Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:03:00 GMT
It is often opined that term-limiting elected officials is the only way to reduce corruption in politics. This analysis misses the obvious problem of lame-duck representatives, with fully one third of an elected body having perhaps no incentive at all to please its constituents. This makes a representative ripe for purchase with no recourse for the body politic.
Yet the problem remains, how does one keep career politicians from subverting the democratic process? As I write this, the Federal Congress is trying to ram through legislation, perhaps even avoiding Constitutional requirements, that polls show a majority of Americans are strongly against. Clearly the 'representative democracy' is not functioning as such. A better system would require a four-step change:
First, end gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Everybody knows that districts are drawn to favor the incumbents unfairly and the two-party system, neither of which is healthy for the free-exchange of political ideas. There have been proposals for fair redistricting for more than half a century - any of them are likely superior to the brazenly corrupt method currently in place.
Second, implement a modern voting system that takes into account voter preferences and reduces strategic voting for non-preferred candidates. The best of these is probably the Schulze Method but any one that satisfies the Condorcet criterion is probably acceptable (the system must pick the candidate who, when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters). The Schulze method was only discovered in the last decade, and is markedly superior to previous voting-system reform attempts, such as instant-runoff voting in the 1970's which produced abysmal results. Organizations are rapidly and overwhelmingly adopting the Schulze method, and governments are now beginning to as well.
Third, end the political primary process. Only in Plurality Voting, the system we've been saddled with since the 18th Century, is such a process even necessary. In a Condorcet election, voters with a political party affiliation could simply rank all of their party's candidates first, in their preference order, to maintain their strategic advantage. But a Republican who favored Democrat #4 over Republican #2 could also express that preference. Our current system does not allow this. This also gets local governments out of the business of supporting the private organizations called political parties for free (though certainly not free to those government's tax base - how does an Independent feel about being forced to pay for primary elections?).
Fourth, require incumbents to achieve a threshold in the Condorcet election to stay in the race. If the first three steps aren't enough to guarantee that a Congressman will pay attention to his electorate, requiring a majority preference (for example among the top half, though more thought needs to be paid to the exact level) certainly will. Without the preceding three pieces, though, this criterion simply re-enforces the two-party system.
Given all of these criteria, the winner of an election will best represent the people who elected him, and, if an incumbent, he will have broad support from among his constituency. This does not guarantee a corruption-free government, but it does provide strong incentives for a representative to represent, offers a broader variety of candidates to the People, and provides an outcome that will maximize the happiness of the voters while avoiding the danger of unaccountable representatives under a term-limits system.
Posted in Government, Philosophy, Science | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:53:00 GMT
It appears now that the plane that went down over Buffalo was covered in ice and on autopilot. The FAA warned against this in 1994, and it was since airline policy not to do so.
A bit of research quickly finds the Smart Icing Systems Project from the
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group at UIUC, which has been studying this problem since 1996, and in 2003 developed a set of algorithms to allow autopilot systems to handle icing conditions.
So, that leads then to the following lines of questioning:
- when was that airplane's autopilot system last updated?
- is it updatable?
- does the airline do updates, if it is?
- has the manufacturer implemented ice-condition algorithms?
- how is icing reliably detected?
- how can I know, as a customer of an airline, if the plane I'm going to be on has the best possible autopilot? (without market demand the tendency is towards cost minimization)
- should incorporating best practices into air flight software be mandated by certification bodies or governments?
In general, automatic systems do better than human pilots. The navy has automated landing systems for aircraft carriers that can hit the cable on the deck under full steam in high seas. They do better than the Navy's human pilots do, so I think I'd rather have that system landing me at O'Hare than a human. Collisions often happen when pilots ignore warning systems. The latest fighter jets can't even fly without computer control. However, problems like the one in Buffalo will only tarnish public perception of automated aircraft systems.
It appears this incident actually proves that we can't rely on human judgment in dangerous conditions, but I expect it'll be spun the opposite way.
Posted in Government, Traffic, Science | 3 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:47:00 GMT
So far the 2008 flu vaccine looks promising.
Last year, the flu vaccine was a big miss so one needs to question any possible risks of thimerosal vs. the benefit of the vaccine (note: thimerosal-free vaccines available this year - I made this one-page pdf of just the table from the FDA page to bring with you to the clinic for reference; the vaccines with thimerosal are in strike-through type).
This year's vaccine consists of the following strains:
- an A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like virus
- an A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like virus
- a B/Florida/4/2006-like virus.
Collected samples to date (strain completely identified) break down as:
- H1, all A/Brisbane/59/2007-like (157)
- H3, all A/Brisbane/10/2007-like (18)
- B, 4:9 ratio of B/Florida/04/2006 to B/Victoria (13)
It's possible that of the untyped samples there are other strains, but none have been detected so far. So, assuming the above distribution holds over the sample and over time, getting the flu shot ought to be useful against 95% of the flu currently in the wild. The 5% chance of getting a B/Victoria is likely dependent on the state you're in- 8/9 Victorias were detected in one state, but the FDA doesn't say which state. From the data is looks like it's probably in the South East or West South Central areas, so those of us in the North should likely see a higher than 95% efficacy.
Posted in Government, Family, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:47:00 GMT
A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the Canon license for Nano SED patents still exists. Canon had tried to form a partnership with Toshiba (SED, Inc.) which the court found violated the terms of the license, but then Nano claimed that this violation dissolved the license, which the Court found to be incorrect.
Canon has reportedly doubled its workforce in SED on this ruling, so these things may finally get into production. SED TV sets were expected to be on the market three years ago, but patent litigation has held it up, much to the LCD manufacturers' delight.
For those who are not AV geeks: SED TV's bring CRT-level picture quality to the flat-screen form factor at lower power and (theoretically) lower cost than LCD or plasma. However, since the benefits over LCD and plasma are quite dramatic SED is expected to be priced more highly than LCD or plasma for a while. Once all the videophiles throw huge piles of cash at the nicer sets, the next step will be to be priced marginally higher than LCD or plasma, since the average consumer will clearly see the benefit, then they can proceed to meet, then undercut the LCD and plasma market. That'll be the time to buy. Once LCD and plasma get beaten out of the market, the price will climb back up, and then LCD and plasma can come back in. So, long-term these will probably remain slightly more expensive than LCD and plasma, until the patents expire anyway (or OLED becomes competitive), then everybody will be making them and prices should fall through the floor. Mark June 14, 2024 on your calendar. It should be a good Independence Day sale!
Posted in Government, Economics, Science, Cool Tools | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:15:00 GMT
There's a move afoot to replace the terms 'B.C.' and 'A.D' to denote years with the terms C.E. and B.C.E meaning 'Common Era' and 'Before Common Era'. Anybody who's been to school knows B.C. means 'before Christ' and A.D. means 'Anno Domini', Latin for 'In the Year of Our Lord'. That 'B.C.' is based in English and 'A.D.' in Latin seems incongruous at best, but they've been used for the duration of the Gregorian Calendar and frankly serve their purpose just fine.
C.E. and B.C.E. are simply euphemisms to cover up the fact that the calendar used in most of the world is based on Christianity, specifically the birth of Jesus Christ (or Yoshua of Nazereth for the historically-minded). The Gregorian Calendar was imposed by, who'd'a thunk ... Pope Gregory, and who would you think he'd base his calendar around? (Obviously the name of the calendar system will be next on the block).
There are many good arguments against the Gregorian Calendar, but that's what we've got. The competing calendar standards (e.g. Mayan, Chinese) have fallen to the Gregorian, and there's likely no turning back that tide. So, there's no utility in trying to cover up its origins, and the cost of implementing such changes is without return. At a minimum anybody expected to ever read any historical text would have to be trained in both systems, so at best it's a net increase in cost. If somebody wants to tackle the implementation of a better calendar, perhaps a sidereal one, go for it. You can even call its days a 'stardate' if you must. But until that time, nobody can claim offense at B.C. and A.D. until we take care of the 'Tyr, Odin, Thor, Freyja, Saturn' problem, OK?
Posted in Economics, Science, Psychology | Tags correctness, political | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:46:00 GMT
Superhero stories are some of our best fiction, as they're the modern interpretation of the kinds of legends we've valued in culture for millennia, from Gilgamesh to Hercules to Robin Hood, and address the basic Jungian archetypes we so enjoy.
One modern differentiation among superheroes is between the Marvel and DC superheroes along the lines of abilities and powers. Generalizing, DC superheroes have few limits on abilities, while Marvel superheros are constrained by certain attributes, which the writers mostly adhere to. This is good for the stories as Spiderman doesn't have trouble stopping a bus one week, but then is able to lift a skyscraper the next. Casting the characters with infinite abilities would be far less interesting, and many describe Marvel's methodology as more science-based.
That's fine if you can ignore the vast amounts of energy required for most of the superheroes' powers, an enormous hole in the Marvel mythology. They clearly aren't eating enough food for the kind of power they expend, solar is insufficient, and they aren't radioactive (most of them anyway), or have any obvious energy inputs.
However, if one wants to remain within a logical structure, a power source is demanded. What could it be? Well, there's one scientific principle that deals with an omni-present, poorly-understood, and potentially limitless source of energy - vacuum energy, or the zero-point field. This energy has been demonstrated to exist via the Casimir Effect and little more is known about it than lots of conflicting theories. Perfect for imbuing a fictional superhero with power!
So, how would the superheroes harness this power? This is given to us by the X-Men series of stories - it's a genetic mutation. What exactly this mutation does isn't well-addressed, but the X-Men writers go so far as to describe the heredity model for the gene that provides the super powers. Since this is genetically controlled, and all genes do is code for proteins and therefore structures, the answer has to be biological. But what kind of biological feature could harness zero point energy?
By way of comparison, let's look at photosynthesis. For billions of years after life arose on Earth there was a vast source of energy right there in the sky (the Sun) which went largely untapped (in a direct fashion). Eventually, evolution brought us an organelle capable of harnessing solar energy biologically, the chloroplast:
Unmatched by human engineering, the chloroplast converts solar energy into chemical energy very efficiently. From this one development we got algae, simple plants, trees, and everything in between, and the Earth's ecosystem was completely re-defined. Animals developed (or merged with) mitochondria instead of chloroplasts, but again there's an essential organelle responsible for 'powering' everything that happens in an animal.
So, my proposition is that the 'X-gene' codes for an analogous structure in 'mutants', one that can pervade the mutant's cells and biologically convert zero point energy into usable energy by the mutant. Or, perhaps switches on pre-existing coding for such a structure in human DNA, if it's truly a single gene. Borrowing from the Greek naming condition, I'll propose the name "dynanulosome", meaning "power from none compartment". One might imagine a biological microstructure that resembles a series of stacked plates of very high density that could directly use the Casimir effect to extract energy. (insert nice illustration here!).
This type of explanation only helps explain how the power is derived - how it's applied is a completely separate matter, one for which I offer no explanation. Still, it fills a gap in the Marvel universe, and may make for some interesting stories. Obvious avenues to explore would be:
- if the X-gene is a single gene (it has to be a switching gene, then) where did the coding come from in human DNA if it wasn't used in the past historically?
- Or, was it used in the past, and was it switched off? How and why?
- Have X-gene mutations arisen in the population before and can they explain historical legends?
- Why did the gene become so much more prevalent in the 20th Century (perhaps the 1918 flu, which killed 50 Million people was more than a simple flu)?
And one can imagine many more. That such a simple concept can so easily spawn so many interesting stories only serves to prove how fertile a ground the mythology of superheroes is for the human imagination to explore.
Feel free to use this concept in your own fiction. Nod if you feel it appropriate.
Update: Andy points out that Celestials would be those who would have initially planted the DNA code that would be ready to switch on.
Posted in Fiction, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:28:00 GMT
There’s a new study out that says that three out of five baby boomers will outlive their retirement savings, due to inflationary pressures and too high a standard of living. For the first, precious metals would be a good answer, and if that road is taken, the second problem may just solve itself.
But the problem with the study is it only looks at baby boomers living to be 90-100 years old. With practical gene therapy, telomere extension technology, and perhaps even nanobot reconstruction, a significant number of baby boomers could live to be 120-130 instead. This is nothing that was planned for, and our social welfare programs cannot support it. We may very well see people who have been on the dole longer than they’ve been productive workers.
Are you willing to bet against advances in medical technology and Moore’s law? Boom, indeed.
Posted in Government, Economics, Family, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:01:00 GMT
I bought 2900 shares of Sustainable Power Corp stock for just over 3 cents a share the other day, on a whim. I had a tiny bit of cash in my trading account that was getting dangerously close to earning enough interest such that I’d have to file Interests & Dividends paperwork with the State of NH, and I’ve never owned a penny stock before. Some of my other stocks are expensive enough I can’t even afford more than one share, so I thought it would be fun to own 2900 shares of something. I know, that’s silly.
However, if what these guys say is true (I give it at least roulette wheel odds) then they should be able to command $10 a share pretty quickly. That would sure help me retire some debt.
Oh, yeah, their business plan is to replace nearly all oil supplies by disposing of agriculural waste. Using less than 1/5 of the US agricultural waste would supposedly break even, and produce a salable fertilizer as a by-product. Reportedly they have a big reactor in operation and have little ones to bring around to show investors that their claims are tue. They’re planning to have 400 reactors built by the end of next year. Whether they achieve this will be a good measure of how real they are. They have a video showing a production facility, and it appears they’ve at least put quite a bit of metal together with welders, and their presentation is so not slick that they’re either brilliant con guys or real. If it’s staged, the prop man gets high marks for hiding gear from NAPA and True Value within camera shot to convince us it’s a real small business.
I looked up the diplomat they have speaking in the video, and he appears to be the real deal, at least if Wikipedia’s link to the group can be trusted. I also looked up the guy named as the inventor of the technology and didn’t find any academic information on him, but there are several articles written wondering if this is real. One cited testing done by an independent lab which appears to confirm the product, or at least their sample (though the sample differed from other types of fuel in its BTU count and freezing point).
Yeah, it seems too good to be true, but I’m going to chose to believe them for now. It may be a pipe dream, but I have to admit it’s a beautiful dream.
Posted in Government, Economics, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:38:00 GMT
I’d like to compile a list of prominent climate scientists on every side of the global warming debate, and ask them to each provide a description of the data they would require to admit that their current position is invalid.
Falsifying a hypothesis is an important part of the Scientific Method, and I’m not sure if it’s just bad reporting or not, but I usually only hear from folks who resemble tenacious pit bulls when it comes to their theories. A notable exception is Bastardi from Accuweather who was on the Dennis Miller Show the other day, talking about data being collected and how he’d form conclusions based on incoming data, and what data he’d need to see to be convinced. It’s good to see that some sensible ones are actually out there.
Posted in Government, Economics, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:57:00 GMT
Thomas Lifson points out that after Al Gore’s green refit of his Tennessee mansion, a deserving target of prior scorn, his home is now using 10% more electricity than before the refit and that this might be seen as a demonstration that energy conservation isn’t a viable national policy goal. The thought is, “if Al Gore can’t do it, how the heck is everybody else supposed to do better?”
Good point, but there’s one small problem - the data is incomplete. From the source press release:
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
OK, so his electricity has increased 10% but what of his total energy usage? How have his natural gas bills changed over the same time period, if at all? If he was getting all of his energy via electricity via safe, necessary nuclear energy then his carbon load would be close to zero, even if his electricity was up by 10%.
So, if Al Gore’s gas bills have gone up or stayed consistent then the truth belies his agenda. However, if they’ve fallen dramatically (we can calculate BTU’s from kilowatts and cubic feet of gas) then the Tennessee Center loses credibility. I’ve sent them an e-mail for clarification.
Posted in Government, Homebuilding, Economics, Science | 1 comment | no trackbacks
