The President has a plan to destroy the economy! Really???

So, I got this thick package in the mail. In it, there was a detailed list of predictions about how the president was acting out a plan to ruin the economy. Predictions were grandiose and far reaching. A lot of money was spent creating this package. I'm sure thousands, if not millions were sent out. The point of the package was to scare everyone into investing into gold.

The year that I received this package (and several others like it)? Circa 1995 all the way to 2000. What happened to gold during this period? The value was depressed nearly the whole time. It fell well behind inflation.

I started getting advertisements more recently about gold again. This time, similar predictions are being made out the current president. Again, the timing of this promotion happens to coincide with the value of gold falling behind inflation. Coincidence?

Under Bush Sr., the economy continued to falter and the value of gold raised. Under Clinton, the economy roared ahead of even the most optimistic predictions. All that value was lost under Bush Jr. and the value of gold raised again, even more radically (but still behind inflation when averaged across history). Poor handling of the economy almost plunged us into a Great Depression II, but instead was forestalled to become Great Recession due to quick actions by Obama. Actually, presidents only marginally have impact on the economic state, but entities like Fox News seem promote the idea that presidents are all powerful.

If you listen to gold pumpers, they sound a lot like Fox News, but even further extreme. Wild predictions about how bad things "will be" under Democratic presidents and their diabolical plots. Really? OK, yeah, let's ignore the fact they have been 100% wrong due to their predictions' poor timing. Let's ignore the facts that they own substantial amounts of gold and stand to profit from its promotion. Let's ignore the facts that these people promote fanciful scenarios as guaranteed facts. The fact is that the economy is now picking up (more quickly than expected by many) meaning that gold is now a poor investment again (generally, gold falls when the dollar strengthens). Yet, now these gold pumpers are heavily promoting ideas of an immediately impending disaster, as though the economic disaster of 2007/8 didn't even happen and is still waiting to happen.

When the economy as does fail (and it will one day, but who knows when, ...it will be some time near the end of the entity of the "United States of America"), at that time, gold will be the least of most people's concerns.

Lots of jobs available, but no one with skills to fill them

With over crowded Universities, still only 30% of the total population with any form of a College Degree, and the high pay for tradesmen these days, I am amazed that so few people are going into the trades. To make matters worse, the high school drop out rate is as much as 30% in many areas now (and even much higher in particular areas). It's almost like people either go to college, or they don't bother trying to get a good start on a career at all.

We don't all need college degrees to have a lucrative career. In fact, the wrong college degree can stifle a career. There's a lot of money to be made in the trades. Good examples are Electricians and Plumbers. Plumbers are already making as much money per year near the start of their careers as many people with well positioned degrees from a University. (Some degrees will command nothing more than $30K/year for someone just out of college, which is much less than a Journeyman Plumber who spent the same period in an Apprentice program.)

I got my start in the trades as a Drafter. I was working my first professional job when I was 18 after graduating Trade School (I had been working since I was 13). I didn't get paid a whole lot at the start, but even as a kid, I was aware of the need to have a marketable skill set (though I would've never used those exact words as a teenager).

There is a tremendous and growing skills gap between available jobs and those available to fill them. A recent article by Rick Badie discusses this problem. The article points to a machine shop with positions to fill, a stack of resumes, but no one qualified to take the available positions. This problem is happening all over the country. It's even a little frustrating. There are availble jobs. By some estimates, openings are literally in the millions that aren't getting filled!

mikeroweWorks was started by Mike Rowe, who is also trying to raise awareness of the opportunities in the trades, but also working to improve respect for the job that these tradesmen perform.

Notion: dimensional time eliminates need for branching universes

This post is only going to be a superficial discussion and isn't going to explain anything in any real depth. I'm trying to simplify advanced quantum physics in the best way a "lay" person can.

In 1957, Hugh Everett introduced the idea of branching universes to solve a problem we encountered regarding seemingly random choices that the elements of the universe (waveforms in particular) when observed. Sometimes light appears as a wave, sometimes as a particle, and there is no way to know which a head of time. Everett suggested that the light doesn't make a choice when is it forced into one form or the other. It is always both a wave and a particle. The Universe branches into two each time the light is observed and forced to make a choice. In one Universe, you observe light beam taking on wave behavior. In the other Universe, another-you observes the light take on a particle behavior. Thus, the idea of branching Universes says that a two Universes are created every time a choice like this is made. There's a certain bit of faith required to believe this, but pure math doesn't lie, right?


The challenge
Now, I'm no physicists. I'm not going to challenge the math that goes into this notion. It's been tested many times and found to be sound. However, math is nothing more than a numeric language that we created ourselves to parse out elements of the Universe to understand it in our terms. Keywords being "our terms".

Everett's assertions about branching Universes (or Many-worlds interpretation, as it is formally called) are based on time being both linear and two dimensional at the same time. Each branching Universe is 1 dimensional, created within 2 dimensional time, like branching lines being doodled on a piece of paper. Well, that means it could be said time is 1.5 dimensional. I know many physicists will cringe at my interpretation of branching Universes. However, at least from an intellectual point of view, this seems to me to be a reasonable simplification. My point is the the concept of branching Universes offers an unnecessarily complex and convoluted explanation for something as simple as a beam of light acting one way instead of another.

Spontaneous creation of matter and energy?
Another problem I have with branching Universes is this. Where is all the infinite energy coming from to create all these infinite branches? Infinite energy is the same as infinite mass (E=mc2). If the Universe really started off with all of this infinite energy, it would have immediately collapsed back on itself, never to grow in the first place. Or, if the energy didn't exist at the Big Bang, there's no mechanism now that can continuously double the energy within a Universe to spawn new versions of itself. Thermodynamics has yet to be disproved by quantum physics.

Why is gravity so heavy?
Yet another problem. If gravity exists outside of the Universe, as current understanding quantum physics now suggests, it would be impacted by the creation of new branches of the Universe. As such, even if infinite energy is being created on the fly (as opposed to being there at the start of the Universe), gravity would weaken so rapidly, its decaying influence on this Universe could be readily measured and would likely lead each Universe to fly apart to nothingness shortly after the Big Bang. There wouldn't be enough gravity to form a single dust particle, let alone entire galaxies.

Every point in the Universe knows about every other point, 13 billion light years away?
One more problem? Sure. For entire Universes to be created instantly and constantly by the actions of a single particle or waveform in a highly localized point, every bit of energy, every particle, everything that exists would have to be instantly duplicated. These means that every bit of energy, every particle, everything in existence would have to be in instantaneous communication with every other bit of energy, particle and every object in the Universe, 13 billion light years across! This creates a new problem! If the action of every particle in the Universe has the ability to replicate the entire Universe, the information of the Universe has to be immediately available to all points within the Universe at the same time. But if the Universe is constantly branching, there is no preferred frame of reference from which the Universe can be infinitely replicated! There's no sorting mechanism to give one choice a preference over another when they happen at the same time. This leads to yet another problem.

Branching causes information bottleneck
The very act of infinitely and instantly replicating the Universe would create huge gaps in information on whatever the current state Universe is in. Things happen simultaneously all the time. How are quadrillions of simultaneous actions supposed to be instantly reconciled to instantly form quadrillion x quadrillion Universes? Some suggest that the ends of the Universe (whatever is just beyond 13 billion light years in any direction) may already be out of touch with each other. This would make the Universe impossible to instantly resolve to form all of these simultaneous branches. Even if all information about the Universe is known to all points in the Universe at any given instant, there would be a measurable bottleneck of the branching activity. Time would slow down at an increasingly observable rate.

2D Time makes branching unnecessary anyway
Here's the kicker. If the Universe is 1 dimensionally branching within 2 dimensional time, then time is already considered 2 dimensional. If time is 2 dimensional, then there's no need for the branching to take place. If the Universe is a waveform in 2 dimensional time, the objects within it are smeared across this these two time dimensions. We are simply seeing a 1 dimensional view of our Universe intersecting with 2 dimensional time.

Ball passing through a plane acts the same as our view of time
This is similar to a 3 dimensional ball that passes through 2 dimensional plane. As the ball passes through the plane, an observer on the plane simply sees a line that grows, then shrinks. He doesn't see the ball itself. Depending on where the ball intersects the plane, the observer sees a shorter or longer line (even just a point). Any measurement of the line is just as valid as any other, but only the portion that intersects the plane can be measured at any one time. So, this is also true of the Universe if time is 2 dimensions, and the Universe is a waveform that intersects it at different points.  We simply see different view points of the same event each time we make an observation. There's nothing random about the observations! We just cannot see the whole shape in our limited view!

We aren't creating new branches of the Universe when the Universe "makes a choice". We are simply observing where our Universe is intersected by 2D time!
When we observe something that forces the Universe to "make a choice", it's not random. We are simply observing which portion of our Universe (or the element being observed) is currently intersecting within the 2 dimensional time. This doesn't mean that there aren't parallel Universes that resemble our own. It just means that those Universes have been there since the Big Bang (not branching), using a measurable portion of the Big Bang's energy for their formation, just as our Universe has.

To be clear, I offer the above as a notion to point to other interpretation of Quantum Physics. It's not meant to be the final word on anything, nor does it represent a tightly held belief of my own. I certainly haven't done any math to back any of this up. However, I do believe there are physicists that are already moving along similar paths of reasoning, so I'm trying to get the word out as the concept of branching Universes has been gaining momentum in recent years with very little in the way of observations to back it up.

I'm feeding Twitter with Mass Pike

The hashtag #masspike has some interesting tweets about the portion of I-90 that runs through Massachusetts, called Mass Pike.  So, since I'm driving on a section of Mass Pike on most days, I've started posting a semi-daily tweet attached to that hashtag which covers some experiences I've have while on that toll freeway.  The fact that I have something to complain about practically everyday should say something about a large minority of poor drivers that frequent this stretch of road. 

People swerving excessivly (worse than drunks, in my opinion) are quite common.  Even worse is when a big rig is actively swerving into adjacent lanes without the intent of changing lanes.  More than once, I've seen hapless cars have to veer, literally avoiding dangerous accidents.

Many drivers treat the road as their own ash tray, flinging cigarette butts out to bounce into the cars behind them.  Many butts have a well inflamed cherry.  Rather unsafe.

I'm sure many people aren't all that clear on the concept of what a lane is.  It seems a dashed line in the middle of the road is an invitation to drive on top of the line down the middle.  This is a particular problem with freeway exits.  A problem with freeway entrances is the opposite. If there is only one lane, lane splitting is employed.  See, here I thought lane splitting was only legal in California with a motorcycle and a car.  Massachusetts, it's illegal, so why not just completely break the law by lane splitting a big rig with another big rig!

These daily events aren't limited to Mass Pike, and they aren't even the half of what goings on.  So, keep an eye on the #masspike hashtag on Twitter to see what your missing. 

 https://mobile.twitter.com/search/%23masspike 

Today Show jumped the shark years ago (Let's make sperm donors evil!)

Today, on the Today Show (NBC's morning "news" program), Anne Curry did a story on sperm donors who's sperm was used to create many children for many different families. They gave an extreme example of one guy whose donated sperm was used to sire 150 kids. Instead of honoring this effort that brings so much joy to the world, they took another bizarre angle.

They interviewed two talking heads that both expressed they were shocked by this number and that something was wrong and the fertility industry needed regulation to put a stop to this. Really? No one ever once said what was actual wrong with donating sperm and bringing new lives in to this world that otherwise wouldn't be here (regardless to the number). The whole point was that something was wrong.

As expected, the line, "Think about the children" was actually seriously used. Really? You mean, all those people who are alive today (who otherwise won't have been) are somehow detrimented! Again, the detriment was never vocalized. I guess they are suggesting that because there's a 1 in 50 chance some medical knowledge about their biological father *might* help one of them, we should stop any of them from being born at the risk of the one offspring not being able to know. Hey, Today Show, by your own logic, you just killed 150 people (for as much sense as any of this makes) to prevent one person the pain of having to go through and extra medical procedure (usually just a genetic test these days)...oh the horror of it all!

Of course, they tried to humanize and already human story by talking about the kids (many of them adults now) trying to get in touch with each other and their biological father. The offspring never say anything was wrong. They just talked about how they wanted to get in touch with each other. ::yawn::

So, what was the point of the story? In my opinion, it's a distraction. Like so many other stories aired on the Today Show nowadays, this story was targeted to get an emotion response without much regard for the integrity of the program itself. The Today Show has gone down the same road as Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera and others that ended up making trash TV because they didn't have the skill to talk about real issues that are impacting everyone's lives in a way that most people can understand.

I'd rather spend $100 trillion dollars to solve the National Debt crisis than spend one red cent on creating regulation to control the fertility industry just because somebody feels like something is wrong somewhere or somehow.

You know what's wrong? About 15,000 people die each in America year because of drunk driving. 500,000+ Americans die each year due to cancer. 600,000+ die from heart attacks each year. Or, in government concerns, National Debt and deficit is causing the general decline of our country; as that continues, we have much worse problems to dealt within instead of worrying about some guys secretions.

Is state sales tax on interstate commerce allowed?

Did you know that individual States cannot tax interstate commerce, as a general rule? There are some very specific exceptions, and California (and other States) have been trying to exploit extremely loose interpretations of those exceptions. Interstate commerce is any transaction, transit or business that is conducted across State borders. This includes mail order, Internet, and physically going to another State to purchase an item to bring back to your home State. Many States have taxes on their books that attempt to circumvent this law. Recently, States have been trying to exploit what they think is a loophole in the Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (backup link) Supreme Court ruling that solidified the limitations on taxation by States. In this ruling, the Supreme Court declares that States may only attempt to levy an interstate commerce tax against businesses that have a presence within their State, known as a substantial nexus. Leave it to judges to come up with a term like that. It basically means a business must have a physical presence within the State in order for its transactions to be taxed by that State. California is now ready to pass a law that will try to specifically impose the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers, even when the retailer has no physical presence within the State. They are trying to expand on a similar law passed by New York recently. The idea behind the bill is that marketing itself counts as some sort of physical presence. If that doesn’t scare everyone, I don’t know what will. It basically means that anyone with a website that is accessible within California’s territory (i.e., any website on the Internet) is subject to California taxes and law, even if they’ve never set foot in the State. This substantially contradicts the body of Quill v ND, but hey, it’s a taxation party right now! Now, the common mistake is to assume “oh, the States are just strapped for cash and are trying to find ways to soak us dry.” That might be true if politicians actual wrote the bills that become laws. As a general rule, they do not (backup link). You know who does, as a general rule? Corporate lawyers of companies that lobby our legislative bodies. Hmmm, what corporate lawyers would be in favor of raising taxes on businesses? The corporate lawyers that work for companies who would not be substantially hurt by those taxes, but whose competitors would be. Let this excerpt from a recent letter from Amazon.com tell the story.

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of California residents. Unfortunately, a potential new law that may be signed by Governor Brown compels us to terminate this program for California-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state. We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue.

Big-box retailers are companies like Target and Walmart. According to Amazon.com, companies like these seek to protect their businesses by fooling State governments into thinking the State will increase revenue with expanded scope on their sales taxes. Instead, this new tax (like any other tax) has a negative impact on the economy. I’m not against all taxation, but I am against any laws (taxes or otherwise) where one industry attempts to screw over another without providing any new benefit to the consumer. My website is just like any other. It does generate an extremely small amount of income from referrals (upon which I already pay income tax) via affiliate links with Amazon (please see the FTC 16 CRF Part 255 notice in the right column). Now, this law wouldn’t require me to pay any more taxes direclty, but as a customer of Amazon and other online sites, I would be forced to pay sales tax from a law that is probably unconstitutional. Laws that see to “tax the Internet” erode everyone’s rights, and threaten to hold anyone with a website accountable to the individual laws of over six thousand different taxing jurisdictions in America, according the Quill v ND ruling (linked above). Oddly enough, I no longer live in California. But, how long will it be before more States try to pass similar laws? Congress needs to act on this issue soon to prevent this economic nighmare from growing any further. I’m not making this a call to action because each person much act on their own. As such, I am going to be contacting my *new* Congress representitives about this issue very shortly. For additional reading, please see The Problems of State Taxation of Interstate Commerce and Why Congress Should Act (backup link)

Cross-country trip - day 5 (part 1)

I learned along time ago that good planning for a trip is critical. That includes planning for flexibility. On this road trip, I learned that it is very easy to forget the day of the week or even what city I was in on the previous day. There is a new understanding as to why rock stars often gaffe by shouting out the wrong city when they are on long tours.

Due to poor success with picking a hotel using Hotwire's unpublished rates via Expedia (yet again), I ended up with nice hotel that was not close enough to the area I wanted. I was stuck at the hotel (since I didn't want to drive anywhere). However, complimentary services weren't denied to me at this place. Though hotel rates can be as much as 50% less, I would still think twice before using Hotwire's unpublished rates again.

The drive from Indianapolis, IN to Binghamton, NY was the second longest of this road trip. Ohio wins the award for the most welcoming entry sign! Most states just put up a road sign that says something like, "Hey, you are entering our state". Ohio has a welcoming arch that extends over the freeway and declares "Welcome to Ohio" using three different fonts! I felt very welcomed, indeed. There's a lot of blue and white paint on bridges and other freeway structures in Ohio. When you are here, there's not doubt about the fact that you are in Ohio!

The weather turned from gray to very sunny somewhere in Ohio. I decided to stop off in Erie, PA for a very early dinner. The weather was gorgeous! The lake was beautiful. I had a great swordfish sandwich at Rumrunner's Cove. It's nearly impossible to find swordfish on the West Coast these days due to mercury contamination. Even though I had my swordfish steak in a sandwich, it was cooked a 100 times better than what I got at The Chart House in Boston the month before. My early dinner was very relaxing, though very short, since I needed to get back on the road. I'll have to come back to Erie, PA again.

OK, I was stunned by what I found in western New York state. More on this later.

Cross-country trip - day 4

My drive out of Kansas City was uneventful, with a brief lament about the fact that I didn't get to spend more quality time there. On the way to St. Louis, I stopped off at this one Mayberry type town (which shall remain nameless here). There were several official brown highway signs pointing out the existence of this quaint town. Even that modest highway advertising was a bit overstated. The photo to the right shows the full extent of the "historic old town". To me, it seemed like a glorified yard sale, with its four or five antique shops. The windmill was interesting.

Crossing the middle of America went well. I was able to hit St. Louis about mid-day to see the Gateway Arch. It's big and very stainless (as in stainless steel). If you don't intend on staying at the monument for longer than 30 minutes, parking is fairly easy to find (in the 30-minute park zones). However, spending more time there will likely cost a few bucks on garage parking.

There was no time to go on a tour inside the monument, but there was enough time to have lunch at Pappy's Smokehouse (of Man V Food fame). The food was great and the service was quick, polite and friendly. When I got back on my way, I crossed over the mighty Mississippi without giving it much more than a passing glance. The only reason for such disregard was that I forget to look at it as I drove over the bridge.

View Larger Map
The drive into Indiana consisted of an abrupt speed change down to 65MPH. As far as I could tell, there was no reason for this. Even worse, within Indianapolis, the speed limit was 55MPH on the freeways. These freeways are very wide and very modern. In my opinion, one would be safer driving at 85MPH on the Indianapolis freeways than they would be driving 75 on a rural freeway in Wyoming. The 55MPH speed limit just doesn't seem logical. It almost seems like people from Indiana let their grandma's pick the speed limit.

Oh, did I mention I drove through Illinois (and avoided Chicago)? Yeah, I did that too. I was on a mission to break my old, personal record for the most miles on one tank of gas. In my old 2003 Acura TL-S, I was once able to go 360 miles without refueling. With my 2009 Pontiac G8 GT (with its 6.0L 8 cylinder engine), I easily passed 400 miles, with about 24MPG. (I love the engine technology that shuts down 4 of the cylinders when they aren't needed). City driving is much worse, with about 15MPG. So, I either get really good mileage (for a V8) or really bad mileage, depending on the type of driving.

Cross-country trip - day 3

Wow, what a boring day. Kansas is flat, flat and more flat. I drove clear through the state without stopping for more than a few minutes. That's Denver, CO to Kansas City, MO. I might've stopped for more time, but there was just nothing to stop for. I'm not in Kansas any more. It's prolly a great place, but there's just not much to entice a traveller, at least along I70. It is a stark contrast to the changing landscapes of the previous days. The more I drove, the more flatness presented itself. To make matters worst, their was tons of construction work being done to the freeway.

I made it to my hotel in Kansas City, MO a bit later than I hoped. The hotel was nice, but not quite what I expected. See my previous article for the reason. As such, I didn't get to enjoy Kansas City as I had originally planned. Oh well. At least I slept very well for the first time on my journey.

Be wary of the Hotwire unpublished rates service

You get what you pay for. This is a poorly grammarred sentence that gets to the point. It is true with Hotwire's unpublished hotel rates service. I recently used this service (via Expedia) for a trip to Kansas City, MO. I thought I was getting a 3 or 4 star hotel that was centrally located near a popular area of town. The hotel offered a good rate through Hotwire's unpublished rates service. I didn't get to pick the hotel using this service, but was able to select the general area in town.

The hotel is very nice, and is likely 3 stars, but not for me. Here's the drawbacks. Though the hotel was in the general area I picked, it was not nearly as close as it should've been. I wanted a hotel within walking distance of the central area. I got a hotel that was within a 5 minute drive. Annoying. The hotel offers a complimentary breakfast, but not for me. The hotel offers free wi-fi, again not for me. The hotel did offer me an upgrade to receive those normally complimentary services ($15). Wanna guess on their published rate for the room? I'm guessing it's very close to the Hotwire's unpublished rate plus the $15 upgrade fee. Funny how that works.