.
Good Things
Tricking HIV to kill itself !
Caging atoms to create electricity !
Korean scientists create biofuel from e-coli bacteria strain
Algae farm in a balloon could silence algae biofuel naysayers
Ikea solar panels for sale Britain (no assembly required)
Not so good things
Conservative radio host urges GOP to screw the stock market and shut down government
Who gets screwed by a shutdown: poor people, old people, basically everyone
Economists agree government shutdown will hurt economic growth
Impact of a government shutdown on the economy (from CNN)
Andrew Tobias talks about a shut-down
In other words, everybody gets hurt. What is the matter with these sick sadistic monsters? Does their oath of office (to uphold the Constitution and protect America) mean nothing to them?
Monday, September 30, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
If People Can Buy More, Companies Can Sell More
.
I was listening a bit to a Senate committee hearing on the economy today and the Republicans were once again claiming that threatening to shut down the economy or actually doing it won't really be much of a problem for very long if nobody notices and that the federal government debt, corporate regulations, the cost of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) to business and high tax rates are the real problem. I wonder what planet they're on.
The stock market's Dow Jones Index is doing quite well, despite the recession.
Corporate After Tax Profits are doing great.
Comparing the U.S. economy to the U.K. economy, where they've exerted more austerity with less government spending, we're doing very well.
And, corporations may be complaining of higher costs from regulations and Obamacare, but their effective tax rate is very very low.
They really don't have much to complain about. But, ordinary workers do. Since the mid-1970s the income of this country has been going more and more to a smaller number of people and those with smaller incomes are barely holding even.
You may be wondering, if they're making so much money, then why aren't they expanding their factories and hiring more the way companies have always done. They're employing foreigners at lower wages, even in Socialist countries, to avoid paying the U.S. tax rate and make more profit.
It would seem like a simple thing to fix -- just end the tax deduction they use to keep their overseas profits from being taxed at U.S. rates (or after some adjustment for the taxes they pay in that foreign country). Democrats tried to do just that a couple of years ago. Senator Mitch McConnell, and all the Republicans, said "No". They filibustered the bill and killed it.
They say we have to cut the budget deficit (and we do) and never raise taxes on the rich. But, Pres. Obama has been working with them to decrease spending to bring the deficit down.
Some people have been arguing for an increase of the minimum wage to restore it to the level of 1968 (adjusted for inflation). Conservatives (and unfortunately, some Democrats) have said "No".
If people have more money they could buy more and companies who can sell more will expand their plants and hire more people to produce. And, if companies didn't find it profitable to send jobs overseas they might hire more (currently unemployed) American workers.
So, if you want to know why the economy isn't doing better, ask Republicans when they'll stop holding it back.
I was listening a bit to a Senate committee hearing on the economy today and the Republicans were once again claiming that threatening to shut down the economy or actually doing it won't really be much of a problem for very long if nobody notices and that the federal government debt, corporate regulations, the cost of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) to business and high tax rates are the real problem. I wonder what planet they're on.
The stock market's Dow Jones Index is doing quite well, despite the recession.
Corporate After Tax Profits are doing great.
Comparing the U.S. economy to the U.K. economy, where they've exerted more austerity with less government spending, we're doing very well.
And, corporations may be complaining of higher costs from regulations and Obamacare, but their effective tax rate is very very low.
They really don't have much to complain about. But, ordinary workers do. Since the mid-1970s the income of this country has been going more and more to a smaller number of people and those with smaller incomes are barely holding even.
You may be wondering, if they're making so much money, then why aren't they expanding their factories and hiring more the way companies have always done. They're employing foreigners at lower wages, even in Socialist countries, to avoid paying the U.S. tax rate and make more profit.
It would seem like a simple thing to fix -- just end the tax deduction they use to keep their overseas profits from being taxed at U.S. rates (or after some adjustment for the taxes they pay in that foreign country). Democrats tried to do just that a couple of years ago. Senator Mitch McConnell, and all the Republicans, said "No". They filibustered the bill and killed it.
They say we have to cut the budget deficit (and we do) and never raise taxes on the rich. But, Pres. Obama has been working with them to decrease spending to bring the deficit down.
Some people have been arguing for an increase of the minimum wage to restore it to the level of 1968 (adjusted for inflation). Conservatives (and unfortunately, some Democrats) have said "No".
If people have more money they could buy more and companies who can sell more will expand their plants and hire more people to produce. And, if companies didn't find it profitable to send jobs overseas they might hire more (currently unemployed) American workers.
So, if you want to know why the economy isn't doing better, ask Republicans when they'll stop holding it back.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Science & Technology Stories
.
Solar
Why are some big utilities embracing small scale solar power?
Cost of solar power in U.S. 60 percent lower than in early 2011
Solar and wind power now cheaper than coal power in the US
Algae biofuel use cuts carbon emissions 50 to 70 percent when-compared-to-petroleum says study
Transportation
New Tesla patent 400-mile battery-pack using metal air lithium-ion batteries
Solar Roadways update
That's the company making tiles which collect energy from the cars moving across them and feed it to the 'grid'. I don't remember off-hand if it also collects solar energy. Read the article and find out.
Recycling waste
Researchers create battery that recycles sewage into energy.
Maybe they can start in Washington D.C.
Scientists harness power of exoelectrogenic bacteria in wastewater to make renewable electricity.
Solar
Why are some big utilities embracing small scale solar power?
Cost of solar power in U.S. 60 percent lower than in early 2011
Solar and wind power now cheaper than coal power in the US
Algae biofuel use cuts carbon emissions 50 to 70 percent when-compared-to-petroleum says study
Transportation
New Tesla patent 400-mile battery-pack using metal air lithium-ion batteries
Solar Roadways update
That's the company making tiles which collect energy from the cars moving across them and feed it to the 'grid'. I don't remember off-hand if it also collects solar energy. Read the article and find out.
Recycling waste
Researchers create battery that recycles sewage into energy.
Maybe they can start in Washington D.C.
Scientists harness power of exoelectrogenic bacteria in wastewater to make renewable electricity.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Business of America is ... Business
.
Ehud Barak, and perhaps many others around the world, wonder about America's recent foreign policy. Is it accidental or planned, amateurish or sophisticated?
He said we established a kind of world order with stability in which everyone could do business and that recently we abandoned the leaders who kept that in place, in favor of peoples. I believe that is a slight misinterpretation, though sensible observation, of the foreign policy of America.
Consider that after World War I our president Woodrow Wilson wanted to establish an international organization which would enable diplomacy to reign and wars to end. Was that out of the goodness of his heart or self-interest for America? After World War II America implemented the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe. During the Cold War we utilized détente to keep the peace and the use of diplomacy to work toward a lasting peace. Was that for national glory or just to establish a stability for business? Why did America support Mubarak in Egypt for decades? Was it to have stability for business sake? How much business did we do with Egypt?
I believe America's vision in the area of foreign policy has always been a reflection of America itself. Our leaders have always had in mind commerce and an expansion of that to the world. But, we have also had an idealism in the area of human rights (here we call it 'civil rights') which is embedded in our Constitution and the spirit of the people to be free of European monarchy and wars. We sometimes preach about such things and forget our own excesses, but we are always reaching for the ideal when it comes to civil/human rights.
Thus, our policy has been to establish stability for business, to use diplomacy to spread the good news that our economic system, in league with the Western Europeans, was a great thing everyone should give a try. A very big part of our support for commerce is that it serves our material needs AND it gives us freedom to develop our individual interests and abilities. That's where the recent view that developments in China needn't begin with political revolution, but that if economic development leads to greater personal freedom and economic power for the populace that the country will eventually evolve to become benign, free, wealthier and happier in the world; that would also make us safer and more prosperous. Peace and prosperity can go hand-in-hand.
So, we did indeed support Mubarak for a long time, but it wasn't paying dividends for the Egyptian people beyond having time to develop their economy. Well, that time wasn't especially well-used, so it was time for another step forward. The people recognized that and so it began. That this time is full of conflict and confusion isn't surprising, but it doesn't mean America 'abandoned' the Egyptian people. It just means change is hard.
Have we 'abandoned' the Syrian people? We support their hopes to be free and prosperous, but it's hard in the middle of a civil war to recognize the secular Syrian groups we could trust to take power and those who are (in our opinion) dangerous. Thus, we are hesitant to step in to depose al Assad. We also have fewer natural national interests than we would usually hope for when involved overseas. The American public really isn't interested in an activist foreign policy just now and our government's budget isn't full of spare money for that.
However, when chemical weapons were used we had a different issue, and one which related directly to American interests. Any country which was involved or saw what happened in World War I or the Iraq-Iran wars knows chemical weapons should be banned from existence. We are seeking to eliminate the ones in Syria to keep everyone safe from them. This is self-interest and an interest in the people of the region and of seeking a new order for Syria where the people are not slaughtered by their own government. It's messy, as change often is.
Fortunately, this process has also shown the president was right during his recent election campaign when he disagreed with his competitor who said Russia was one main foreign opponent. It's shown now, as Ehud Barak recently said, that Putin and the Russians have national interests and they can be dealt with through normal diplomatic relations. The same has been true of China. This should renew the trust people have their leaders know how to advance our policy goals and that the world can be a place where people work together to achieve goals.
I think American foreign policy has been remarkably consistent as it is based on the very soul of the American people. This is naturally not the easiest thing for other peoples to grasp. I suppose the key thing to consider is that America is a place which has very high ideals and goals and we don't fear change (at least not all the time) to achieve a lot of things we want. That makes us 'leaders' and sometimes 'sanctimonious preachers'. It certainly makes us exceptional, for good or ill.
One other thing which I've noticed has been very confusing to the world is how our current president has managed the foreign policy with great respect for the limits of our Constitution and simple interests and domestic politics. This adds a layer of confusion here at home and I can only imagine foreigners being utterly frustrated with us. Some of our presidents haven't always worked this way and often our Congress has rubber-stamped the presidents plans. But, today we have great political division in the country, or at least in Washington, and ensuring we have a large degree of assent on foreign policy is essential -- even when it leaves everyone else confused.
My only suggestion to friends abroad is to talk with us and work with us on common interests. It's easier than trying to read between the lines or consulting a spiritual guide.
Ehud Barak, and perhaps many others around the world, wonder about America's recent foreign policy. Is it accidental or planned, amateurish or sophisticated?
He said we established a kind of world order with stability in which everyone could do business and that recently we abandoned the leaders who kept that in place, in favor of peoples. I believe that is a slight misinterpretation, though sensible observation, of the foreign policy of America.
Consider that after World War I our president Woodrow Wilson wanted to establish an international organization which would enable diplomacy to reign and wars to end. Was that out of the goodness of his heart or self-interest for America? After World War II America implemented the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe. During the Cold War we utilized détente to keep the peace and the use of diplomacy to work toward a lasting peace. Was that for national glory or just to establish a stability for business? Why did America support Mubarak in Egypt for decades? Was it to have stability for business sake? How much business did we do with Egypt?
I believe America's vision in the area of foreign policy has always been a reflection of America itself. Our leaders have always had in mind commerce and an expansion of that to the world. But, we have also had an idealism in the area of human rights (here we call it 'civil rights') which is embedded in our Constitution and the spirit of the people to be free of European monarchy and wars. We sometimes preach about such things and forget our own excesses, but we are always reaching for the ideal when it comes to civil/human rights.
Thus, our policy has been to establish stability for business, to use diplomacy to spread the good news that our economic system, in league with the Western Europeans, was a great thing everyone should give a try. A very big part of our support for commerce is that it serves our material needs AND it gives us freedom to develop our individual interests and abilities. That's where the recent view that developments in China needn't begin with political revolution, but that if economic development leads to greater personal freedom and economic power for the populace that the country will eventually evolve to become benign, free, wealthier and happier in the world; that would also make us safer and more prosperous. Peace and prosperity can go hand-in-hand.
So, we did indeed support Mubarak for a long time, but it wasn't paying dividends for the Egyptian people beyond having time to develop their economy. Well, that time wasn't especially well-used, so it was time for another step forward. The people recognized that and so it began. That this time is full of conflict and confusion isn't surprising, but it doesn't mean America 'abandoned' the Egyptian people. It just means change is hard.
Have we 'abandoned' the Syrian people? We support their hopes to be free and prosperous, but it's hard in the middle of a civil war to recognize the secular Syrian groups we could trust to take power and those who are (in our opinion) dangerous. Thus, we are hesitant to step in to depose al Assad. We also have fewer natural national interests than we would usually hope for when involved overseas. The American public really isn't interested in an activist foreign policy just now and our government's budget isn't full of spare money for that.
However, when chemical weapons were used we had a different issue, and one which related directly to American interests. Any country which was involved or saw what happened in World War I or the Iraq-Iran wars knows chemical weapons should be banned from existence. We are seeking to eliminate the ones in Syria to keep everyone safe from them. This is self-interest and an interest in the people of the region and of seeking a new order for Syria where the people are not slaughtered by their own government. It's messy, as change often is.
Fortunately, this process has also shown the president was right during his recent election campaign when he disagreed with his competitor who said Russia was one main foreign opponent. It's shown now, as Ehud Barak recently said, that Putin and the Russians have national interests and they can be dealt with through normal diplomatic relations. The same has been true of China. This should renew the trust people have their leaders know how to advance our policy goals and that the world can be a place where people work together to achieve goals.
I think American foreign policy has been remarkably consistent as it is based on the very soul of the American people. This is naturally not the easiest thing for other peoples to grasp. I suppose the key thing to consider is that America is a place which has very high ideals and goals and we don't fear change (at least not all the time) to achieve a lot of things we want. That makes us 'leaders' and sometimes 'sanctimonious preachers'. It certainly makes us exceptional, for good or ill.
One other thing which I've noticed has been very confusing to the world is how our current president has managed the foreign policy with great respect for the limits of our Constitution and simple interests and domestic politics. This adds a layer of confusion here at home and I can only imagine foreigners being utterly frustrated with us. Some of our presidents haven't always worked this way and often our Congress has rubber-stamped the presidents plans. But, today we have great political division in the country, or at least in Washington, and ensuring we have a large degree of assent on foreign policy is essential -- even when it leaves everyone else confused.
My only suggestion to friends abroad is to talk with us and work with us on common interests. It's easier than trying to read between the lines or consulting a spiritual guide.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Walmart Avoids Higher Minimum Wage in Washington, D.C.
.
The mayor of Washington, D.C. vetoed a bill requiring a higher minimum wage (a living wage) for the city. Walmart won.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/12/walmart-victorious-as-d-c-mayor-vetoes-living-wage-bill/
But, does America win when wages are held down, even as productivity goes up? America has done better in the past (post-World War II to 1980) growth in wealth was shared by everyone far more evenly than today and the economy grew. In 2007-8 it crashed after corporate taxes had been reduced and regulations on banking were reduced dramatically.
It's amazing the rich, and it is the rich who run major corporations, can see big government help during the recession as alright, but government interference with the minimum wage as destructive. They received trillions of dollars during the recession in bailouts and stimulus spending and now they begrudge working class receiving good wages. It's amazing and disgusting. But, more than that it isn't smart.
An economy which isn't doing well does better when propped up long enough for healing to take place -- and some of that healing is corrective legislation to regulate better. Even now the Federal Reserve is pouring billions of dollars into the economy to prop it up. When there's discussion about reducing that the Wall Street crowd cry bloody murder and claim the economy would crash without it. They love their big government when they benefit. Well, the economy could use more cash flow, but the government doesn't want to just increase quantitative easing. That money doesn't get into the hands of the consumers so much as Wall Street and corporations which are borrowing from big banks. Earlier in the recession the government gave some tax breaks to the working class and that helped. Those are (mostly) gone now.
Maybe it's time to remove the bandage from Wall Street and see how much healing has happened. If Walmart (and other big companies) think the working class doesn't need better pay and the economy is just fine, then maybe they think the healing has occurred and the economy is strong enough to stand on its own feet without big government supports.
Clearly it's time to cut back on the Quantitative Easing (QE) and quick, before America becomes a Socialist heaven for the rich.
The mayor of Washington, D.C. vetoed a bill requiring a higher minimum wage (a living wage) for the city. Walmart won.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/12/walmart-victorious-as-d-c-mayor-vetoes-living-wage-bill/
But, does America win when wages are held down, even as productivity goes up? America has done better in the past (post-World War II to 1980) growth in wealth was shared by everyone far more evenly than today and the economy grew. In 2007-8 it crashed after corporate taxes had been reduced and regulations on banking were reduced dramatically.
It's amazing the rich, and it is the rich who run major corporations, can see big government help during the recession as alright, but government interference with the minimum wage as destructive. They received trillions of dollars during the recession in bailouts and stimulus spending and now they begrudge working class receiving good wages. It's amazing and disgusting. But, more than that it isn't smart.
An economy which isn't doing well does better when propped up long enough for healing to take place -- and some of that healing is corrective legislation to regulate better. Even now the Federal Reserve is pouring billions of dollars into the economy to prop it up. When there's discussion about reducing that the Wall Street crowd cry bloody murder and claim the economy would crash without it. They love their big government when they benefit. Well, the economy could use more cash flow, but the government doesn't want to just increase quantitative easing. That money doesn't get into the hands of the consumers so much as Wall Street and corporations which are borrowing from big banks. Earlier in the recession the government gave some tax breaks to the working class and that helped. Those are (mostly) gone now.
Maybe it's time to remove the bandage from Wall Street and see how much healing has happened. If Walmart (and other big companies) think the working class doesn't need better pay and the economy is just fine, then maybe they think the healing has occurred and the economy is strong enough to stand on its own feet without big government supports.
Clearly it's time to cut back on the Quantitative Easing (QE) and quick, before America becomes a Socialist heaven for the rich.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
How We Think, Part XXLV
.
Did you know Romans who used numbers like XXLV didn't have a number for zero? Just a bit of trivia.
Recently I've been trying to blend all the different things about how we think into a smooth easy-to-use process for chess.
-- Position weaknesses & threats silently described (to see the parts and sequence for threats left-brain-wise).
-- Forcing variations seen as simply pieces moving on the board in your mind to engage the right-brain.
-- Strategic goals silently stated to provide direction for our imagination to find solutions.
-- Adjustments to move-sequences to find the best. It seems our first try is rarely best.
-- Breathe deeply and slowly to calm the inner beast. This is the one conscious way to influence it.
Your goal could be something abstract like "to get more and more advantage to win". However, one's goal could be something concrete like winning a pawn or controlling a file or leading the opponent to misplace a piece.
Saturday I played in a consultation game and realized that often I wasn't following this at all. Quite often I would quickly jump from position analysis and strategic goals to move selection instead of forcing moves/sequences. It seems that considering forcing moves isn't always the most natural. However, I would quickly add that when I did adhere to "position weaknesses & threats, forcing moves, strategic goals" order of things it went pretty well. It seemed always to be a question not of what forcing moves are possible, but what sequence could I/we use to achieve an immediate tactical/positional goal. That leads me to believe we need to have a good sense of the goals before considering any candidate solutions.
Position: weaknesses & threats
Goal(s): longer-term strategic things and shorter-term concrete positional things
Forcing-moves solution
Plan solution
Adjustments (to improve the quality of the line you will play)
Where the "connect the dots" intuition comes into play is in the forcing move sequence solution where we're intuiting candidate moves and guessing our opponents responses as we go. There's a bit of the "solitaire chess" where you guess moves for both sides.
A writer once sent a long letter to a friend and then apologized for its length. He said he just didn't have enough time to make it shorter. I think a lot of our initial move-sequences are overly long or convoluted because we need time to make them better (usually shorter too).
Did you know Romans who used numbers like XXLV didn't have a number for zero? Just a bit of trivia.
Recently I've been trying to blend all the different things about how we think into a smooth easy-to-use process for chess.
-- Position weaknesses & threats silently described (to see the parts and sequence for threats left-brain-wise).
-- Forcing variations seen as simply pieces moving on the board in your mind to engage the right-brain.
-- Strategic goals silently stated to provide direction for our imagination to find solutions.
-- Adjustments to move-sequences to find the best. It seems our first try is rarely best.
-- Breathe deeply and slowly to calm the inner beast. This is the one conscious way to influence it.
Your goal could be something abstract like "to get more and more advantage to win". However, one's goal could be something concrete like winning a pawn or controlling a file or leading the opponent to misplace a piece.
Saturday I played in a consultation game and realized that often I wasn't following this at all. Quite often I would quickly jump from position analysis and strategic goals to move selection instead of forcing moves/sequences. It seems that considering forcing moves isn't always the most natural. However, I would quickly add that when I did adhere to "position weaknesses & threats, forcing moves, strategic goals" order of things it went pretty well. It seemed always to be a question not of what forcing moves are possible, but what sequence could I/we use to achieve an immediate tactical/positional goal. That leads me to believe we need to have a good sense of the goals before considering any candidate solutions.
Position: weaknesses & threats
Goal(s): longer-term strategic things and shorter-term concrete positional things
Forcing-moves solution
Plan solution
Adjustments (to improve the quality of the line you will play)
Where the "connect the dots" intuition comes into play is in the forcing move sequence solution where we're intuiting candidate moves and guessing our opponents responses as we go. There's a bit of the "solitaire chess" where you guess moves for both sides.
A writer once sent a long letter to a friend and then apologized for its length. He said he just didn't have enough time to make it shorter. I think a lot of our initial move-sequences are overly long or convoluted because we need time to make them better (usually shorter too).
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Republicans Like to Say We Don't Need So Much Government
.
But, who will take care of massive problems like Syria, the Fukushima reactor problems, economic systemic problems leading to mass poverty, investment in basic science which corporations aren't going to do, bridge building and regulating people and companies from killing one another (or the honey bees)?
Economic System Woes
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-it-still-feels-like-a-recession-to-95-of-america-2013-8
http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/
http://inequality.org/ceo-pay-revealing-retrospective/
Basic Scientific Research
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/28/scientists-identify-protein-behind-age-related-memory-loss-in-mice/
Nuclear Reactor Meltdown Endangers Humanity
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/04/nuclear-disaster-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-would-now-be-fatal-within-hours/
Corporate Use of Pesticides Endangers Bees
http://grist.org/news/farm-kills-millions-of-bees-with-illegal-pesticide-spraying-gets-slap-on-wrist/
Bridges in Danger of Collapsing
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/09/04/engineers-thousands-us-bridges-dangerously-close-collapsing-matter-time/
Fortunately we know that putting people to work on these problems also boosts the economy when they spend their incomes on food, gas, health care and other things. It's a good thing to solve our problems for the obvious reasons and for the economy.
But, who will take care of massive problems like Syria, the Fukushima reactor problems, economic systemic problems leading to mass poverty, investment in basic science which corporations aren't going to do, bridge building and regulating people and companies from killing one another (or the honey bees)?
Economic System Woes
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-it-still-feels-like-a-recession-to-95-of-america-2013-8
http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/
http://inequality.org/ceo-pay-revealing-retrospective/
Basic Scientific Research
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/28/scientists-identify-protein-behind-age-related-memory-loss-in-mice/
Nuclear Reactor Meltdown Endangers Humanity
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/04/nuclear-disaster-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-would-now-be-fatal-within-hours/
Corporate Use of Pesticides Endangers Bees
http://grist.org/news/farm-kills-millions-of-bees-with-illegal-pesticide-spraying-gets-slap-on-wrist/
Bridges in Danger of Collapsing
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/09/04/engineers-thousands-us-bridges-dangerously-close-collapsing-matter-time/
Fortunately we know that putting people to work on these problems also boosts the economy when they spend their incomes on food, gas, health care and other things. It's a good thing to solve our problems for the obvious reasons and for the economy.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Dangers Near and Far: Chemical Weapons and Nuclear Waste
.
Even as Congress debates a response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria there is another danger we need to recognize and respond to. The Fukushima nuclear reactor collapse when the tsunami hit created a big big problem which hasn't been solved (not by any measure).
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/02/fukushima-radiation-levels-18-times-higher-than-thought/
http://enenews.com/global-threat-fukushima-4-fuel-pool-greatest-threat-humanity-faced-ceo
However annoying it may be to deal with Syria the threat to our long-term survivability has to have priority.
Even as Congress debates a response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria there is another danger we need to recognize and respond to. The Fukushima nuclear reactor collapse when the tsunami hit created a big big problem which hasn't been solved (not by any measure).
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/02/fukushima-radiation-levels-18-times-higher-than-thought/
http://enenews.com/global-threat-fukushima-4-fuel-pool-greatest-threat-humanity-faced-ceo
However annoying it may be to deal with Syria the threat to our long-term survivability has to have priority.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Minimum Wage and Work at McDonald's
.
I recently spoke to a Libertarian friend of mine who has a college degree and is working at McDonald's. He recently had a bit of an accident and had hospital bills and he has a big student loan debt. I asked him how much he made and what it would take for him to be able to begin paying off his bills. He hadn't calculated that, but estimated it was about $ 0.50- 0.75 / hour more than he currently makes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-the-minimum-wage-would-be-today-if-the-original-marchers-on-washington-got-their-demands-2013-8
http://www.businessinsider.com/workers-of-america-are-getting-screwed-2013-8
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/08/29/american-fast-food-workers-organize-nationwide-strikes-over-wages/
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18521-finishing-the-march-for-livable-wages
I remember having a college degree and asking for $20 / hour (less than my union plumber brother makes) and getting laughed at. How much should a college grad make these days? How much does it take to live?
At the gym some people were discussing unemployment and gov't welfare and they seemed to think people should work for peanuts instead of getting more from welfare. I asked, why shouldn't someone do what gets them the most? Why should someone spend their time working for so little? If welfare pays so little then why are any employers paying even less?
People need to be paid enough to live and pay off bills.
I recently spoke to a Libertarian friend of mine who has a college degree and is working at McDonald's. He recently had a bit of an accident and had hospital bills and he has a big student loan debt. I asked him how much he made and what it would take for him to be able to begin paying off his bills. He hadn't calculated that, but estimated it was about $ 0.50- 0.75 / hour more than he currently makes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-the-minimum-wage-would-be-today-if-the-original-marchers-on-washington-got-their-demands-2013-8
http://www.businessinsider.com/workers-of-america-are-getting-screwed-2013-8
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/08/29/american-fast-food-workers-organize-nationwide-strikes-over-wages/
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18521-finishing-the-march-for-livable-wages
I remember having a college degree and asking for $20 / hour (less than my union plumber brother makes) and getting laughed at. How much should a college grad make these days? How much does it take to live?
At the gym some people were discussing unemployment and gov't welfare and they seemed to think people should work for peanuts instead of getting more from welfare. I asked, why shouldn't someone do what gets them the most? Why should someone spend their time working for so little? If welfare pays so little then why are any employers paying even less?
People need to be paid enough to live and pay off bills.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
How to Think under Time Constraint
.
I've been looking at how we think, in its many ways, but when practicing that in blitz chess it doesn't seem very efficient and effective. It's too left-brain sequential and not fluid enough or fast enough. The following e-msg and my response explains.
A friend writes and points me to a Dan Heisman article on chess.com. Heisman is a national master in America, noted for being a great teacher of weaker players.
I responded...
I've been looking at how we think, in its many ways, but when practicing that in blitz chess it doesn't seem very efficient and effective. It's too left-brain sequential and not fluid enough or fast enough. The following e-msg and my response explains.
A friend writes and points me to a Dan Heisman article on chess.com. Heisman is a national master in America, noted for being a great teacher of weaker players.
I responded...
Yesterday at the club I tried to do the stuff I've been talking about and in blitz I couldn't focus well for a while and even when I did focus I found it impossible to go down the list of 'things to do'. It just seems too long and intricate. Perhaps in a slower game it could work, but it just doesn't work in blitz.
I had to adjust as the day went on and begin to rely more on my opening knowledge and general principles of positional play and all the standard things.
It seems to me we do have to be very familiar with the position before us and know its weaknesses (for both sides) and how we might try to exploit those without giving up the farm to do it. Thus, dividing the position into chunks and silently describing their weaknesses to ourselves just seems far too slow. However, knowing the weaknesses is crucial to focus our play. Likewise, "silently stating the goal" may be useful, but when considering various possibilities it's enough to realize which of them meets the broad general offensive goal best without destroying our own position. "Hurry slowly" as Kasparov and others have said is good advice. Where the biggest difference in blitz and tournament chess comes in is the time spent considering various plans or doing blunder-checking. I prefer these days to try to maintain a safe position rather than having to face unrelenting threats to my weak spots which I have to respond to. It's easier to have a safe stable base and be free to play offense. Considering a prototype plan and making alterations to improve it is probably very important, though the time spent on that would naturally vary as the clock allows.
In The Grandmaster's Mind Boris Gelfand said he just came up with a tactical or strategic idea and then tried to find a way to make it work. I think that about says the same thing as I got from watching a ChessBase magazine video of Shirov describing his analytic work. There has to be a lot of focus on concrete ways to get positional or material advantages or eventually mate and one can do that abstractly or concretely (with variations) and finding the best strongest idea has to somehow come very naturally (like intuition it comes from careful study of master games).
Heisman advocates a lengthy process, much as I and others have described (including Daniel King) with something Gelfand himself couldn't manage. I think the time the top GMs are spending on various moves and variations and their evaluations simply precludes so much on these other things. Or perhaps, it's somewhat the same except the GMs have streamlined the execution of it.
Heisman is teaching weaker players and needs to describe a lot of fundamentals as he goes and the GMs already know the fundamentals and practice them regularly, so for them it's just a matter of keeping their high level of objectivity and being mentally in shape to do the work at top speed and of course producing opening novelties.
Nigel Short today said one of the biggest things that has changed in his play as he aged has been that he simply doesn't do opening research any more. I suspect a lot of the rest of his play is still excellent. His analysis of these World Cup games has been spot on most of the time. Interestingly Short also said he had a few opponents who just regularly drubbed him: Kasparov, Ivanchuk & Shirov. Well, we know about Kasparov, but his problems with Ivanchuk and Shirov probably indicates their calculation skills were finding holes in Short's positional play & plans or they were just interfering enough to throw him off. That certainly teaches a valuable lesson in itself. Still, it was Short who got to the world championship and not Ivanchuk or Shirov (though he earned it). I wonder if Ivanchuk or Shirov could've beaten Karpov or Timman in 1991?
We can use pattern recognition and creation (when creating a safe structure for ourselves or recognizing weaknesses in the opponent's position) and good evaluation of theoretical weaknesses to see if they are in fact weaknesses we might seriously seek to exploit and good move selection & planning to generate good plans (for both sides).
Nuts & bolts make the car work, not the owner's manual.
Somewhere in the process there still must be a way to emphasize left- & right-brain utilization using silent verbalization of the position or goals or evaluations while also using visualization of positions and variations or revisions. Making our brain work at its best also has to require good eating & sleeping & exercise habits and knowing when to focus & work and when to walk about & relax. Breathe deeply & slowly to calm the reptile inside and feed the body to keep blood sugar steady.
A finely-tuned chess player has a lot of parts working as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)