3. 20 credit hours of course work is NOT awesome.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
I am spreading good cheer?
I had to watch this video as a "training." I mean, I was supposed to watch the "preview" video online and record in my service log the time it took me to watch it. I think I got about seven minutes into it before I wanted to punch that guy in the face and curse at my boss for sending me the link. Am I that much of a cynic? Why does this video make me so angry? Is it the sweeping emotional language, or the footage that looks like a christian inspirational CD commercial? (Experiment: if you watch any of it, replace "National Geographic" with "Jesus" or "The Good Book" and see what happens.) Is it the bursting-at-the-seams, restrained passion with which this man tells me, in far too many words, to alwayslookonthebrightsideoflife, accentuatethepositiveeliminatethenegative, or the hushed awe he wants me to feel for the glass-is-half-full world in which he is privileged to live?
His message isn't that bad. Look for the possibility in life, keep an open mind. I like National Geographic. I like the photography.
Then it hit me: This guy is peddling his clichéd outlook on life for $800.00. Eight Hundred Dollars. Celebrate what's right with the world, indeed! Maybe he's completely in earnest, and he found an outlook on life that works for him. Congratulations, you've found the meaning of your life, but is step 2 to package it and "slap in on a plastic lunchbox" and charge $800 for a dvd and a powerpoint presentation and a reminder card to keep in your goddamn wallet? What the hell is the matter with these people? I guess if you're too busy looking for all the goodly, positive possibilities, you notice it less when a snake oil salesman tries to sell you happiness and robs you blind.
"Underneath every cynic is a disappointed idealist."
His message isn't that bad. Look for the possibility in life, keep an open mind. I like National Geographic. I like the photography.
Then it hit me: This guy is peddling his clichéd outlook on life for $800.00. Eight Hundred Dollars. Celebrate what's right with the world, indeed! Maybe he's completely in earnest, and he found an outlook on life that works for him. Congratulations, you've found the meaning of your life, but is step 2 to package it and "slap in on a plastic lunchbox" and charge $800 for a dvd and a powerpoint presentation and a reminder card to keep in your goddamn wallet? What the hell is the matter with these people? I guess if you're too busy looking for all the goodly, positive possibilities, you notice it less when a snake oil salesman tries to sell you happiness and robs you blind.
"Underneath every cynic is a disappointed idealist."
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Government and Public goods
Read this first:
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/005506.php
So the question is, should the government be in control of the airport as an owner. I say yes, mostly because of the importance of the public good itself. Airports are vital to the nation, though one might not ascertain that from the airline industry itself. The enormous overhead that airports take to build - the fact that the Minn-Minn airport is valued at $6bn should clue you in - represents a giant sunk cost that I'm not sure that the industry could accept. In 2006, via stock market bid valuation, Delta was worth at most $16bn. Suppose the airline industry then had to enable themselves to purchase even just a share of the airport - say a terminal - instead of essentially renting it as they currently do, and you have quite a sticky situation on your hands, as margins fall in the existing climate.
So it's probably unlikely that the industry would be capable of stomaching such a shift. But what if an investor (or group of investors as the case may be) took over the airport? Well, this is again an argument for the state controlled management. My guess is that MinnMinn doesn't have a whole lot more commercial airports in the area. Sacramento has two airports, but only one of them is commercial - the other only takes smaller-sized planes. So we understand that this would essentially constitute a monopoly. It's reasonable to continue in this frame: it would be easy for the controlling group to increase the fees for the use of the airport - either as a fee to the airline or directly to the consumer; either way would result in an increase price of flying from that particular airport.
What could also happen with a monopolistic situation? Who is contracting the air traffic controllers? As it is, the FAA does all this, but if the airport was handled by an exterior entity from the state, it opens the door for the existing people to leave or at the very least for lesser-qualified individuals in the future. The state does already have issues with air traffic controllers leaving and the new generation is stagnating in terms of population.
I strongly believe that the private sector/competition is capable of bearing out the most efficient solution for almost every market and situation. Transportation is not one of those situations. There's a reason we did not have a national highway system until the government decided to fund one. The airport network is the same. Further, monopolies and pseudo-monopolies would be catastrophic to an already suffering industry, and would introduce externalities that would be difficult for anyone to control.
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/005506.php
So the question is, should the government be in control of the airport as an owner. I say yes, mostly because of the importance of the public good itself. Airports are vital to the nation, though one might not ascertain that from the airline industry itself. The enormous overhead that airports take to build - the fact that the Minn-Minn airport is valued at $6bn should clue you in - represents a giant sunk cost that I'm not sure that the industry could accept. In 2006, via stock market bid valuation, Delta was worth at most $16bn. Suppose the airline industry then had to enable themselves to purchase even just a share of the airport - say a terminal - instead of essentially renting it as they currently do, and you have quite a sticky situation on your hands, as margins fall in the existing climate.
So it's probably unlikely that the industry would be capable of stomaching such a shift. But what if an investor (or group of investors as the case may be) took over the airport? Well, this is again an argument for the state controlled management. My guess is that MinnMinn doesn't have a whole lot more commercial airports in the area. Sacramento has two airports, but only one of them is commercial - the other only takes smaller-sized planes. So we understand that this would essentially constitute a monopoly. It's reasonable to continue in this frame: it would be easy for the controlling group to increase the fees for the use of the airport - either as a fee to the airline or directly to the consumer; either way would result in an increase price of flying from that particular airport.
What could also happen with a monopolistic situation? Who is contracting the air traffic controllers? As it is, the FAA does all this, but if the airport was handled by an exterior entity from the state, it opens the door for the existing people to leave or at the very least for lesser-qualified individuals in the future. The state does already have issues with air traffic controllers leaving and the new generation is stagnating in terms of population.
I strongly believe that the private sector/competition is capable of bearing out the most efficient solution for almost every market and situation. Transportation is not one of those situations. There's a reason we did not have a national highway system until the government decided to fund one. The airport network is the same. Further, monopolies and pseudo-monopolies would be catastrophic to an already suffering industry, and would introduce externalities that would be difficult for anyone to control.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
This is what saturday nights were made for
The server now supports automatic pickup of torrent files for those of you who are unfortunate enough to live in areas where torrents cannot be downloaded. Simply place the torrent file into the drop folder, ensure that it subsequently disappears, and your torrent should have automatically been started.
Once it appears in the Complete folder in the Torrents directory, it's ready for pickup. Archives of all torrents (yours and mine) are in the Torrent Files folder, and if you would like to monitor the progress of your torrent, you can check the Incomplete folder. If this isn't satisfactory for some of you, I can work on a web interface for Vuze.
Cheers!
Once it appears in the Complete folder in the Torrents directory, it's ready for pickup. Archives of all torrents (yours and mine) are in the Torrent Files folder, and if you would like to monitor the progress of your torrent, you can check the Incomplete folder. If this isn't satisfactory for some of you, I can work on a web interface for Vuze.
Cheers!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Please don't call me names before my morning coffee.
Story Time:
I'm at work about 15 minutes early, before we open and when I get there first, (one of) my boss(es) usually says something benign like "Good Morning" before sitting down across from me. This is how today went...
him: "Important day, huh?"
me: "Oh, because of inauguration?"
him: *hmphf* "Yeah, my wallet feels lighter already."
note: this is where I should have stopped talking, obviously
me: "You're a republican then, I take it?"
him: "Yeah. And I can feel my wallet tightening already. This is a terrible day."
me: "Oh, well I can feel my liberties slowly returning, so I'm okay."
him: *stunned/angry look* "Well you people should know this socialism thing isn't going to work."
me: erm. "Yes, I know socialism won't work in this country the way it is?"
So is the moral of the story that I'm a socialist because I'm excited about the 'decrowning' of Bush? I'm a socialist because I'm looking forward to the reversing/revising of decisions that have been made in the last 8 years in efforts to overthrow Roe v. Wade, reallocate monies earmarked for inner city schools because they refuse to teach absidence only or the "theory of creationism," or to repeatedly to remove endangered animals from the endangered species list like the gray wolf (4 times!)? Not to mention the war, the environment, the economy, immigration, and countless other 'unimportant' things.
I guess as long as you're rich and can stay rich those things don't matter?
I only ask so I am up-to-date on what to label myself as these days. Socialism here I come.
End rant.
I'm at work about 15 minutes early, before we open and when I get there first, (one of) my boss(es) usually says something benign like "Good Morning" before sitting down across from me. This is how today went...
him: "Important day, huh?"
me: "Oh, because of inauguration?"
him: *hmphf* "Yeah, my wallet feels lighter already."
note: this is where I should have stopped talking, obviously
me: "You're a republican then, I take it?"
him: "Yeah. And I can feel my wallet tightening already. This is a terrible day."
me: "Oh, well I can feel my liberties slowly returning, so I'm okay."
him: *stunned/angry look* "Well you people should know this socialism thing isn't going to work."
me: erm. "Yes, I know socialism won't work in this country the way it is?"
So is the moral of the story that I'm a socialist because I'm excited about the 'decrowning' of Bush? I'm a socialist because I'm looking forward to the reversing/revising of decisions that have been made in the last 8 years in efforts to overthrow Roe v. Wade, reallocate monies earmarked for inner city schools because they refuse to teach absidence only or the "theory of creationism," or to repeatedly to remove endangered animals from the endangered species list like the gray wolf (4 times!)? Not to mention the war, the environment, the economy, immigration, and countless other 'unimportant' things.
I guess as long as you're rich and can stay rich those things don't matter?
I only ask so I am up-to-date on what to label myself as these days. Socialism here I come.
End rant.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
This is a lovely argument against god. Not just against the existence of god. Against the justness of god, if god as he's written in the bible were to exist. Even if the bible were literally true, every word, the supposed morality it represents is something I would want no part of. For example, I want no part of a world where people are damned to eternal torture for anything. There is no crime for which that is a proportionate response. The author's argument about "original sin" is very eloquent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)