or not we have accurately decided who we are voting for. If you are undecided, will you vote for the candidate that the quiz thinks you should? Do you agree or disagree with this clever and unique way of helping Americans choose the next President?

Two Party System

I have been trying to figure out why we are in a rut of a two party system. I've found that it is not just because of America's reluctance to vote for a third party, it is just amazing difficult to just get on the ballot. In Illinois a third party has to get 42,000 signatures in just 90 days, which you think that isn't so much but they have to be got by the person running.  Making it pretty difficult to do campaigning at the same time.  Anyway for all those planning to vote don't rule out a third party, just voting for them is saying that you support a wider choice.  And with our candidates being almost identical we really need variety.  

-Zachary

Bubbles are for gum not for oil

So my big question is what is going to happen with the cost of oil per barrel.  Is the price going to continue to rise?  I was hoping oil would drop again so I can put some money in it when I get some.  But with China and India drinking oil like 48 brighton drank bad beer it seems like the current price is just a respite on its way even higher.  So I was curious on your thoughts on the current oil "crisis".  It seems to me like mother earth is getting karmic retribution in the markets.  I would say that the prices are good for us but with the developing nations using more and more it is not doing much help t all if we reduce our consumption.  

-Zachary

Grayness & my Vote

Zac,
Well said. And I want to take both your posts together because they bring up a very good point about 1) grayness in decision-making; 2)means-to-an end; and 3)politics and the art of "getting elected."

I'm increasingly turned off by this "gray world" we live in Zac. Especially when it comes to politics. My entire voting life, I have never had a candidate that I supported. It has caused me to be skeptical of democracy and forced me to vote for "the least bad." I refuse to do this anymore. As of RIGHT NOW I will only support candidates that believe in the following 5 statements (in no particular order):

1) Adults should make decisions for themselves and be held accountable- no bans on food, no bailouts on mortgages.
2) Adults know better what do with their money than the government - low taxes
3) Government should not try to be "moral" - complete separation of church/state & stay out of abortion, homosexuality, gambling, smoking, drinking
4) Education and Science are the MOST IMPORTANT things a government can (and should) promote: stem-cell research, public schools for children
5) Free movement of goods and people around the world: no tariffs, no quotas (on goods or people), no H1B visa shit, give everyone a SS number and say "thanks for coming - here's a hammer/pen/laptop"

Hillary fails 1,2,3,5
Obama fails 1,2,3,5
McCain fails 1,3,4

My vote goes to Alan Greenspan

Ends and Means, how do they fit?

Well Hodgie apparently you died. And in you infinite wisdom you had recommended a show called the Wire. And following the word of the great late Hodgie I watched it. It was pretty damn good, especially with how bad television is now days I was pleasantly surprised. Even more happy was I when the end of the show brought about some questions for me to ponder. So will pass one on to you all.

It has to do with Ends and Means and how you justify meeting one to the other. I guess the core of it comes down to is doing something bad ok if the end result is good. Or can you accept doing something wrong for something good. I mean yes we do it a lot on a larger scale, government, vaccinations, wars etc. and we talk about while all these things are and can be ugly the end result is good so therefore the means are good.

I want to disagree with this. I know not many people believe in a black and white world but I do. But bad is bad regardless of how you put a spin on it. And I think people make a whole lot of fuss and in process create all the grey to make them feel better. They say that there is no black and white and therefore things can be justified in there minds. I don't know if I can swallow that. Maybe some evils just have to be accepted, and I guess I'm going to have to live with that, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it, and thus thank you blog.

-Zachary

P.s. I today got my final government exam scores back and I have officially finished all my requirements for my M.D.. And sent in my applications to be licensed to practice medicine. So I figured I'd toot my horn here.

Cheers

But there is no Global Warming

I mean if you look at the evidence, there really is nothing conclusive on global warming.  I mean there are holes, and warmer environment but  I mean it's just probably a normal cycle.  

So if you agree with all the above your a fucking idiot, and well that is what congress is trying to get us to believe.  And I guess either McCain is trying to make Americans eat to.  Which is weird cause honestly I haven't heard much on the way of complaints about higher gas prices, it seems people are just accepting it.  

McCain and all current government is trying to be a sheltering parent.  By that I mean hey if you make a stupid decision when you a kid who bails you out, your parents.  And that is exactly what they are proposing on doing.  Your right Tim all the middle class shouldn't have bought that escalade and they damn sure shouldn't have bought that huge house on a mortgage that they can't afford.  But Big Brother is going to step in and take care of it. Or maybe they just are saying they will to get into office and then will quietly ignore it. 

They theme I think is this politicians don't give two rats asses about economics because people don't care to understand economics so there fore politicians don't have to abide by it.  Try pushing things that don't make sense to Americans (i.e. that gas prices should be higher, or industrial jobs should be done in another country) and well as a politician you don't get elected.  And getting elected is the bottom line.

-Zachary

$20/gallon for Gas

Genius economist John McCain wants to help the "struggling middle class." He is proposing a gas-tax holiday on gasoline for the summer (i.e., no taxes from Memorial - Labor Day). BusinessWeek

What the fuck planet is he on? Does he not notice the war in Iraq over oil? Or the constant fear of global warming? Or the fact that everybody in Florida drives trucks? (I saw three Hybrids on my 9 day journey from Tampa to SF...seriously).

Companies are building solar panels, people are biking to work, Japan is making cars that can plug into an electrical outlet. AND THIS FUCKING IDIOT WANTS PEOPLE TO DRIVE MORE????

By the way, this is estimated to cost the government $9,000,000,000. Where will that come from? roads and bridges - great fucking idea.

Since driving is a NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY (econ 101), we should tax it MORE. The "struggling middle class" shouldn't have bought a goddam escalade in the first place. The people who are "really struggling" are not the middle class - it's the people who live in cities and take subways or on farms that drive tractors or walk.

Definitions

Elitist, I guess other might call me that. It is what the name of my folder in which I keep all the e-mails from my friends. One thing that I love about Ayn Rand is her definitions and the convictions in which she holds to them. For example an elitist to me is someone above and beyond in what ever realm you are speaking. But to another it might have more emotional swing to it, meaning pretentious, stuck up, or under tones of jealousy. That is why I love Ayn's books, she defines something and they speaks about it. I have many a heated discussions with my wife to find that we in terms are arguing for the same thing but our definitions are different, and many times drastically.

And speaking of perspective, I defiantly agree with you Tim in that experience makes life sweeter, or more bitter. Its all perspective, a person who has never know pain, would probably be incapacitated by a paper cut (I mean they do hurt though!), or a person who wanders the desert for 40 days and 40 nights will find that free flowing water to be the nectar of the gods (oh I love those religious fanatics). So where am I going with this, well it is one thing I picked up with hanging around my elitist friends experience, and trying new things is what makes life worth living and living is that price.

One question I have is why does America hate big business? Why do they hate the CEOs? Why do they thing those that make the most should contribute monetarily the most? (I say monetarily because if they actually defined contribution the light that is the common mans contribution wouldn't even be noticed next to a great business man's). I don't know if it is jealously, stupidity, envy, or for a sound reason? I mean everyone knows the proverb "don't bite the hand that feeds you", but citizens of the world have been taking the arm up to the shoulder not just the hand.

-Zachary

p.s. I think I'm going to start a hedge fund

Intellectualism

I know I've always bordered on the line of elitism (Zac and Perna crossed this line long ago...) but I think I've always stayed on the border. Recent articles, however, have really made me appreciate that certain things do and should come at a cost (cost of time/study/money). Can someone really appreciate Nietzsche without reading philosophy? Or enjoy a Mouton Rothschild without drinking a lot of wine? Or appreciate American Medicine without getting sick in Haiti? Or enjoy free speech without living in Tibet? Or appreciate walking across Newbury Street without living in Gaza?

An article by Eric Asimov of the NYT (Does Taste Have a Price) about wine made me take this to a broader perspective. There is no question that I appreciate math more in 11th grade compared to 4th or appreciated Literature more as a Senior than a Freshman. Maybe it does take a certain level of expertise to appreciate the finer/better/luxurious things in life...

T

Zac,
The T is public and run by the Governor (MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority): Annual Budget

Wall Street Winners Get Billion-Dollar Payday
-NY Times 4/16

A close friend of mine sent me this link - and I'd like to give my response as a post since there is a lot of confusion regarding Wall Street and Hedge Funds.

What is a hedge fund? A hedge fund is an asset that people invest in to make money (similar to investing in a mutual fund or even buying a stock). The difference is, the managers of the hedge fund act in extremely risky ways - for example betting against the US economy or betting a stock will rise exactly 7.4% on the third Tuesday of every month. They use very complicated financial models and more than half of them lose a shitton of money (read about Long Term Capital Management of 2001).

Who can invest in hedge funds? Most funds will not allow investments less than $1 million. Usually it is investors with over $50 million of funds (i.e., extremely wealthy).

How do managers get paid? They take 10-20% of the profits they earn for their clients.

Now, regardless of whether you would invest in a hedge fund (no one on this blog is allowed to, because you have to be classified as a "savvy investor" with the SEC), it is clearly not a vehicle that further separates the rich from the poor. If anything, it increases tax revenue for the government since these investors and managers in the highest bracket.

Trading etc

For some reason it seems people have started to associate trade and use of foreign economics as not just bad, but almost as evil. I believe it sounds something like this, immigrants all taking our jobs, and our industry shipping out the work to another country, no wonder our country is in the decline. Sound familiar? For some reason there is an country misunderstanding that all that makes less expensive goods. But I commonsense, has been misplaced and people have been falling out of the stupid tree left and right, and hitting every branch on the way down.

I think the Dems are playing to this, they are giving the impression that they are all for America by not supporting anything else. That would be my guess, but hey I haven't fallen or climbed the stupid tree, well not lately anyway.

As for transit. I think a lot of it comes down to when things were built. Europe being a much older world, was able to put down much of the railways and subway systems necessary but at a time when labor was much cheaper, as well as materials. We (America) got started later, and now for us to put that kind of project forth would require a lot more capital comparatively. That is the only reasoning I can get? As to why there government is more efficient, I have no idea, but maybe it isn't its just a perception, you know the grass is greener and all that.

Here is one reason why I think our government does not do so well. Pay levels. This comes purely from a medical stand point so it is biased and not entirely encompassing. But the army pays its doctors on scale by rank and not compared to the private sector. For example I will make when I finish my residency around 120k to 130k. No if I worked that same job privately depending on my specialty of choice, I could make 4-8 times as much. That is why their retention rate for doctors is 13%. Just bad business. Again lack of understanding for economics. But that may be why our government sucks. Also quality control may be an issue, again I point to the big dig. Or the VA hospitals where a huge number of surgeons are being fired for gross negligence.

But here is where my argument can fall, I believe the T in Boston is a private company, and it seems every other week their head goes under water financially. But that could be due the the T union or regulations in fare charges I don't know.

-Zachary

Trade

Trade is good for everyone - first lesson of economics. Obama and Clinton have been shooting at NAFTA all year. They're both against the new proposed agreement with Colombia that was just pushed back by the dems in Congress yesterday. Besides the fact that Colombia is the only country left in Latin America that doesn't hate us, we're making a poor country poorer while making the US less competitive.

Does anyone have any logical reason for this? I really just don't get it. When did the democrats become so protectionist? Do people really not understand economics (or even countries in poverty)?

re: The Big Dig

There is a plan going through CA govt right now to authorize a massive train line linking SF to San Diego. If all goes well, I could get from SF to downtown LA in 2.5 hours (it currently takes 5 hours by drive w/out traffic). That's pretty amazing.

I go back and forth with trains. I look at Amtrak - the epitome of government incompetence and cry. Then I look at France, Germany, Belgium, and the UK and am amazed at how well their trains function (i.e., extremely fast, underwater, on-time, comfortable, quiet,...), truly a sign of brilliance.

It amazes me that it's much easier and faster to take a train from London to Paris than it is to go from NYC to Boston or SF to LA. And don't even get me started on our airlines....

France and Germany have a much more controlling govt than us - how come they do things like this so much better? .... and I won't even bring up health care right now.....

The big dig

Timmy,

I would have thought that growing up under the big dig, undoubtedly one of the biggest cluster fucks ever in public transportation that you would be more patient with the incompetence of fixing a highway.  Possibly higher on screwed up construction is that cool bridge that was the length of a harmonic and when the wind hit the bridge it blew itself apart.  But you know how efficient government contracts tend to be so are you really surprised about roadways?  

-Zachary

Forgotten Technology

So there has been road construction in front of my office for the past month. I don't know a lot about paving/destroying/repaving roads, but it seems to me that it's been relatively the same for the last 100 years. Houses can be built in a matter of days. We have thousands of different types of flooring. Why does it take sooo long to repair a road (and then it's shitty until the entire road is repaved). I live in one of the wealthiest places in the world and I swear, Route 101 is the absolute worst road in the industrialized world.

It's obviously an incentive issue (I assume govt contracts have something to do with it), but why hasn't a company developed a "new pavement?" How did pavement miss the boat?

On a similar note - WHY THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE 8-10 WEEKS to deliver the first issue of any magazine???? What are they doing? I call, tell them to deliver, it should be in my mailbox the next day - what are they doing for 10 weeks?? Could magazine companies really be that logistically fucked up? This one really pisses me off (more than the roads - although less frequently).

re: new generation

i can completely see how children are looking to make lots of money, but not do anything for it. not want to actually work or be a leader figure. these days when everyone is a winner, youth sports don't keep score. everyone gets a trophy. no one can be 'picked last' I think the self-esteem train is bullshit, and this is what kids are becoming as a result of it. If they've never had to work hard for any achievement in their lives now, its not surprising that they have those expectations for their futures.
p.s. i was on holiday in the virgin islands, so my brain is kind of still there...

An inherent flaw

I've been thinking on the U.S. and its problems (I know I know big surprise).  And I was wondering if much of the problems of today are due to an inherent flaw in the basic premises of our country.  That being, that we are all created equal.  The cold hard truth is that we are not.  We are not all equal in intelligence, opportunities, or physical prowess (which is to bad cause ole Sargent Gym would have had some bad ass pick up games in our days).  How do we correct for this I don't know, that will take more thinking and hopefully some responses from my other partners in excellence of this blog.

-Zachary