Ideas on Concrete

Last weekend, I was working with concrete and noticed something: a bag of concrete weighs about the same as my brother, but my brother is much easier to carry. From this, I concluded: Concrete is heavier than it is labeled. Actually, it means that concrete bags should be shaped like people. Or at least like Strong Mad. Only maybe narrower. I don't know.

The New Food Guide Pyramid: Ummm . . .

The new food guide pyramid doesn't make much sense. For one thing, there's no clear outline that can be put on cereal boxes. That's going to be a major problem for the government. How are they going to get this information out without it on cereal boxes? That's where I learned about the old food pyramid. Furthermore, this pyramid is harder to draw. That's a problem for art-deficient teachers. Even more, the symbolism is all off. If you take one of the food groups out, there is still a pyramid. Whereas, with the old one, if one food group is taken out, there is no pyramid. Does that mean I can eat only, say, fruits and proteins and still be okay?

Rebuttal: Bush Disarms, Unilaterally by Thomas L. Friedman

Sometimes liberals can be morons. I take it upon myself to show that they are wrong.

Completely absurd. Thomas Friedman accuses Bush of not creating a "New New Deal" to "make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs." As if that is a bad thing. Let me explain. The whole concept of capitalism (on which this country is based) promotes little government interference. The New Deal made millions of Americans dependent on the government for their jobs and future. That's a good thing? Further, he says that the Treasury "won't lift a finger to prevent the expensing of stock options, which is going to inhibit the ability of U.S. high-tech firms to attract talent." And he shouldn't. If it's so difficult to attract talent, the free market will force U.S. companies to do whatever is necessary to get talent. "We have movie theaters in certain U.S. towns afraid to show science films because they are based on evolution and not creationism." WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?!?!?!? (Which sentence does not belong in this article, kids?) If the people in the town don't want such films, then the theater has no obligation to show them.

Bush has done things to help the economy. Whatever the liberals say, it was a tax cut for everyone. You don't think that has helped the economy?

Friedman also accuses Bush of not doing enough to promote broadband internet. Maybe some Americans just don't want broadband. Maybe they have no interest in it. What is it going to profit the U.S. to shove broadband down people's throats?

Finally, "It's as if we have an industrial-age presidency, catering to a pre-industrial ideological base, in a post-industrial era." What on earth is that supposed to mean? Wasn't FDR an "industrial age president?" Wouldn't a "pre-industrial ideological base" be one that has been around long enough to have existed before the Industrial Revolution? Wouldn't such an ideological base be more likely to continue existing?

In conclusion, Thomas Friedman should not be allowed to say such stupid things. But he probaby will continue to be allowed to. And he will. That's a shame.

Idea: Annotated English

Often regular English encountered in books, movies, and songs can be unclear. For example, in the song "Home on the Range" the line "and the skies are not cloudy all day" is unclear. Does it mean that the skies are not cloudy all the time, or does it mean that the skies are never cloudy?

I have begun to come up with a solution to this problem. I call it Annotated English. Basically, it is the introduction of various other types of punctuation into the english language to make it more clear. For example, the song excerpt previously mentioned could be annotated in two ways:
"And the skies are [not cloudy] all day," or,
"And the skies are not [cloudy all day]."

As I develop this idea further I will post more on this blog.

Web-based email is horrible!

Yesterday I tried to post something here via email. It didn't work. I decided to post it manually, but when I logged into my web-based email account, the email did not show up in any folder, including "sent." So the post that I spent 30 minutes on is now gone. I'll have to recreate it or something.

Commentary on Popular Science (May)

Nerdular Nerdence (Popular Science) has a section called "Soapbox" in which various people rant about stuff. Oftentimes I disagree with many of the things stated.

I really disagree with "Science Friction: Tempers Rising" in the May issue. Gregory Mone claims that "... the naysayers - like Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, whose best seller The Skeptical Environmentalist argues against gloabal warming - who appear to be cleaning up . . ." in response to Michael Crichton's assertion that "Any scientist who has doubts ... will be wise to mute their expression." This might be the oddest assertion in the article. How much did Gregory get paid to write that article. published in a magazine owned by one of the largest media conglomerates in the world? A search on Google News for "global warming does not exist" turned up 0 documents. The same search for "global warming exists" turned up infinitely more documents, percentage-wise. Now, that infinite percentage was only three hits, but one of them was from CNN. So let's see. The naysayers are cleaning up, and yet they have absolutely no representation in the news media. The oppressed in favor of global warming get on CNN. Um, yeah, sure, Gregory, the naysayers are overrepresented.

Another one. "You deserve your RiVo." Cory Doctorow argues in defense of radio recording devices. He claims that, "In a free market, you are also free to fail." That is true, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a right not to be stolen from. Whether or not it is fair, all of the major labels belong to the RIAA and they own the music. If RiVos come out for digital radio, the RIAA will most likely revoke the licenses of stations to broadcast their music. Would you rather have radio where you don't get to choose what you listen to, or radio that doesn't exist?

Let's look at this from a Kantian perspective. What would happen if everyone stole music, if stealing music were a universal law? Music companies would go out of business, and music would cease to exist, at least in a recorded form. Therefore, stealing music, including recording it off of the radio, is wrong.

The only thing that I might possibly see as an exception to this is the recording of talk radio. Oftentimes I find that I need to go do something else while listening to the radio and inadvertently miss something. I want to be able to rewind and hear that again.

On a more positive note, the article about DefCon was good. And so was the one about the Earth "Attacking". And What's New was good. Not the best, but okay.