The Greatest. Nerdiest post ever...

http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html

Gotta love someone who is willing to go through this to find the smallest executable program possible.  Well worth a read.

What is wrong with people?

So, I am in a frustrated mood tonight.  Just in general so I am going to vent about idiotic people.

So in our apartment complex there is a rule that you cannot put anything in the hallway between the apartments.  The hallway is outdoors and connects the apartments to the stairs and the elevator.  Well we are right next to a grocery store.  So people bring the carts back to their apartment.  This I have absolutely no problem with.  Technically the carts are not to leave the parking lot however if you bring it back, I won't complain.  However they never bring them back.  They are just thrown into the hallway.  I remember one morning I got up and it had been placed right up next to my door.  A clear violation of the rules and the law.  (It is illegal to block a fire escape path.)  So I am sure most people can already see why this pisses me off so much.

When you move in here you sign the agreement which says you will obey these rules.  What really gets me is I have reported this a million times and the company has not done anything to fix the situation.  This Sunday I actually caught one lady take a cart from the pile in the hallway and use it to go shopping, then she came back put it back.  Not only that but she didn't stack it, you know so the carts take up the least amount of space.  So it is sitting out in the middle of the hallway.  What kind of person would do that?  The worst kind of person in the world.

I mean come on, this is a clear case of put it back.  It is not like anyone walks into a store looks at a cart and wonders what the fuck it is for.  They don't try to wear it.  Everyone knows how to use a cart.  It is a clear showing of the absolute contempt that person has for everyone else.  There are carts all over the complex because of these people.  It is just beyond my comprehension that someone could be a good person and do this.

I know I rant about this all the time but if you don't like a law or rule, get it changed, don't just ignore it.  There are mostly two camps in the world.  People who follow rules and laws (me) and those that don't.  If you are in the former camp you are a chump if people can break the laws and get away with it.  It is just so frustrating.  I know my apartment complex management is getting tired of me complaining but they refuse to do anything about it.  I feel like I should start just putting my garbage in those carts since placing garbage outside your apartment but not in the dumpster is against the rules, just to see what they will do.

These people who leave the carts here just show a complete lack of respect for other people.  Who cannot spare 10 minutes tops that it takes to return something THAT YOU USED.  It makes me feel like there is a fundamental problem with America and its people, screw that, with people all over the world.  If we cannot just follow the simpliest of rules and respect our neighbors how can we ever make the world a better place?  I hope this lady enjoys hell, I hear it is warm there.

What Einstein would have said to put you to sleep

...in the kitchen.

So this is just a quick review of "What Einstein told his Cook 2."  Total yawn-fest.  I can't recommend this book.  However I will give it a few fun stars.  So my wife picked up this book off the bargin rack at a local independent book store.  It is very light reading.  It is slightly interesting as the author explains some things about the world of cooking, why things happen, etc.  I love it when tells you what is snake oil.  There is a lot of it in cooking apparently.  Despite these coupe of sections (a section is like 2 pages) mostly I was left thinking one of two things : "I wish he would give more detail about this," or "This is boring, shut-up."  It took me way too long to finish such a fluffy book which speaks to my lack of enthusiasm about the book.  However I will admit I am not the target audience.  I think the target was the average America who knows almost no science and can burn water.

Anyway, I can't recommend this book.

Human Nature

So I read a lot of websites and I usually read the comments because occasionally I find good information there.  (Though mostly it is garbage.)

What is interesting to me (at least today) is that it seems like everyone is 'smart'.  (There is a long conversation coming up about 'smart' and whether the word every means something.)  So I read a lot about economics, I know surprise.  It seems like every article out there is about how the debt is too big, how no one wants socialized health care (including liberal sites I may add).  Additionally all of the comments are usually in line with my thinking.  So the question is this: If everyone thinks some thing is wrong then why are we still on this track?  (This extends beyond health care and the debt to the complicated tax system, wars, etc.)  Who are these people.  So I have two theories:

1. The average person on the internet is very homogeneous.  Especially when it comes to commenting and posting on websites.  This kind of makes sense as the average person who uses the internet for more than just virtual farming (which I do too) has more money (thus would be more worried about these things), has more education (there is a known correlation with wealth and internet usage), and/or younger Americans (which are more homogeneous in that we have a lot of the same thoughts and fears.
2. The other possibility is that I am just crazy and everyone doesn't agree with me.  While I agree this is true the extent seems very muted in general.

So basically my question is this:  Has anyone else noticed this affect and how can the country be on the wrong track and everyone knows it.  Doesn't a democracy preclude that from happening?  Or are all the people who care just uninterested in politics?  Your thoughts?

Why 24 Hour News Anchors are Morons

So here is the video : here : it is about a teacher who has sex with a student.  Here is the biggest problem, really listen to the anchor here talking to the guy in the studio.  He basically says nothing, he asks, "What are the kids saying."  And the other guy is like, we don't know.  Then the anchor is like "What are the parents saying."  Then the other guy is like, we don't know.  So incredibly stupid.  Worst segment ever (well not really but I will say for now it is).  This reminds me of the anchors on CNBC who try to sound smart and just come off sounding like morons when they say anything about the markets.  Now there are people on CNBC who know something, they just aren't the anchors.

Once again Education is broken.

So I am sure everyone has heard about the Texas school board ruling on the content of books.  If not here is a short list of possible reading material:

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/
• http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/11/kelly-shackelford-texas-textbook-social-studies-standards-american-history/

So what happened?  They revised their content of the school books.  Why is it important?  Mostly because they changed a lot of stuff that a lot of people disagree with, in both ways.  So I thought I would weigh in on a bunch of the changes, since I am sure everyone cares what I think.  (Most of these are taken from the MSNBC article.)

As an aside, no government or political intervention should be done into textbooks.  In general I a free knowledge proponent.  Basically I think facts should be stated as fact and theories as theories.  Also I think more discussion and reading is better than none.

• BC and AD vs BCE and CE.  Texas is wrong in my opinion.  AD is completely wrong given current scholarly work on the death of Christ anyway.  It is dumb.  (Texas 0, Anti-Texas 1)
• Origin of Isreali Conflict.  This is a tough one, it really depends on how it is specified.  If the conflict is specified in a politically agnostic way then this is a win for Texas but I doubt it will be so I will give each side a 0.5.  (Texas 0.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
• Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.  Win for Texas.  This shows a women in a powerful position and gives historical context to the era.  The reason the left doesn't like it I would imagine is that she was associated with Thatcher in England and more libertarian market principles.  (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
• Second Amendment.   Not a win for Texas.  Unless of course the section specifies how all of the bill of rights can be applied to good citizenship.  (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
• The conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.  Important because it gives a context to things that happened in politics after the long new deal era.  As long as the previous decades are correctly talked about in the context of the broader political significance.  (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
• Phyllis Schlafly.  It is good to know the opposite side of discussions however I don't know why she was there.  Plus this is likely too specific for the age groups.  (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 3.5)
• The Contract With America.  Seems to me to be the pinnacle of the resurgence of conservative.  However I don't know why would point this out in isolation.  This sounds like a biased view of the contract so I am going 0.5 for each here.  (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 4.0)
• The Heritage Foundation.  This doesn't need to be talked about separately.  This is too specific for HS and younger kids. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 5.0)
• The Moral Majority.  Again too specific.  Could be a passing comment in the resurgence section. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 6.0)
• The National Rifle Association. Don't see why this is relevant.  They haven't done anything except protect the second amendment.  This should be in the same section as the ACLU.  (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 7.0)
• Violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach.  This is a tough one because it is an example of opposing forces for the same product.  It is also a good example of the triumph of nonviolent approaches and using the system to get change.  This is like talking about Gandhi in India.  I am going with a 0.25 because I think the Black Panthers will be misrepresented.  (Texas 3.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Votes in Congress on civil rights legislation.  It was bipartisan to an extent.  Should be noted.  (Texas 4.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.  Absolutely.  However I question whether Keynes should be studied directly in HS anyway.  If you are going to study Keynes and economic history you need to include the works of Hayek and Friedman.  If not the students would get a very one sided view of government intervention in the economy.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Hip-Hop.  Signficant.  Texas loses because all theydo is line dance.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 8.75)
• Trivializing Hispanics.  Bad, there are more than just cowboys and Christians in the world.  Texas loses 2 points for that.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 10.75)
• "laws of nature and nature's God". Sounds like a bad idea.  Government should be independent of the people.  This seems like a misleading requirement to represent history wrongly.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• "Democratic" to "Constitutional Republic."  This is correct.  (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specifies a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• "Analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."For a history course?  Maybe talk about it but to have a worksheet on it is likely dumb.  Texas Loses here.  (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 12.75)
• Germans and Italians were interned in the United States during World War II.   This happened and there are lots of reasons for this however this seems to downplay the amount of internment for Japanese Americans. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 13.75)
• "How the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." This seems to downplay the actual lesson here that the hearings were mostly unconstitutional and violated due process.  We'll give Texas 0.25 for that.  (Texas 6.5, Anti-Texas 15.5)
• "The importance of personal responsibility for life choices" in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders. However this seems to mistake the influence of external factors.  I'll give each 0.5 because in the end people need to be accountable for their decisions.  (Texas 7, Anti-Texas 16)

So we can see since 16 > 7 and no one required anti-counting in Texas that Texas has some problems with their standards.  It seems like the board has some points that the history should be taught in a more even handed manner giving weight to more sides of the stories given current knowledge.  However it seems a little over-handed in some cases.

The Earthquake Map

So I have a great website for you to visit:  here.

This is such an awesome mash-up of information.  It is amazing how well presented it is.  Additionally all of this information is online.  Yes.  Here, from the government no less.  I know it is a common perception that I think the government can do nothing right.  (Which is wrong.)  I just believe the government should do as little as possible.  This is an example of something that society can benefit from.  Here is a website about earthquakes that can be used by scientists and scholars for years to study earthquakes.  So here you go, an example of good government spending (however I won't comment on whether the cost is worth it, but) at least $0.00001 of my money is going to something I enjoy using.

Passing Health Care would sink both Parties...

I may be overstepping the analysis there but I think it is interesting that reason.com has two articles on their main page right now:

• ObamaCare : Basically the thesis is that the democrats are wrong pushing this bill through at this time.  This will likely (and I agree here) sink the democrats in the midterm in general.  As much as I hate this 'vote for a party' BS that most people employ in this case it makes sense because all of each party are standing on the same side of the line.
• Repealing Healthcare : The second article is basically stating that the republicans will be impotent in removing the health care once it is passed.  This is interesting to me and the article makes some points that I think are valid.  Mostly about removing entitlements.  I know first hand this problem as I talk to aging/retiring baby boomers and they say 'the debt is too big, the country is doomed' but then I say, 'Well we could cut social security, and medicaid and that will help a lot' to which I hear 'You're crazy.'

More on Health Care to come as we will eventually get something out of this congress.  I just hope somehow the politicians don't screw up the country more than it is when it comes to entitlements.

Fair(ly different) and Balanc(ing on the edge)

So if you read my links on the left you will see a link for uncommon knowledge over there.  I will say from the onset that National Review Online and Uncommon Knowledge are conservative news sources.  I like listening to Uncommon Knowledge because they usually have some really smart conservative people on the show.  I feel this is a good balance to the more common Keynesian economists on the more mainstream news.  However when it comes to reporting you have to look at all of the news in that light.  However what is interesting is the interviews with Roger Ailes (Yes, of Fox News).  The links are here: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5), yes there are 5 - 8 minute sections.

This interview is very slanted to conservative views, you can tell the moderator/interviewer is very conservative.  He is usually well informed and insightful however in this case I don't think he is doing a good job for reference.  What is most interesting to me is something that came up when I visited Texas recently, how different others view points are, and how much they believe it.

This has gotten me to thinking (in addition to the psychology literature I have been reading recently) do maybe all people have very similar views and the projection of them is warped by upbringing and nurture that we just drift in different ways?  I mean all people (in general) don't want others to suffer needlessly.  All people would like clean water to drink.  All people care that others are generally comfortable to an extent.  (I mean I this there is a distribution on all of these because some people are just more 'evil' than others but the variance is smaller.)  Could we all just be focused on different aspects.

For instance, housing crisis:  I don't want people out on the street, however I feel it is better to let Austrian economics rule and let the market return to correct level (price wise) because it will do the most good for the country.  This will make housing more affordable, clear back inventory, get non-junk bonds in the market, etc.  However someone else might say they support strong government intervention to support the unnaturally high price levels because then people have an incentive to pay, homelessness and vacant housing leads to crime and problems, and eventually inflation will catch up and the housing will return to an affordable level.

So what is different here?  Actually not that much behind the scenes.  We both want affordable housing, we both want people to own houses if they like, we both want better lives for the general public but our 'political' viewpoints are very different.  Mine would be considered Austrian and the other would be considered Keynesian.  I wonder if this is how politics really is.  Same problem, same basic values, but nurture causes us to slightly favor one thing which causes us to listen to people who capitalize on that one thing.  This in turn causes a divide between people which create partisan politics.  But at the core aren't we focused on the same goal?

I was thinking about all of this because Roger Ailes said a couple of things that got me thinking that maybe it isn't a delusion that Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. are subject to but just a viewpoint.  Some trivial thing in our past makes our implementation and leanings slightly different.  Perhaps we could get more done if we acknowledged that at the core we want to solve issues and in general want the same long term goal, then the short term implementation detail can stop seeming like huge mountains.

I will say (as an aside) I know where my freedom / personal responsibility mindset comes from, my parents were very effort oriented parents.  As long as I tried my hardest they were proud.  If I did something wrong I had to admit my guilt and accept the consequences (you can see how this falls into the housing crisis and the more general Austrian viewpoint :-) ).

They should have been worried a long time ago...

The time for action is now.  And by that I don't mean on health care (which is a mess and will create more problems than it plans to solve) or on the environment (which is not getting any help from democrats).  No I mean to vote against the dems and reps in the next election.  What is interesting is that a recent survey from Harvard says that most of the young people (in my age group) are already turning.  This is a good sign.  The article makes the valid point that the democrats need the youth vote in the next election to win.  They needed it before as well, and they are losing us.

What I find most interesting is that they likely aren't losing us to the republicans (though that would be the obvious anti-democrat vote) but to inaction which is a vote for 'none of the above' or 'both are equally good (or bad)'.  This suggests a lack of caring in my generation which isn't something the country can afford.  It is important to engage people in politics especially the young because if they are disenfranchised early they will be less likely to vote/make a difference.  So how can the country continue when an entire generation is not involved (for reference this won't be the first generation to go that way nor the last).

Mostly it seems like this is a call to action for the government to also look out for our interests.  The problem is that health care reform will place burdens on me (and my generation), lack of debt control will affect me (and my generation), special interests, stupid policies, etc. affect me (and my generation) and no one cares.  Let's be honest, the government is not looking out for us in my generation, and doing nothing is not helping us either but for many of my peers doing nothing seems to produce the same result which means the path of least resistance will be taken (a.k.a. not voting).