April 2011 Archives

Zombie-proof house.

Want it.

Robin Hanson agrees with me that machines will eventually completely displace human labor, though he doesn't have as many nifty charts as I do.

Right now, computers and other forms of machine intelligence aren’t nearly sophisticated enough to emulate the human brain or replace human labor on a global scale. But in the long term — say, a century or two in the future, as artificial intelligence becomes far more sophisticated than it is today — the picture could be far different. For now, it would be insufficient to merely have more powerful machines, if they continued to mainly complement human labor, as machines have for centuries. When machines complement humans, better machines lead to more, not less, demand for humans.

Even if machines have so far tended to complement humans, might machines someday become actual substitutes for human workers? The key thing to understand here is that while a machine might substitute for a human on any particular task, when the division of tasks between humans and machines is stable, then cheaper and better machines raise the demand for humans.

But if machines could effectively replace humans for most tasks now performed by humans, that would be a very different story. Full-time human wages would then become small compared to humans’ income from owning machines that do the work. This isn’t the current trend, so don’t worry about it happening soon. But not only is this possible, it is likely, within a century or two, through the use of “whole brain emulations.”

I think that "within a century or two" is far too long of a time line -- I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen within my lifetime. (Of course, I'll probably live a few centuries, so....)

No, not a post about how the Wisconsin Supreme Court might rule on an abortion case, but vice versa: how abortions have affected the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Here are some Badger State numbers: Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. The Wisconsin Department of Health has statewide figures on the annual number of abortions going back to 1975. Tot up the numbers through 1992, and you come up with 316,457.

Scott Walker won the governorship last year by a margin of 124,638. That may not be within the margin of abortion; after all, some of the missing 316,457 would have voted Republican had they existed, and many would not have voted.

But JoAnne Kloppenburg, the left-liberal state Supreme Court candidate who was supposed to save Wisconsin's labor monopolies from Walker's reforms, lost by just 7,316 votes, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (this figure is pending a possible futile recount). It's almost inconceivable that the Roe effect alone is insufficient to account for Justice David Prosser's victory.

I.e., if abortion had not been legalized by SCOTUS in 1973 there would have been many more leftist adults to vote for Kloppenburg in 2011. Extrapolate to other leftist causes as desired.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha times one zillion.

(HT: James Taranto.)

In 2008 the United Nations predicted that global warming would create 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence: ...

Needless to say, the "at risk" regions have some of the world's fastest growing populations.

(HT: James Taranto.)

I hate airport "security"... not because it is so annoying to pass through it, but because it is so ineffective.

Schnei­er and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. “Technically we could get arrested for this,” he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver’s licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program—“Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”—was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting “micro-expressions,” can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schnei­er took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled “saline solution.”

“It’s allowed,” he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don’t fall under the TSA’s three-ounce rule.

“What’s allowed?” I asked. “Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?”

“Bottles labeled saline solution. They won’t check what’s in it, trust me.”

They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schnei­er held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, “This is okay, right?” “Yep,” the officer said. “Just have to put it in the tray.”

I'm always the most nervous when I'm waiting in the security line, because that's the softest target in the whole transportation chain.

I hate airport "security"... not because it is so annoying to pass through it, but because it is so ineffective.

Schnei­er and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. “Technically we could get arrested for this,” he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver’s licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program—“Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”—was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting “micro-expressions,” can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schnei­er took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled “saline solution.”

“It’s allowed,” he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don’t fall under the TSA’s three-ounce rule.

“What’s allowed?” I asked. “Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?”

“Bottles labeled saline solution. They won’t check what’s in it, trust me.”

They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schnei­er held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, “This is okay, right?” “Yep,” the officer said. “Just have to put it in the tray.”

I'm always the most nervous when I'm waiting in the security line, because that's the softest target in the whole transportation chain.

The scariest thing you've seen in a long time:

Note that the y-axis is logarithmic.

One hundred years ago the federal government spent the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $200 per person; today it spends more than $12,000 per person.

(HT: William M. Briggs and Wendy McElroy.)

Donald Trump announces that he should be president because his is bigger that yours.

Donald Trump yesterday fired the opening salvo in a macho battle of bank accounts with rival presidential contender Mitt Romney, dismissing the former Massachusetts governor as a "small business" person and saying his own assets are "much, much" larger than his opponent's.

Trump, whose approval ratings have rocketed upward since he started hammering President Obama, yesterday turned his fire on Romney, considered by many the front-runner in a divided Republican field.

"I'm a much bigger businessman and have a much, much bigger net worth. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney," Trump told CNN's Candy Crowley yesterday.

Would Trump be a good president? I don't know... that's always impossible to predict in advance. But I know he'd be an interesting president.

By Iowahawk, via Instapundit.

WSJ editorial page hits the low-lights of Obama's deficit speech.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

Both sides are seriously pissing me off. Why don't they start by pulling the 2006 budget out of the filing cabinet, crossing out "2006", writing "2012", and just passing the exact same thing. Somehow we managed to enjoy the Bush-Obama tax cuts and fight two wars in 2006 with a deficit of "only" $500 billion. Yay! That was easy, and we just saved more than $1 trillion per year.

A woman is raped in the concourse of Denver International Airport while employees pass by and apparently do nothing.

The woman said the man asked if he could kiss her and she refused.

"I sit up and he's leaned in and he asks, 'Can I kiss you?' And when I tell him that's too forward, before I could finish my statement, he had already pulled me in to kiss him. And he forcefully held me there," the woman said.

"And I'm sitting there with my neck kinked down, and I'm already frantic."

Suddenly, she said, the man grabbed the strings of her hooded sweatshirt and pulled, lifting her off the ground.

The man then threw her on the floor, grabbing her head and pounding it on the floor, said the woman, who had a large bruise above her left eye.

"I couldn't reach anywhere. I couldn't touch anything and I couldn't breathe," she said. "He told me to put myself in a position for him. He pulled my pants down and proceeded to assault me from behind."

The victim said the man tore off her clothing and sexually assaulted her for about 10 minutes on the concourse, which was deserted at that hour.

But don't worry, you don't need the means to protect yourself. Other people will protect you.

During the attack, she said two airport janitors passed by, and said nothing.

"Another employee walked by, a female, and she looked and she walked away and kept walking. I was just so upset that I couldn't focus on what was going on. I just kept getting my head thrown down," she said.

Finally, she said, two airport workers outside the terminal saw the attack through a window and called police.

Or at least maybe some onlooker will eventually call the police.

Airport spokeswoman Laura Coale said DIA janitors are contract employees. She said the airport is investigating whether any employees failed to report the attack.

7NEWS asked Coale if the airport is safe at all hours for women traveling alone. She insisted it is.

"I would say, absolutely. I don't think this one incident represents the entire airport based off one individual's alleged actions," said Coale. "There are 30,000 people working at the airport. And police did respond."

Emphasis mine. The police always respond, but rarely in time to prevent crimes before they occur. This isn't a slight on the police, they don't have super powers. And other people may help you, or they may just stand around. The only one who always has an opportunity to protect you is you. If you're a woman and your assailant is an ex-Marine, you're going to need a weapon to protect yourself, even in an airport.

I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on the way to work and there was a guest hostess moderating a ridiculous discussion ostensibly about the recent attempt to cut Planned Parenthood off from federal funding. According to the hostess and the guests (all women*) there were two sides to this debate: A) people who support "women's health issues" and B) people who don't really understand what Planned Parenthood does.

The purpose of the show seemed to be to explain Planned Parenthood to Group B. To this end, the hostess and two of the three guests spent the first 15 minutes of the show repeating that abortion was only a tiny sliver of what Planned Parenthood is about; the third guest pointed out that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country, and that a substantial portion of their budget goes towards performing abortions (one-third, she said?). The other guests promptly ganged up on her and argued that if someone was really against abortions then she would support Planned Parenthood because of all the contraception etc. they distribute to prevent unintended pregnancies.

At this point, the hostess brought on the president of Planned Parenthood and threw softball questions at her for a while. I could only take this for so long before I had to get out of my car into the fresh air.

The group never approached the real motivations behind the group pushing for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. This group consists of two subsets: B1) thinks that abortion should be legal but that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to pay for it, and B2) thinks that abortion is basically murder and should be entirely illegal.

Neither B1 nor B2 cares that Planned Parenthood does lots of stuff besides abortions, and both groups would (mostly) get along just fine with Planned Parenthood if they kept doing everything else but performed zero abortions. Group B1 might prefer that none of Planned Parenthood's activities be federally funded, but they'd be a lot less vociferous if abortion weren't in the mix. Group B2 mostly doesn't care about the other activities or the funding, but they view people that perform any abortions as having dirty hands -- killing even a single baby is very bad, even if you do lots of other good things.

An actual discussion of these perspectives and how they affect modern politics would have been very interesting to hear. Too bad such a discussion is almost unthinkable on National Public Radio.

* Why does it matter that all the guests were women? Because it was certainly on purpose and due to the prevailing view that only women are allowed to have opinions about abortion. The idea that possessing ovaries gives anyone's opinions greater moral weight is offensive. Women aren't banished from discussions of e.g., war and finance just because these domains are dominated by men. Besides, it's a uterus, not a uteryou.

Political Calculations has an original Form 1040 from 1913 and a calculator you can use to figure out how much taxes you would have had to pay. Nifty. Oh, and it's a lot less than now.

Paul Hsieh describes the moral bankruptcy of the Social Security Ponzi scheme.

But more fundamentally, not only is Social Security economically bankrupt, it is also morally bankrupt. Contrary to popular belief, Social Security is not a savings plan where people deposit their money during their working years then withdraw it once they retire. Rather, as Robert Samuelson recently described, it is a “pay as you go” scheme. Current workers are taxed to pay current retirees. When these workers retire, they’ll then receive money taken forcibly from future workers. Hence, Social Security is no different than any other Ponzi scheme, except that Americans are compelled to join whether they wish to or not.

Individuals are legitimately entitled to retire with their own savings or from money contractually owed them via insurance, private pensions, or other voluntary retirement plans. Individuals have both the right — and the responsibility — to plan for their retirements according to their own best judgment. This includes saving money as well as purchasing insurance (or entering into voluntary mutual assistance agreements with others) to protect themselves against unforeseen adverse circumstances that might prevent them from saving for the future.

But they do not have the right to confiscate other workers’ earnings to fund their retirements. The fact that current workers have already been taxed to pay earlier retirees does not give them the right to confiscate future workers’ incomes, just as someone who had been physically abused by his parents does not somehow gain the “right” to abuse his children in turn.

Social Security should be eliminated as quickly as possible. Present generations should not be allowed to vote to themselves the wealth that will be created by their children and grandchildren.

Boeing Advanced Tactical Laser

Northrop Grumman Maritime Laser

(HT: Defense Tech.)

Jump to the last 10 seconds of the video, in which President Obama suggests that a questioner who is hard-pressed by the price of gas simply buy a new, more fuel-efficient car.

More at Hot Air.

(HT: Instapundit who notes that the Associated Press scrubbed their account of the incident to remove the President's advice.)

So Donald Trump is running for president? Really, or as a publicity stunt? Who knows.

Among Republican primary voters, Mr. Romney captured the support of 21% in a broad, nine-candidate field. Mr. Trump was tied for second with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 17%. House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 11%, just ahead of former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s 10%. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a strong contender by political handicappers, remains largely unknown, with just 6% support. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 3%, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour with just 1%.

Some people may say he's too crazy to be president, but personally, I think he's just crazy enough. Sometimes it helps to be bombastic and unpredictable rather than quiet and thoughtful. He'd certainly keep our enemies on their toes.

(HT: RC.)

Robert Farago explains the Project Gun Runner and Operation Fast and Furious and how the BATF basically created crime in order to stop it.

Think about this. A store opens up in a bad part of Phoenix for the express purpose of purchasing stolen weapons (for the ATF) and drugs (for the other agencies). The store lets it be known that they’re open for [criminal] business and spreads a ton of cash around. No one gets arrested. And so their “success” snowballs over nine months. The bad guys know there’s a thriving market for stolen guns. So what do they do? Steal guns.

Now look at this from an Arizona gun owner’s point of view. You’re sitting in your house with a nice collection of guns. Suddenly, bad shit goes down. A group of very bad people (with a nice new income stream to keep them ungainfully employed) have decided that they want your guns. And by God they’re going to take them. Why? So they can sell them to the federal government.

News flash: sting operations don’t stop crime. The foster it. Although not enough judges are willing to lay down the law in cases where obvious bad guys appear before them thanks to “here run this down the street for me right quick” law enforcement, sting operations are illegal. They lure people into committing crimes.

"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

(HT: RC.)