So the US approved the first nuclear reactors since 1979 with the Three Mile Island boogie. The real question is why this is the first approval since then? Why does this approval come so close to the near catastrophe in Japan? Heck Germany (the ones trying to tell everyone else how to run their balance sheets) has gone as far to say they are going to shut down all of their reactors to avoid the same potential fate as Japan. Now that the approvals are out in the open, I suspect you'll start seeing more sensational news reporting on radiation leaks at existing plants - heck in VT there were reports of radioactive fish being caught right outside the cooling towers sparking mass hysteria. A majority of media outlets are leaving out details, such as testing at the facilities report no radiation leaks and that other fish in the same stream at the other end of the state, 150 miles away, have the same radiation levels - good little tidbit which changes the severity of the situation. Not to mention, in America we don't build reactors on fault lines or earthquake central.
Not all that long ago, I lived 10 miles from an aging plant. Sure it wasn't the greatest landmark the area has known, but I really didn't mind it. Some of my lesser intelligent friends were even concerned for my life, I was moving so close to a reactor after all. These same friends also think that radiation causes three legged frogs and birth defects: lead and fertilizers cause that stuff, all radiation does is kill you or give you cancer. All I have to say is it's about damn time the flukes on capital hill moved along something that is actually beneficial to the prosperity of this great nation. There has never been a better thing for the environment than nuclear power - it's basically steam on steroids. No real waste products, no hazardous green house gases and jigga-what-whats (see what I did there?) of power for the masses. Sure you need to bury the spent fuel rods in barren deserts forever, but is that really all that bad?
All I can say is, mother nature loves nuclear power and I'm sure the tree huggers are loving this. Plus it just might drive the cost of electricity down to where plug-in electric cars are cost effective in a person's lifetime.
Showing posts with label Very important. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Very important. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The perfect Valentine's Day gift
Valentine's Day is a comin'. Let's do something special for that special someone this year. Skip the cliched flowers and heart-shaped box of chocolates, they just tell the world you're lazy and only willing to do the absolute minimum when it comes to romancing. Let's not do the expensive jewelry thing either, that really just wrecks the curve. Here's my suggestion, it's something that I think will really be a show stopper.
Nothing says I love you quite like a solid block of rich, dark chocolate molded in the exact dimensions of your own heart. Here's how to do it. Go to a doctor, preferably one that operates on a fold out table down some dark alley. Pay him the requisite fee of $500. He'll hook you up to some very professional-looking machinery. Along with his fine medical team, he'll cut you open, hopefully using a non-invasive incision like the autopsy y-cut. From there, he'll clamp off some of your blood vessels, as a machine will now circulate the blood through your system, and carefully extract your heart. He'll then put your heart in a container and cover it in quick setting plaster. After the plaster has had time to cure, he'll painstakingly saw the mold in half, making sure not to damage any living tissue, brush off the heart, and then place it snugly back into your chest cavity. With some reattaching of arteries and restarting your heart, he'll close up your chest. Voila, you can now make exact replicas of your own heart out of whatever you'd like. In the spirit of Valentine's day, chocolate seems the most appropriate, but feel free to use Jello or frozen orange juice or anything that will hold the shape. Be creative!
Also, keep in mind that Valentine's day is also known as National Organ Donor Day, so if you don't have a sweetheart, you can still give someone a sweet heart.
Nothing says I love you quite like a solid block of rich, dark chocolate molded in the exact dimensions of your own heart. Here's how to do it. Go to a doctor, preferably one that operates on a fold out table down some dark alley. Pay him the requisite fee of $500. He'll hook you up to some very professional-looking machinery. Along with his fine medical team, he'll cut you open, hopefully using a non-invasive incision like the autopsy y-cut. From there, he'll clamp off some of your blood vessels, as a machine will now circulate the blood through your system, and carefully extract your heart. He'll then put your heart in a container and cover it in quick setting plaster. After the plaster has had time to cure, he'll painstakingly saw the mold in half, making sure not to damage any living tissue, brush off the heart, and then place it snugly back into your chest cavity. With some reattaching of arteries and restarting your heart, he'll close up your chest. Voila, you can now make exact replicas of your own heart out of whatever you'd like. In the spirit of Valentine's day, chocolate seems the most appropriate, but feel free to use Jello or frozen orange juice or anything that will hold the shape. Be creative!
Also, keep in mind that Valentine's day is also known as National Organ Donor Day, so if you don't have a sweetheart, you can still give someone a sweet heart.
Well, I blew it
Colorado and Minnesota, what gives? Hate you guys. New prediction: This ice cream I am about to consume will be delicious. Yep, it is. The streak is back!
Monday, February 6, 2012
I just wanna note real quick...
...that we nailed Nevada, Groundhog Day, and the Super Bowl winner. So...word to ya motha.
Onto Colorado and Minnesota we go:
1st: Rom Mittney
2nd: Sant Rickorum
3rd: Ging Newtrich
4th: Pan Roul
Same for bof states. Be amazed, y'all.
Onto Colorado and Minnesota we go:
1st: Rom Mittney
2nd: Sant Rickorum
3rd: Ging Newtrich
4th: Pan Roul
Same for bof states. Be amazed, y'all.
Friday, February 3, 2012
It's morning in America
US economy grows 243,000 jobs in the month of January. In other news, Obama is looking to be a safer bet for re-election everyday.
Addendum: I should explain what I think is happening. In part two of my series on the jobs crisis, I said that too-high (cyclical) unemployment is due to interest rates being too high. To be more precise, there is a so-called "natural" rate of interest, which is the interest rate that would equate planned savings and planned investment, keeping aggregate demand on target. Aggregate demand management involves moving the market rate of interest to keep up with movements in the natural rate of interest. The Fed has been keeping its policy rate near zero since late 2008, so why is the (cyclical) employment situation improving? My view is that the natural rate of interest is rising, which effectively makes the Fed's unchanged stance more expansionary than it was previously.
Why is the natural rate of interest rising? Well, folks haven't been spending a whole lot (hence weak aggregate demand). Consumer durables (e.g., cars) only work for so long. At some point, you cannot delay that new car purchase any longer, so, you have to borrow more (more planned investment) and consume more (less planned savings). Together, that makes for a higher natural rate of interest. In other words, when a recession hits, consumers delay a lot of discretionary purchases until they're more comfortable with their financial circumstances, but you can only delay such purchases for so long. This crisis has been going on so long, and Americans are sufficiently impatient, that they're starting to go ahead with those purchases anyway. And that means that the Fed is effectively stimulating aggregate demand more than it was before, even if its interest rate policy is effectively the same (though they have been dragging out the first projected rate hike for some time, so that probably helps, too). If enough people begin to replenish their consumer durables, a self-sustaining recovery may be underway, as long as the Fed doesn't prematurely strangle it. Hence, it's morning in America...I think. (Buy stocks, sell bonds).
P.S. Matt Yglesias agrees with me to an eery extent. In fairness I generally see things the same way he does...
Addendum: I should explain what I think is happening. In part two of my series on the jobs crisis, I said that too-high (cyclical) unemployment is due to interest rates being too high. To be more precise, there is a so-called "natural" rate of interest, which is the interest rate that would equate planned savings and planned investment, keeping aggregate demand on target. Aggregate demand management involves moving the market rate of interest to keep up with movements in the natural rate of interest. The Fed has been keeping its policy rate near zero since late 2008, so why is the (cyclical) employment situation improving? My view is that the natural rate of interest is rising, which effectively makes the Fed's unchanged stance more expansionary than it was previously.
Why is the natural rate of interest rising? Well, folks haven't been spending a whole lot (hence weak aggregate demand). Consumer durables (e.g., cars) only work for so long. At some point, you cannot delay that new car purchase any longer, so, you have to borrow more (more planned investment) and consume more (less planned savings). Together, that makes for a higher natural rate of interest. In other words, when a recession hits, consumers delay a lot of discretionary purchases until they're more comfortable with their financial circumstances, but you can only delay such purchases for so long. This crisis has been going on so long, and Americans are sufficiently impatient, that they're starting to go ahead with those purchases anyway. And that means that the Fed is effectively stimulating aggregate demand more than it was before, even if its interest rate policy is effectively the same (though they have been dragging out the first projected rate hike for some time, so that probably helps, too). If enough people begin to replenish their consumer durables, a self-sustaining recovery may be underway, as long as the Fed doesn't prematurely strangle it. Hence, it's morning in America...I think. (Buy stocks, sell bonds).
P.S. Matt Yglesias agrees with me to an eery extent. In fairness I generally see things the same way he does...
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Two Americas
There are two kinds of Americans. The first are autistic. The second are drunk, drugged up, and manically depressed. Why? Don't ask me. But, here's a theory: the economy hates the second group, just like you hate your drunk, drugged up, and manically depressed cousin (and yes, the Oxford comma is absolutely essential) who just eats all your food and complains about life being unfair.
Now, Mr. Scientist (you might say), what use is this theory? Just seems like you're hating on people who already hate themselves. Well, I am doing just that. But, I'm also doing science. If my theory is right, here's a prediction it makes: the second group has shitty economic fortunes compared with the first. Ta da...
You know whose economic fortunes are better than humanities majors? Science majors. Just look at those p-values. Hot damn. I didn't pay much attention in AP statistics (I just remember gems like "power is desirable", and "we want small Ps"), but this looks pretty sciency to me. And the authors are from Princeton!
OK, so, my theory sucks. Granted. But how about them p-values? And for the record, I belong to the first group, have shitty economic fortunes, and I spend my days eating other people's food and complaining about the unfairness of life. I am the two Americas.
Now, Mr. Scientist (you might say), what use is this theory? Just seems like you're hating on people who already hate themselves. Well, I am doing just that. But, I'm also doing science. If my theory is right, here's a prediction it makes: the second group has shitty economic fortunes compared with the first. Ta da...
From personality to neuropsychiatric disorders, individual differences in brain function are known to have a strong heritable component. Here we report that between close relatives, a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders covary strongly with intellectual interests. We surveyed an entire class of high-functioning young adults at an elite university for prospective major, familial incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, and demographic and attitudinal questions. Students aspiring to technical majors (science/mathematics/engineering) were more likely than other students to report a sibling with an autism spectrum disorder (p = 0.037). Conversely, students interested in the humanities were more likely to report a family member with major depressive disorder (p = 8.8×10−4), bipolar disorder (p = 0.027), or substance abuse problems (p = 1.9×10−6). A combined PREdisposition for Subject MattEr (PRESUME) score based on these disorders was strongly predictive of subject matter interests (p = 9.6×10−8). Our results suggest that shared genetic (and perhaps environmental) factors may both predispose for heritable neuropsychiatric disorders and influence the development of intellectual interests.
You know whose economic fortunes are better than humanities majors? Science majors. Just look at those p-values. Hot damn. I didn't pay much attention in AP statistics (I just remember gems like "power is desirable", and "we want small Ps"), but this looks pretty sciency to me. And the authors are from Princeton!
OK, so, my theory sucks. Granted. But how about them p-values? And for the record, I belong to the first group, have shitty economic fortunes, and I spend my days eating other people's food and complaining about the unfairness of life. I am the two Americas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)