So Much For Meg Whitman

It’s 2010 which means come this November Arnold Schwarzenegger will no longer be Governor (being capped to two terms). I heard on the radio a candidate by the name of Meg Whitman, who seemed to be in touch when it came to government spending and general economic issues. I believe  in cutting spending and decreasing the size of government and Ms. Whitman seems the clear choice in that category.

But then I looked up her stance on various social issues and found that she supported Prop 8 and Prop 4, two measures I very strongly opposed. Oh well.

It’s an interesting problem. I want Ms. Whitman as Governor so she can (hopefully) finally fix our state, but do I really have give up my and other people’s freedoms to do so? No, I won’t do that. Even though it pains my cold, black, libertarian heart, social issues should be considered more important than economic ones.

I guess its back to the ol’ candidacy board. Maybe I’ll even have to vote (horror) Democrat.

Immortality in 20 Years

Or so. I was watching a program on the Science Channel recently called “Future Superhuman” and there was a doctor on there researching what is essentially a de-aging drug. In mice, it causes old mice literally become young again, and they said it caused similar reactions to every animal they’ve tested it on.

This is an extreme breakthrough. I may not have much interest in the “G” in GNR technologies (since “N” is going to help “R” is eventually replace “G”), but until we do upload and can live indefinitely as computer hardware instead of biological hardware, this is a significant step to be able live that long, particularly among older persons.

Also on the show was a researcher developing the basis of virtual space (i.e. directly stimulating the brain to create artificial perceptions), but we all already know the benefits of that.

A New Government

At times I wonder whether our country is on the verge of a second revolution. There is widespread distrust and dislike of the government. The government itself is constantly seen as a huge bureaucracy mess, unable to respond to even the most basic issues in a timely manner (this is all a bit exaggerated, but what matters is public perception not the actual facts).

Of course there are a few differences between today and the time of the first revolution. For one, we can vote. Before, we had no say in the government that controlled our lives. Two, the current government is honestly a whole lot less oppressive than the British government was in the 18^th century.

Still, it is still useful to imagine how the government could be improved to be effective. So, I propose two ideas that could potentially help. The first is to formalize the process of judicial review by the Supreme Court and make it a part of lawmaking. In short:

1. All bills proposed must be ratified by an independent panel to be constitutional. If they are not, the bill dies.

Basically, once a bill is passed by Congress, instead of going to the President it goes to this independent panel (which could be the Supreme Court, or another body), which is not subject to the will of Congress. This allows them to be objective and rule against legislation that is unconstitutional (i.e. stuff that the government has no business in doing) without worrying about their own job security. They cannot create legislation, only ratify or veto it (and no line-item vetos either). I think it would be best if this cannot be overruled by Congress, however they can modify the bill to make it constitutional again, which is then subject to another vote.

The second idea deals with term lengths. One of the problems, I think, the government has is that their relatively short terms mean they are unwilling to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. This is especially true of Presidents which are limited to two terms (plus another half if they happen to take over from a previous President after half a term has expired). If something is going to happen twenty years down the road, they may feel no real need to deal with it since they definitely won’t be in office then.

Of course, it’s also not a good idea to let a leader be in office for an indefinite period of time. It a very short road from that to a dictatorship, so let’s see if there’s a way to keep good leaders in their position, while retaining the ability to remove bad leaders (by public vote, not just impeachment and conviction which should obviously still be in effect). I think there is.

2. Terms are to be two years long, with an automatic term renewal should public opinion polls show a significant number of people favor the incumbent. If not, their seat is up for election, although they can still run and be reelected. Should they be removed, they are no longer eligible to hold that office.

Basically, an official public opinion poll is taken by an independent panel (perhaps the same on that votes on the constitutionality of bills) to determine how popular the incumbent is at regular intervals during their term. Perhaps this is done at six month intervals. If the polls during any interval show that too few people still approve of said office-holder, they must rerun and potentially lose their seat. I think that it should be relatively easy to trigger the re-election cycle, but not so easy as to have it happen every two years, which would tire votes. I think that the trigger should be set at 35-40% approval. They should still be able to rerun because maybe the person screwed early, but was able to fix it and the people still want them in.

Furthermore, there should still be a limit to the number of terms one can serve, even if the people approve. My best suggestion is a total of ten to fifteen terms (for a potential of twenty to thirty years in office). Furthermore, if a person is removed by popular vote, they should then be ineligible to hold the position again, no matter how long they served before.

If this system were in effect, we likely would have gotten rid of Bush in 2006, and save two years of lame-duckness.

Anyway, those are my ideas. It is possible to get them implemented by amending the constitution. Plus if I ever get around to writing my stories I can implement these ideas in any fictional government I set up.

Climate Change

Here’s an interesting video I found about global climate change. It doesn’t so much argue whether climate change is real as the possibly futures we can have depending on what we actually do. It’s pretty compelling stuff:

Of course, there is one small hole: if we do decide to act, we have to make sure what we actually do will help. Just because a scientist or an environmental group says something is good for the environment doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

For example, there’s a huge taboo today against nuclear power plants because of the radioactive waste they produce. In fact, there’s such a strong opposition to them, we end up building more coal-fired power plants which release tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere, just so we don’t have to worry about the few pounds of radioactive waste  (and, in fact, fossil fuel power plants produce over a hundred times more radiation than nuclear plants anyway).

This behavior is completely bizarre. We should be shutting down fossil fuel plants and building nuclear plants as fast as possibly, but we don’t simply because nuclear power has this connotation of being “unenvironmental”.

Potential Ocean Planet Found!

A few days ago, it was announced that the star GJ 1214 has a planet orbiting it, dubbed GJ 1214b. The massively interestesting part is they were able to measure this planet’s diameter as it transited across its star, and measure its mass via its star’s wobble like you do. Anyway, using this they calculated the planet’s density, which is estimated to be around only 1800 kg/m^3.

For comparison, Earth is around 5500 kg/m^3, while water is about 1000 kg/m^3. In other words this planet is mostly made of liquid water! At least that’s the most likely answer. The next most likely liquids (like liquid carbon dioxide) boil at a much lower temperature than what the planet is estimated be at (between 250 – 550 degrees F).

Now, the more astute among may notice that the planet is also above the boiling point of water. The thing is, as pressure goes up, so does the boiling point (the reverse is also true, which is why at higher elevations the boiling point drops and it take longer to cook food). For example, at 100 atmospheres, the boiling point of water is around 520 degrees F. So it’s possible for there to be a huge global ocean, as long as a sufficiently dense atmosphere is also there. That sounds like a pretty big conjecture, but the density of the planet is known, meaning there must be some sort of atmosphere dense enough to hold it in. My bet is that its mostly water vapor (most astronomers are saying its likely hydrogen and helium, but at the same time there’s substantial loss to space due to its proximity to the star, and there’s really no way for the planet to make more hydrogen and helium to replenish it).

So, lets explore this world together! First, based on its density, scientists calculate that it composed of roughly 25% rock and 75% water. Obviously, the rock will be in the core since rock is denser than water and will sink towards the center. The planet’s diameter is estimated to be 34,000 km across, so its core, taking up about one-fourth the volume, would be around 21,000 kilomteters across. On top of that is water, an ocean 6500 km deep. That’s roughly 1000 times as deep as Earth’s oceans!

Now some interesting things happen when you consider how that all fits together. As I said before the atmosphere is likely composed of water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and will cause the temperature to rise, causing more water to evaporate, thus increasing the greenhouse effect. This will likely continue until some sort of equilibrium is reached, where the influx of heat from the star is the same as the amount radiated away. This might be beyond the point where water goes supercritical (that is,  the line between liquid and gas vanishes and they sort ‘blend into’ each other). That means that the water vapor atmosphere likely just gets denser and denser until it reaches the density of water, at which point it can’t compress anymore.

Even more interesting is what happens down in the depths of this massive ocean. There, the pressure become high enough that the water will become solid, making an exotic form of ice known as Ice VII. This is not like ordinary ice. This is hot ice, denser than water, and probably forms a layer around the rocky core.

In short, this planet most likely looks like a miniature Jovian planet, with water as the gas present instead of hydrogen.

So what about the most obvious question: if there water, what about life? I don’t know. With supercritical water I don’t think that organic structures could even form. But, if the atmosphere really is made of hydrogen (which isn’t a greehouse gas) the temperature would stay much lower, low enough for water to retain all its life-assisting properties. Anyway, here’s a nice graphic (I like graphics) to help illustrate what this planet is like:

 

Ah Shucks, I Guess I Can’t Be A Republican

Today, the GOP decided to require their members to conform to at least eight out of ten of the following ideals otherwise they’ll lose their backing. I decided to see how I stack up against the “ideal Republican”:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

Yes, I am all smaller government, lower taxes, and less power in the hands of the government. As the old adage goes: “He who governs best, governs least.”

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare

Yes, while it would be great if we could figure out how to make sure to insure everyone, government-run anything tends to just be bloated, inefficient, and a drain on our society. It is the separation of the buyer (i.e. the patient) and the payer (i.e. the insurance company) that has caused health care costs to skyrocket (it’s the same reason my textbooks are so expensive. The professors choose the book, but we students have to pay for it). By eliminating this separation, it will force doctors and hospitals to economically compete, causing prices to go down.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation

Yes, I believe the free-market is the best way to transition us from oil-based to post-oil-based power. As cheap oil starts to run out, the price of oil goes up and other forms of energy become economically competitive, and will eventually take over. Although, I would like to see a lot more government investment in alternative energy so that it’s ready to take over when oil runs out.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

I actually had to look up what this was (even though I’m part of a worker’s union. Go figure), but I’m actually against it. It’s not that I’m against having a secret ballot for forming a union, but I do think that both paths (secret and open ballots) should be available.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants

Yes, although I would like to see lower barriers for legal immigration.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges

No, simply because “victory” is pretty much undefined. What is “victory” in Iraq, really? We ousted the Hussein and the Ba’ath Party six years ago. Was that “victory”? If so, what do you call everything since then? And in Afghanistan? Same deal. When you investigate why these people in the Middle East are becoming insurgents, you realize “victory” is impossible. The only options are retreat or stagnation.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

Yes, especially Iran. Although invading either is out of the question as it would likely just become another Iraq.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act

No. Government has no business messing with people’s personal lives. What I don’t understand is why the Republicans, ostensibly the party that wants limited government, would use it to force people to conform to their sense of dignity.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion

Yes, except for the last part. Again, why do the Republicans want to control people’s behavior in this area*? Then again, maybe the government shouldn’t be funding abortion, but it should still be legal to get in private hospitals and clinics.

10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Yes. Again, the government doesn’t have the right to mess with what people can and can’t do with their own property, including guns. Of course, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have their guns taken away if they misuse them and shoot people. But that would be similar to tearing up someone’s driver’s license because they were a dangerous driver, something no one argues again.

So, I score a 6.5 out of 10 (counting number 9 as half). Close, but I guess I lose my right-wing funding. Oh wait, I don’t get funding anyway. D’oh! 

*Don’t answer, I do know why, and, honestly, if it could be shown that a fetus is a person, I’d be against abortion too.

So Let’s See How The Last Year Panned Out

Last year on the Other Blog I wrote a typical bashing of a horoscope that was about my birthday. Now, since it is my birthday again, I can look back and see how accurate it was (hint: not at all). I mean, in science you can go back and confirm theories as much as you like. So why not in astrology? (hint: because it’s bull$#@%)

I actually haven’t read it, so I’ll be interest to see what was predicted for me and everyone else whose birthday was November 10th. Anyway, let’s go through it:

     This year brings the perfect mix of whirling excitement and cozy comfort, as your personal life expands and settles in at different times of the year.

Yes, but everyone’s life does that every year. Unless you’re a hermit or something.

     You’ll make three important new friends before the new year begins.

Nope. In fact, I barely talk to any of the people listed in the old post anymore due to transfers and different scheduling.

     Your living situation becomes more accommodating in March.

Sort of, maybe. Again, my plans really didn’t pan out as I had expected. I’m really only getting caught up in the past couple months or so.

     Travels thrill you in August.

In August I went nowhere. Nowhere with girls, anyway.

     Gemini and Libra adore you.

Again, I still know no one that were born in the relevant months. I did get back together with my ex-girlfriend, but she’s an Aquarius. Actually, maybe I’m mistaken in thinking these’s are meant to be star signs. Gemini means twins and Libra means a balance. Hmmm…in Battlestar Galactica, the planet representing Gemini is called Gemenon, which is known to be highly religious. Hmmm…maybe I am bringing balance to religious nutbags by being non-religious, and vocally so, especially now.

Hey, also, I have, in the past, gone on dates with two girls who are twins  (not at the same time, of course). And balance could be the…um…sort of…um…oh! Richmond, Virgina! Wait, what?

My head asplode.

     Your lucky numbers are 25, 3, 13, 28 and 48.

Yeah still nothing. No 3-ways or 48-ways for me this year. Although I did vomit about 28 and bashed my head against the wall 13 times while watching Expelled, just to see how it was (hint: completely wrong and blatantly offensive to me).

So, yeah, that horoscope sucked. Maybe next year the horoscope next year will be more accurate (hint: no). Anyway, stay tuned to this…um…website as I unveil Horoscope II: The Wrath of Khrap.

Bye

Ok so I just realized I haven’t posted anything in like a month and a half and was planning on coming up with some excuse or apology or something, but the truth is writing stuff is just a chore for me. Other people on their blogs and websites might promise more updates but they inevitably fail to do so and end up looking like jerks.

I know that if I promise to be more on top of posting I’ll probably break that promise too. So, I’m promising nothing. I don’t have any more plans for blog posts, and I don’t have any desire to keep posting. I may do so in the future, but there will be no regular updates or news.

Basically, I learned from designing and making my financial game that if I truly love doing something, I’ll do it without having to consider it a chore. I’ll do it for hours on end without looking up, just like I did while making my game. But maintaining this blog, and writing my stories, just seem like too much work.

So, this isn’t good-bye, just a ’see you later’. And this blog will remain up for as long as WordPress exists.

Economics of the Robotic Revolution

Today, I was thinking about robots like I often do, and I wondered how much an individual robot would have to be in order to be economically competitive with a human being. Basically,  such a robot is cheaper than hiring a living human, then it is more advantageous for a business to buy a robot than hire a person.

A good comparison I’ve found is comparing a robot to a car. Both are highly complex machines that perform important tasks for people. In fact, in a very real sense, comparing a robot to a human is much like comparing a car to its predecessor: the horse.

Cars have many advantages over horses: they are faster, more powerful. They are cheaper and easier to buy and maintain (yes, even with $3 a gallon gas).  Cars don’t die of starvation if you ignore them for a couple weeks. Cars shield you from the elements when traveling and come with air conditioning and handy cup holders…the list can go on and on. Horses used to be the common method of getting around, but now are something of an extravagance simply because something objectively better has come along.

Robots have many of the same advantages over humans as cars do over horses. Also, in terms of economics, let’s make a few assumptions. Let’s assume that a company that buys a robot keeps that robot and uses it for labor every day for 10 years. Cars regularly last 10 years or more. Let’s also assume that the robot works an average of eighteen hours a day, using the other six to recharge, repair, and generally undergo maintenance. If the company was employing a human, how much does that much manpower cost?

The answer is quite surprising. There are roughly 3,650 days in 10 years. Times 18 hours per day, means that a company would get 65,700 man-hours of labor out of one robot. The current minimum wage in the US is $7.25, so that many man-hours of labor costs $476,325. That’s almost half a million dollars. For one robot.

Now there are also issues like the cost to power and repair those robots, but again, how much does it cost to keep a car repaired and fueled? A few hundred dollars a month? Assume $500. For 10 years that works out to only $60,000.  Still, a $400,000 robot is economically competitive. Wow. Factoring in inflation that will likely happen over the next 25 years (at which point computer power becomes high enough due to Moore’s Law), an economically competitive robot will be in the $1 million range.

Today, you can buy one human brain’s worth of processing power for much less than that. Today’s supercomputers already are smarter than humans, at least in terms of computational power. Of course, as soon as a robot that costs $400,000 hits the market it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone will be fired and replaced by robots. Likely, the cost will have to come down to the point where the advantage becomes very obvious.

More Robots

The other day on my break between classes, I decided to get lunch at one of my favorite fast-food restaurants, Jack in the Box. Inside, to my surprise, I found an ordering kiosk all set up and ready to take orders. I’ve read of these, but hadn’t yet encountered one myself.

Of course, I had to use it. And I found it was pretty simple: just follow the instructions on screen. And my food was ready just as fast as it I had went to a person. I used my debit card but the machine could also take cash and dispense change.

This machine is just one highlight of the incoming robotic revolution. It does a job that supplants a human worker (in this case the cashier). But this particular type of machine does have its flaws. For one, the interface is through touchscreen. People are used to interacting via speech, and prefer to do it that way. For a kiosk like this to really take off, it would need to be able to understand and respond entirely through voice commands. Watching the other people in the restaurant order, all of them preferred to go up to the person behind the counter. One did try the kiosk, but decided to go with the person when the opportunity presented itself.

We are just beginning to see the widespread application of voice-command technology. It has a high computational demand, and is still seen as something of a novelty. But so did the PC, the ATM machine, and the telephone. Once people get over the initial unease, they often quickly realize the potential and embrace new technologies (much more so for younger generations). Coupled with the fact that voice-command technology will very likely get cheaper and higher quality due to Moore’s Law, by 2020 interacting with multiple machines and kiosks solely through voice probably won’t seem strange at all.

Once that happens, we’ll be one giant step closer to the robotic revolution.