Some small hope for me yet

No, Einstein: Older people innovate, too
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/no-einstein-older-people-innovate-too/?hpt=hp_bn2

I had hoped to at some point be involved in some ground breaking research, but as I get older it seems I just don’t have the time I thought I would have for original thought (for those of you who haven’t tried it, at least for me, it requires extensive periods without any other draws on the intellect).  I thought I had something with my DNA sequencing idea, but it turns out I was about 18-24 months behind the times.  Many of my ideas appear to be novel applications of existing science/technology so not sure if that would qualify as innovation.  However, from a business standpoint, innovators often make poor entrepreneurs.  Since I have focused on developing entrepreneurship skills since I was 13 and only later started to focus on science and technology, I have hopes that (presuming I am ever able to get some business going, naturally, something that looks less and less likely as the years go on) I can leverage my knowledge of how to build businesses to take some innovation and make something dramatic out of it.

I guess it will be up to society to decide (if I ever amount to anything) if I have done something innovative or not.  For some reason Steve Jobs is considered a world-class innovator, but I just don’t see that in him (world class marketer, yes, much like Bill Gates).

The early universe already had heavy elements

Faraway gamma-ray burst reveals what the most ancient galaxies were made of
http://io9.com/5855958/faraway-gamma+ray-burst-reveals-what-the-most-ancient-galaxies-were-made-of

I think this was ‘surprising’ because I don’t think a lot of researchers gave some serious thoughts about how things would have looked in the early universe.  Once the universe had cooled off to the point where atoms could form (around 300K years if I recall correctly), the distribution of matter was probably quite uniform (actually, one question has always been how the heck galaxies formed if the matter distribution was so uniform) and I suspect (and would love to be paid to do simulations to know if there is any value in my idea) that once a cloud of gas started to condense it probably pulled from such a huge area that the initial stars formed were probably so huge that they probably had lifespans in the order of a few million years and likely nearly 100% exploded as super novae and it is the super novae that produce all heavy elements (pretty much anything heavier than carbon and the only place to get metals (not metals in the astronomic sense, which includes everything over lithium, but metals like gold, sliver, uranium, etc.)).  It was probably the concussions of those explosions (which probably popping off like flashes at the Oscar ceremonies) that caused the pressure waves that lead to the haves and the have nots areas in the universe.

I found a new blog…

In addition to being a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ thanks to bls I have now (re)discovered Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog (also see my post yesterday).

I particularly like this post: Wall Street Isn’t Winning – It’s Cheating: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

He is somewhat profane (which I like) but does seem to have a very good grasp of things, at least based on my research.  I have read several Rolling Stone articles in the past (heck, they might have even been Matt’s) and liked them, but never saved a bookmark to come back regularly.

Much like the post I added yesterday, I am somewhat at a loss on how to add additional useful comments to what Matt had to say.  It is very clear to me that the sheeple are being lied to regularly and with malice aforethought.  Because, of course, they are sheeple, they go right along with it (for instance, 90% of the coverage of Occupy Wall Street is about the fuckups that are invading the movement with the only intention to engage in vandalism (I would not even lift an eyebrow if it were found that these people were in fact financed by the elite) rather than the 99% of the time where the protesters are trying to communicate their messages).

Oh well, I guess as long as I can keep my claws on being in the top 2-3% of earners in the country (note: I pay taxes at the higher rate that does not apply to millionaires and billionaires, so people like me are the ones that actually pay our country to operate) I should turn a blind eye and enjoy my cake as long as it is available.

A very troubling read…

Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?
Matt Taibbi: A whistle blower says the agency has illegally destroyed thousands of documents, letting financial crooks off the hook.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

Thanks to bls for this link!

As we get more and more information about how our government works it becomes clearer and clearer that for all practical cases the entire decision making hierarchy of the government is made up of criminals.  Worse, because the criminals are running the system the likelihood that any will suffer any consequences is next to zero and since they are the system the prospects of change are equally close to zero.

I am pretty much speechless at this point (I know, hard to imagine), but the level of deception described in the document is so outrageous that I can’t think of adequate words to describe.

Who will live long enough to get the treatments?

‘I’ve never seen anything like it’: Scientists halt ageing in mice by purging old cells
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057113/Ive-seen-like-Purging-old-cells-stops-aging-mice.html

One of the reasons I initially studied biochemistry was to be able to understand how longevity works.  As I learned more about the details I decided I didn’t have the attention span to do the research myself, but I also developed the idea that there was a really good chance that in my lifetime (presuming, naturally, I don’t get run over by a truck or something) there would be longevity treatments at least good enough to get me to the next discoveries and so on and so on.  This article clearly is about not ready for prime time research, but this work and others like it show that we are probably only a few decades away from the first tentative approaches (I have no interest in being the first, nor even the 50th, I would like to wait (if I have the opportunity) for the bugs to be worked out).  Since I have reasonable expectations of more than another 30 years (40-50 with a bit of luck and efforts to stay healthy on my part) I think I will be able to get the treatments.  I have lots of things I want to work on and I am not sure the genetically allotted time I have is going to be enough (particularly at this ridiculously glacial pace that I am engaged in), plus I have always wanted to live forever (not, btw, with my scuzzy body, but with something I have been designing in my mind for more than 30 years).

As a btw, I wrote up a little bit that is apropos:

Why We Die Or A Short Course On Evolution

Climategate is here to stay!

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

A very sad commentary that an effort purported to decrease controversy will only escalate it.  All those people that complained about the ‘hockey stick’ distortion (of which I am happy to be a member) will have a field day with this (copied from the link above):

How can you _possibly_ justify not showing this data unless you are intent on obscuring it?  Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict the future of the climate (I would make the case it is essentially impossible to predict anything less than we will have an ice age in the next 10-20K years and even that has historical evidence hinting that the chance is not absolute), but that should lead to fewer absolute statements (like “the controversy is over”), not more.  That the author of this disputed data goes on a round of press interview when his papers are still in peer review tells me that he is full of crap and would make me very skeptical of his paper.  Given how the media works, if his papers are all rejected no one will every know and he will live on in popular memory as the guy who debunked the climate skeptics when all he did was bolster their case.

Corporate taxes need a level playing field

The great corporate tax scam
Politicians who claim U.S. companies pay the highest taxes in the world are lying. Here’s proof
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/singleton/

To me the travesty is that effective taxes are unequal.  Take just this one example:

DuPont and Monsanto both produce chemicals. But over the 2008-10 period, Monsanto paid 22 percent of its profits in U.S. corporate income taxes, while DuPont actually paid a negative tax rate of –3.4 percent.

If I ever am able to finally build one of my many companies into a profitable entity I would not want to compete in a field where I must make at least 22% higher margins in order to have the same profits as my competitors.  As mentioned before, I favor doing away with corporate taxes as corporations simply pass that cost along to their customers, thus allowing the government to minimize the apparent level of taxation for individuals.  I once calculated how much of what I earn ultimately goes toward paying taxes at the local, regional, state and federal level and got a number substantially north of 50% (it has been a long time and I have tried to erase the memory (else I likely would have died from high blood pressure by now), but I have a vague recollection of something in the 80% range).  Sound silly?  Everything you buy not only has sales tax, but it has at least 30% taxes built into it from the corporate level.  So, just with a 5% sales tax we are at minimum of 35% (a more realistic minimum is 40%) for EVERY SINGLE THING YOU BUY.  Recall that as individuals we don’t get to expense such things as living expenses (i.e., food, electricity, fuel, etc.), so we already paid (at least in my tax bracket, lcoal, county, state and fed) on the order of 40% on the income that we bought the stuff that has at least 35% taxes built-in.

The reality in business is you put your target margins on top of your expenses, so if you increase your costs due to taxes you are paying then you automagically increase your profits as well.  If I, as a profit seeking entity, am taxed at 40% (local, county, state and fed, ever notice how the focus always seems to be exclusively on federal taxes?), then I am putting that 40% right on top of my costs, thus jacking up my prices so I can keep my same margins (for those of you who would quibble about economies of scale, inventory turnover, etc., yes I am aware I am making simplifications, but not all industries have such turnover that they can amortize their taxes over a large enough volume to eliminate the impact of the taxes).  Of course, our government needs revenue to operate, but I favor citizens actually knowing how much of their paycheck is being extracted for taxes rather than hiding those taxes in multiple layers that are difficult or impossible to understand, even for highly trained finance professionals.  It would really suck for our income taxes to jump to 80%, but perhaps then people would be motivated to expect less from our government and then the government could get by with less taxes.

Social Security “Crisis”

How the rich created the Social Security “crisis”
The Bush tax cuts coupled with a decades-long smear campaign are the real threat to the successful program
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/how_the_rich_created_the_social_security_crisis/singleton/

As the article states, this ‘crisis’ is entirely manufactured (the same, I learned recently, as the Post Office ‘crisis’, it can’t be a coincidence).  Social Security is ‘insolvent’ because our government has stolen the excess funds and left nearly worthless Treasury securities in its wake and now is refusing to make good on those securities.  Since treasuries are considered uber-safe, they pay at or just barely slightly higher than inflation so all that hard earned money put in (for most of us, 14% of our compensation (7 from us, 7 from our employer)) is growing at exactly zero interest rate (when adjusted for inflation).  So, after basically getting an interest free loan from OUR money (not even tax dollars which the government has a legitimate reason to obtain and spend) now the government whines about paying it back!  If, and only if, the past surpluses stolen and replaced with treasuries were to run out, only then would the government have a legitimate claim that Social Security can’t fund itself.  However, instead of investing in nearly worthless treasuries (worthless from a return on investment point of view), if the money was instead invested the same way that insurance companies invest then we would be seeing returns large enough to more than compensate for the average life expectancy.  I did some quickie calculations and determined that if you started your earning career at age 25 making $25K and got only a 3% raise each year (quite an unlikely occurrence, but this is sort of worst-case scenario) saving the exact same 14% but earning a whopping 5%, starting at age 65 you could get half your salary (at age 65 and still growing at 3%) for almost 20 years.  Since SS is a pool of money, those that die before they draw down their ‘fair share’ subsidize those who live past their target age of death.  If the government didn’t medle with the money and it was managed like a real investment fund, there would be no talk of insolvency.

Having said all that, the reality is since the government has indeed stolen the money and left these IOUs.  In order to pay back the IOUs the government will have to raise taxes, reduce spending or cut benefits (it could do all three and minimize the impact, but that would presume that our government actually represents the people and targets the greatest good for the greatest number).  This unfortunate reality is why younger people (and I consider myself one of that group since I have nearly 20 years to go to start collecting an SS check) don’t believe that income will actually be there when then are supposed to get it.

I wasn’t eager to do this…

But this one was just too amusing…

5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

There are lots of things I find amusing at Cracked (I don’t recall who turned me onto the site, but whoever you are, Thanks!) and my site could easily be nothing more than links to Cracked (sort of like there seem to be lots to Salon).  Having said that, I think this particular article is quite interesting, though I believe, as the author states, that reading the article won’t change anyone’s mind.  Of course, your mind might already be made up that you are open minded and capable of altering your opinions when the facts change (that is how I lie to myself).  Anyway, though it will simply confirm what you already know about yourself, I still think it is worth reading, just to prove it to yourself.

Nuances on copyrights

Does culture really want to be free?
Are new media companies “digital parasites”? The author of “Free Ride” tells Salon piracy is killing art
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_culture_really_want_to_be_free/singleton/

It seems that Salon is what is prompting me to blog today…

I found myself changing my attitudes as I read this article, something I rather enjoy.  As the Mythbusters like to be wrong, I often like to have my thoughts challenged (though I might not always react as if I like it, deep down, I really do).  I felt that copyright restrictions were curbing expressions, but now I think the problem is with corporate ownership of copyrights, not the copyrights themselves.  The original intent of copyright (as I understand it) was analogous to the patent: an effort to promote innovation and creativity by rewarding the creator with a short-term monopoly on the right to profit from his or her creation in exchange for releasing the creation to the public.  The idea that creativity and innovation would be promoted was based on the idea that knowledge is a cumulative thing and it is often difficult for humans to have novel thoughts, but generally trivial to transmit the novel thought so others can share.

Going with my understanding of the spirit of the intent, the idea that corporations can own patents on things and then prohibit others from exploiting those patents (by the simple expedient of making the licensing fee astronomical) is a clear violation.  In parallel, the idea of allowing a corporation (an entity that can in principal exist forever) life time exclusive rights via copyright is also a clear violation.  That Disney keeps getting an exception for Micky Mouse is a travesty in my mind, but of course, wealthy corporations own our government so for it to be otherwise would be the noteworthy event.

By the end of the article I have come to believe that we have a too loose copyright situation now and have sympathy for those who want to strengthen it, but based on much of what I have read that has been promulgated by the entertainment industry they want to take it too far back.  As the journalist being interviewed comments, copyright violations need to be by default and not require someone to pay a raft of lawyers to spend all day trolling around looking for violators to notify.  Though clearly corporate interests could just as easily use that as a club as well.