Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wow, I'm agreeing with Scalia
Interesting Idea
I want to go to this bar
How did I miss this??????
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Amazingly cool update on the Antikythera device
Daft Punk video
Interesting Obama post
Neat
Veepstakes update
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
A technology resurgent
Developments in armor technology
TV linked to autism
Solar Power Gathering momentum (again)?
The city rising
A ven diagram for you
Exciting developments in physics
Monday, July 28, 2008
This was achingly familiar
Hits a nerve
Another disaster to prepare for, oh joy
Greenland....Ascendant?
Busy Weekend
Friday, July 25, 2008
Apple missing a marketing opportunity? WTF
Define Irony
Soooo Granite Countertops maybe not so good
Thursday, July 24, 2008
This really scares me
Mental note: buy the hardcopy of the august edition of Sci-Am
Just neat
War Games
A good point
Pretty Pictures
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Innovation Engine
I've wondered about this
New developments in AT
Monday, July 21, 2008
*sigh* Brings back good memories
This could be good
I wonder how this will turn out
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
This could be good...or not
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Veepstakes!
So, first I’ll lay down what I think is the criteria for being picked
1. Chemistry
This one is really simple; the candidate and potential VP need to like each other. You can’t give someone the codes to the missiles if you don’t like and trust them. For sure, candidates have won without good chemistry (see JFK and LBJ) but it’s probably the most important qualification.
2. Skills as a vice-president
a. Plausible surrogate
The VP needs someone who could be a believable president. This person should have decades (at least 15 years) as a public servant, at least 5 years on a national level either in the pentagon, a cabinet position, member of one of the legislative branches, or governor of a state. The VP pick also needs to be a plausible surrogate for the candidate’s beliefs i.e. he or she needs to be able to speak articulately about the candidate’s positions and act like zhe agrees with them.
b. Good XO
In completely the opposite direction this person needs to be an excellent XO. He or she needs to be good at taking direction and obeying orders. Not that they need to be totally silent, in fact they should have good advice and opinions to offer the president, but when he makes a decision they should be baking him 100%.
3. Balance the ticket
a. Qualifications
Obama has the following negative perceptions about him: he’s too inexperienced, he’s too liberal, he has problems with Latino voters, he has problems with Clinton supporters, and he has problems with white working class voters. McCain is seen as too old, not conservative enough (or too conservative depending on who you’re talking to), and unskilled at domestic politics. Whether these perceptions are true or not (debatable) picking a VP that makes one of these perceptions go away will be an important consideration.
b. Geography
Pundits seem to be saying that getting a VP from a particular state means that you will win that state in general election and I just don’t think that’s true. That being said, if you had a public official with a high popularity rating in a big swing state, who met all the other qualifications it would be very tempting to pick them.
Considering that criteria we go from millions of people down to about 100. This includes popular senators and representatives, popular governors, mayors of the biggest cities, former high ranking military officers, former senators and representatives, former governors, and possibly a few people from business.
Ok from that who would go onto my shortlist?
Obama’s choices break down into three categories:
1. The secret insider. Someone older who has a great deal of Washington experience but has been out of the field lately and thus can bring a message of experience AND a message of change to the ticket. My picks: Sam Nunn, Tom Daschle, or
2. The rising star. Obama might pick another youngish person for VP. Probably someone with executive experience and a history of bringing government reform. My picks: Tim Kaine, Brian Schweitzer, or Kathleen Sebelius
3. The fighter. Someone who can really act as a point person on politics. Someone who can go to other countries and wrangle concessions or speak with authority on issues at the UN but who does not have a huge influence on policy. My picks: Bill Richardson or Chuck Hagel
4. Heavy weight. If Obama feels like his experience might be an issue in office or in the election he might pick a very experienced person to provide "weight" to the ticket. My picks: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Colin Powell
I think McCain has less choice about who he can pick to be VP: he needs someone somewhat younger than him, with excellent domestic policy credentials, who can attract independents without pissing off conservatives too much. My picks: Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, or Charlie Crist.
The above I think is fairly plausible, it agrees with the analysts who’ve written on the subject and with the leaked information from the campaigns. So we have the short list, who should they actually pick? Again, this is not who I think they will pick -I can’t know that, I don’t know what the interpersonal chemistry is- this is who I would pick.
I think McCain should pick Sarah Palin.
Why? When you look at Sarah Palin and her record you can imagine a new face on the Republican party (although not one I’m super fond of). Pros: she’s young, she’s conservative, she’s about as far away from the Bush administration as you can be (literally), and she and McCain agree on many areas. Cons: not a ton of experience (might hurt arguments that Obama’s inexperienced), not a lot of appeal to independents.
What does McCain get? Picking Sarah Palin might do two things: energize the conservative base a bit, attract pro-life democrats, and attract people who are focused on domestic issues.
What does Palin get? A chance to be the president after McCain
Why? Gore can talk eloquently about change (see his book Assault on Reason), on many issues he’s fairly moderate, he’s been out of politics for long enough that most people will have forgotten the scandals associated with him, but at the same time he extensive legislative experience and foreign policy experience. Cons: he has even more name recognition that Obama.
What does Obama get? The most important thing he gets is a connection to the democratic establishment; I think Al Gore might help his numbers among Regan democrats and older democrats.
What does Gore get? Gore has been “taking a break” from politics for the last 8 years and has even said he isn’t trying to be VP, but not trying and refusing to serve are very different things. I think if he was approached and offered the opportunity to pass the environmental and technology laws he tried to pass earlier in his career he would be tempted.
Update: I guess Gore staffers read my blog. This morning he gave a pretty Shermanesque statement on serving as VP again so it's probably reasonable to count him out of the candidate pool. If not Gore the choices get a little murkier. Want to appeal to the democratic establishment? Pick Chris Dodd. Want reach across the isle? Pick Brian Schweitzer. I guess if I had to pick I'd plunk for Kathleen Sebelius but I'm not very confident about that.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Who is the "doer" of US foreign policy?
The basic question raised in the post is worth pondering: with all of the development overlapping with military conflict in the 21st century who or what is the appropriate agency to conduct applied foreign policy? The standard answer for a long time was the State Dept and clearly that is no longer the answer. In the past 10 years the military has taken an increasing roll in applying policy on the ground. Why is this an issue? There are many reasons but the first ones that come to mind are:
1. It's bad public relations. I don't care how you spin a big military presences in development projects it ALWAYS looks like we're trying to create an empire.
2. People sign up to the military because they love our country and want to defend it, possibly by by killing shit (an huge oversimplification which I hope you'll forgive me). I don't think those people are necessarily suited to doing good development work.
What should we do? I don't think throwing more money at the State department is the best way to go. The conflicts that loom in the future seem like they'll require a combination of hard military action and follow up development work. I think the best way to go is something like the way Thomas Barnett has advocated.
Summary from wikipedia:
- In recognition of its dual role, the US military should organize itself according to two functions, the "Leviathan" and the "System Administrator."
- Leviathan's purpose is employ overwhelming force to end violence quickly. It will take out governments, defend Core countries, and generally do the deterrence work that the US military has been doing since the end of WWII. The Leviathan force is primarily staffed by young aggressive personnel and is overwhelmingly American.
- The SysAdmin's purpose is to wage peace: peacekeeping, nation building, strengthening weak governments, etc. The SysAdmin force is primarily staffed by older, more experienced personnel, though not entirely (he would put the Marines in SysAdmin as the " Mini-me Leviathan"). The sys Admin force would work best as a Core-wide phenomenon.
Wow, neat website
Why The Apocalypse Won't Happen
I find my self conflicted about this article. I do think that there are serious issues in the world that could cause an "Apocalypse" but I've increasingly come to believe that we are going to see a vast transition that will neither be as easy as some hope nor as catastrophic as some others fear. We'll see...
I try not to advocate giving money willy-nilly but...
Update: Grrr.... it looks like all the boingboing visitors crashed his site
Wow this would soooo suck
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Sounds like just another cooky idea but...
Beautiful and Creepy
Monday, July 14, 2008
Really Hard
I can never decide...
Why I'm not Libertarian
Alan Jacobs puts in well:
"... However, we also know that no empirical claim could possibly be better established than this: People, left to their own devices, simply do not make wise decisions about their natural environments. They almost invariably chose short-term goods that leave their descendants with damaged and impoverished conditions; and often the damage is irreversible. And even when hard lessons are learned by one generation, they are likely to be forgotten by the next, or the one after that.
Moreover, these the stakes in these matters are raised dramatically in technologically powerful ages such as our own. If a libertarian with a hands-off environmental policy were to be elected President in this country, and were to implement such a policy, the vultures would descend so quickly and do so much damage — especially to water resources, and especially in the West — in a single four-year Presidential term that recovery could take decades if it could be achieved at all. I think this would be a tragic result, and my reasons for thinking so are simultaneously civic and Christian (the latter deriving from the Biblical mandate for what people are now calling “Creation care”). Is a significant increase in personal freedom worth such a price? I don’t think I can say that, not given my current state of knowledge, anyway.
Of course, this is all speculative in the extreme. Bob Barr is not going to be elected President, and even if that miracle did happen he’d be faced with a Congress that wouldn’t let him do much of what he wants to do (repeal the 16th Amendment, for instance). So it might be worth my while to cast a symbolic protest vote for Barr, and I may well do that. But it makes me uneasy to contemplate casting a vote for someone whose candidacy I can’t truly endorse."
David Plouffe is sexy hot!!
I think this is neat
Neat explanation
Lawrence Lessigs new project
I think I'm going to sign the pledge he has up, why? First of all I think the way Congress conducts politics is pretty fucked right now. I won't make all the arguments about why I think it's fucked (Mr. Lessig actually makes them pretty well in this long lecture) but suffice it to say that I agree with him. The question I have ask myself is why is it worth to sign onto the pledge, I mean it's tiny operation that is highly likely to fail. Two reasons:
1. Mr Lessig has accomplished quite a bit and I'm not willing to say this has a 100% chance of failure.
2. This is related to the kind of open-source politics that I believe, why? Simply it has a very high RIO for us as citizens. As Mr. Lessig says in his lecture I can spend 20mins at home in my underwear and potentially change the way politics is conducted. The key is that I'm connecting myself. If I've understood anything about innovation generation is that connections matter. You lose the potential to influence a process when you disconnect yourself from it. This is a tiny way of connecting myself to something much larger but I'll take it, because the RIO is so high.
A series of depressing events
1. An NYT op-ed covering the new book by Jane Meyer on torture in the Bush administration (gotta love the title). I'll pick up the book but I'm sort of torn on this. On the one hand it sounds like everything I've wanted to hear ("it was just a few evil people", "as soon as they're gone things will get better", "they were soooo evil") but so far life has shown me that it's never that simple. More thoughts to follow when I read the book.
2. An editorial covering the recent raid on a slaughterhouse in Iowa where hundreds of illegal immigrants were rounded up. Lots of HR abuses, misuse of taxpayer funds (IMO), bleh.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Interesting definition of future heros
Umm....isn't it a little early for these stories
Here are two articles analyzing what an Obama administration would look like. One from TNR focusing mostly on foreign policy, and one from The Economist focusing more on what his agenda might be.
Solar Windows, Neat!
Oldy by sort of goody
Friday, July 11, 2008
I'd like to see it...
I'll see it, maybe not in the theater but some day
Thursday, July 10, 2008
I knew it!
Not sure if this is going to succed but I might as well post about it
Arctic Development
Also, if WWIII were started over disputes around Arctic exploration (don't laugh, when Russia, Canada, America, Europe, and China all have legitimate or semi-legitimate claims to the vast natural resources you realize that it isn't funny) I'd be really pissed
Normally I don't post stuff link this but...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Watercooling Silicon
"Water-cooling of this sort may also make a more direct contribution to the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, by promoting the use of solar energy. Solar cells are also made of silicon, and the latest fashion is to concentrate sunlight on them using mirrors. That means you need less silicon to make a given amount of electricity, but it also makes the silicon very hot—as hot as a commercial microprocessor.
By cooling such devices with liquids, IBM reckons it can increase the amount of sunlight that can be focused on them without destroying them, thus increasing the amount of electrical energy they produce. Supratik Guha, a researcher at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Centre in Yorktown Heights, New York, has put this to the test and found that he can concentrate 2,300 times more sunlight on a cell than nature would provide, while maintaining that cell at a (relatively) cool 85°C. Without the cooling system, its temperature would rapidly exceed 1,500º, causing it to melt. With cooling, the cells can manage an output of 70 watts a square centimetre—a record, according to IBM, and a demonstration that plumbing, too, can be a high-tech form of engineering."
Interesting...
Ventura vs Franklen? The mind boggles
Ok, he hasn't actually said he would run, but wouldn't it make for an interesting race if he did run?
Yay building codes
Um, why?
Why Development Sucks
Nice post from Breakthrough
Unbelievable
Wow
Another post on why dirigibles might come back
Ok, what lessons can we take from this
Rumsfield's Genius?
VP Puns
Taking Power Away from The Executive Brance
Friday, July 4, 2008
A Confession
"You all should really check out this McKinsey Global Initiative’s Energy Markets page. Just reading the titles–'The case for investing in energy productivity', 'Wasted energy: How the U.S. can reach its energy productivity potential', 'Leapfrogging to higher energy productivity in China' give me goosebumps and make my spine tingle"
it made me smile.
The Economist on Global Governance Trends
Anyways, The Economist has a new article on global governance and where it's going. I think it's a good article so you should check it out.
I follow developments in global governance because some problems facing humanity require international dispute resolution (water, energy, trade, terror, pollution etc), which in turn requires (often) a body that can legitimately oversee said disputes. So over time you'll see more like this.
I'm So Impressed
"But while progress runs on exponential curves, our individual lives proceed in a linear fashion. We live day by day by day. While we might think time flies as we age, it really trickles out steadily. Today will always be more valuable than some day in the future, in large part because we have no guarantee we’ll get that extra day. Ditto for civilizations. In linear time, the future is a loss. But because human minds and societies can improve things over time, and compound that improvement in virtuous circles, the future in this dimension is a gain. Therefore long-term thinking entails the confluence of the linear and the exponential. The linear march of our time intersects the cascading rise and fall of numerous self-amplifying exponential forces. Generations, too, proceed in a linear sequence. They advance steadily one after another while pushed by the compounding cycles of exponential change.
Balancing that point where the linear crosses the exponential is what long-term thinking should be about. For each generation and for each issue that equation of intersection will be different. Sometimes the immediate needs of the now will dominate, and the discount rate will favor the present. For example, the chronic use of childhood vaccines and antibiotics may prove to have long-term downsides, but their value to present generations is so great that we agree to send the cost to the future. Descending generations will have to pay the price — or to solve the problem by inventing better medicines using exponentially better knowledge and resources. Other times future generations will be so enhanced by the later exponential growth begun in a small immediate gain that we raise the discount rate. For example the yield in educating girls in any society is so great, so amplified and compounded in so many ways, over so many generations, that it is worth an awful lot to pay its costs now — even stiff costs in the face of cultural resistance and low immediate yields. Here the cost point is shifted to the present.
A timeline of where we expect these cost/benefit/risk-thresholds to fall in each sector of our civilization, or a field map of places we can see where our linear lives cross exponential change — either would be very handy to have."
Obama responds to protesters on his site
One of the (many) long term trends I follow is the development of citizen governance (or "open-source politics") as described in the recent works of John Varley (Rolling Thunder). I think it's a really interesting idea and might be one of the ways we, as a civilization, move toward sustainability. That is, in fact, one of the reasons I support Obama, I think his principles mesh well with open-source politics (or at least better than many other candidates) so I was really looking for how he would handle this situation. A more conventional politician would have ignored it, or maybe given in/pandered. Obama has incorporated the protest into his dialog with voters. To me that says that he listened to it which is very interesting.
Also consider the political economics of the situation. A small group of ordinary people, with no money, and no more organization than a facebook group, intentionally generated national media coverage and a response from a national politician, just by protesting on his website. One of things that seems radical about that to me is how low the ROI was for the online group. Yes tiny groups of lobbyists can get good ROI but that's an oversimplification of lobbyists as we know them. It takes a great deal of person-hours to become an effective lobbyist. There's an institution behind the kind of lobbying that goes on in K Street. On a fundamental level, I would argue, this incident seems like a more efficient way of conducting politics, and that is really what open-source governance is about; increasing the productivity and efficiency of how politics is conducted.
Interesting Wired Article
They want to use this world as an intellectual and analytical tool, could we begin to see academics having conferences in a virtual world where their thoughts and random networking ideas are recorded, and where modeling tools are part of the game? I don't know, but it's an interesting possibility to think of.
Terrifing and Saddening Destruction of Forest Due to Global Warming
I don't intend to post articles like this often. The Environmental News Network, Dot Earth, and others document environmental degradation far better than I can. What I'm interested in is the long term problem of becoming sustainable, what the issues are, and how we can get there.
The reason I'm posting this is because it exemplifies some of the big picture problems of climate change:
1. Climate change is positive feedback loop. These trees are dead and will no longer be able to store carbon which will in turn accelerate the climate change.
2. Climate change will bring new problems that we could never have modeled or anticipated because it operates in such a large and dynamic system that it ripe for emergent properties.
3. This is the kind of problem that we will see increasingly in the future if climate change isn't slowed: a vast natural change that has negative consequences for us and which we have no solution for. Our children will increasingly be faced with situations that render the life we would want for them impossible.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Onion writers outdo themselves
Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency
"This might be his finest moment".... I love it!!!
Interesting Business Model for Games
I like Fareed Zakaria
Cooky Idea
I have ULTIMATE power
TNR Agrees with me about attitude!
Yes it was only a fairly minor thing but TNR picked it up, which isn't minor, and I like that.