Filed under: random | Tags: environment, relationships, sci-fi, teleportation, transit
(or: the #1 way to improve my love life)
I am in a long distance relationship – my boyfriend lives in Boston. We don’t see each other often, so many a night is spent wishing we could be closer or had some magical means of transportation. Since we are both geeks, this usually means transporters or powers of teleportation.
But being the diligent, socially-conscious people that we are, we got sidetracked into thinking about the ramifications of teleportation ability. Obviously the need to be able to teleport anything you are wearing or carrying is essential, if at least so you do not violate public decency laws. But I also became concerned that if my boyfriend gained the ability to teleport he would not get enough exercise – he would start using it for small trips that he normally walks for, such as to the grocery store. So I decided that the teleport ability should only be usable for above a certain distance – one that is further than easy access by walking and/or public transportation.
Ideally, only he and I would have this ability – its value would be too degraded otherwise. However, it it was more widespread, it should be rationed in such a way as to be friendly to the environment. The main restriction would be that it would only be available to those who did not drive or would be willing to give up driving. Same goes for people with private jets or helicopters. (And if I was mean, people who make fun of people in long distance relationships)
I mean, there probably should also be regulation for people who are criminals, or maybe just that if someone is doing something malicious, they become unable to teleport. “Lightness of soul” sort of stuff.
Of course then you run into the problem of making sure you don’t teleport into a wall or anything. It would be easy for places that you already know (like your boyfriend’s bedroom, as was the original idea, ahem), but for places you don’t know? Maybe Google could have a Google maps for transporter locations, and included a picture of what the room looks like. Either that or they would all have to be completely uniform.
I think it’s an awesome idea, but the airplane, automobile, and rail lobby would never allow it.
But do you think the government would give me a research grant for it? I mean, it’s for the good of the environment! And my sex life.
Filed under: economics, random | Tags: currency, design, money, what were they thinking
(or: Why we don’t have counterfiet seven dollar bills)
I was walking to the vending machine yesterday, when I noticed that the numberal “1″s in the corner had the word “one” written on top of them. This seems excessive, I thought, and that led me to count all instances of the denomination on the bill. Sixteen. Yes, I know I will have you all counting now, as no one ever believes me. But there are six on the front, ten on the back, eight each written as numerals and as words. I had trouble fathoming why they were designed like this. I could think up a rationale for displaying the deomination eight (one of every corner of each side to maximize visibility when flipping through a wallet), even ten (add the word once on each side to prevent forgery by altering the numerals, though who today would fall for that?) times, but sixteen?
I just didn’t understand it.
So I decided to do an informal survey. I looked at pictures of other currencies and saw how many times demonations appeared on their banknotes (results below). What I found was that, of the banknotes surveyed none had near as many numbers on it. All but two had no more than half the number of numbers that the dollar bill had. The 100 Russian Rouble note had ten. The only one that had more was the American two dollar bill, with eighteen (more details on that when I go home and look them up). Having the word one appear as many times as the numeral seems also unique to the one dollar bill.
I suppose having the denomination appear so many times on the one dollar bill is to try to prevent confusion, since all U.S. banknotes look rather alike, though that is changing a bit as designs have changed. But they are still rather uniform. The only reason I can think of as to why the two dollar bill has its denomination displayed even more than the one is because some people have such a hard time believeing a two dollar bill exists.
Across the pond, the Euro is a very good example of currency design, at least in a utilitarian sense. Each bill has its denomination prominently displayed, and only in numerals (makes sense, given the language range in the EU), each denomination is also a different size and a different color. It is impossible to mistake one for another.
If you were a currency designer, how would you design a bill? Personally, I would want the denomination to appear on both sides, probably on opposite corners both times, so that makes four. And opposite opposite corners for that matter, so that each corner has the denomination. I would want the denomination to appear in large font at least once, probably on the front, either by enlarging one of the corners, or inserting it elsewhere into the design. I’m on the fence as to whether I’d want the word of the denomination to appear. It seems rather unncessary.
*
Disclaimer: This is an informal survey done with mostly low quality images. Also, numbers used in security features (including microprint, the waterprints on the higher demoniation U.S. bills, and the security strip on the Euro) are not counted. Neither are Arabic words – I can’t read Arabic.) And if I was really being rigorous, I would compare the dates notes were desgined, if there was any international/imperialistic influence, and make sure that they have a roughly equivelent exchange rate/real value, or even do a comparison between real values.
| Currency | Denomination | Total | Front | Back | Numeral | Word |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antartican Dollar | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Australian Dollar | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Brazillian Reai | 10 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Chinese Yuan | 10 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Cuban Peso | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| English Pounds | 10 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Egypt Piaste | 10 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
| E.U. Euro | 10 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
| Iraqi Dinar | 50 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| Israeli Shequalim | 20 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Japanese Yen | 1000 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Libyan Dinar | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Mexican Peso | 100 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Moroccan Dirham | 20 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 0 |
| Peruvian New Sole | 10 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Russian Rouble | 100 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 2 |
| South African Rand | 20 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Kingdom of Time | 1 Second | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| U.S. Dollar | 1 | 16 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 8 |
| U.S. Dollar | 2 | 18 | ||||
| U.S. Dollar | 20 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
Thanks go to the Bagism table maker and the banknotes.com world currency gallery
Filed under: economics, politics | Tags: energy, environment, future, infrastructure, not a libertarian, transit
(or: Reason #1 why I am not a libertarian)
Inspired by Infrastructure for the Future We Want, an article by Alex Steffen on WorldChanging.
When I get bored waiting for the metro, I count the elevator outages that scroll across the announcements ticker: Elevator Outage, White Flint, Shuttle from Twinbrook; Elevator Outage Virginia Square, Shuttle from Ballston….rarely fewer than a half dozen, and I have never seen a day when all the elevators were working.
The DC Metro System is 42 years old. Granted, it is a century younger than New York City transit. But track work, elevator repair, escalator mending, is eternal. The system doesn’t need more patches. It needs an overhaul. Skimping on repairs or restorations and making due with patches can have fatal consequences.
While some elements of U.S. infrastructure are sheer marvels of engineering, the system at large -all the roads with cracks and potholes, structurally deficient bridges, the aging public transit systems- needs huge renovations. Indeed, the U.S. is falling behind in a global comparison as well: the first American high speed rail system will be not in the U.S. but in Argentina.
Rebuilding our infrastructure would be inordinately expensive. Indeed, how is it even thinkable at the beginning of a recession? On one hand (the unrealistic one), if taxes were progressive instead of regressive, and if we got ourselves out of this money sinkhole of an idiotic “war,” it might be easier to take care of the important domestic issues. On the other hand, updating the infrastructure would provide a large quantity of domestic jobs, the cost would be spread over multiple levels of government, and citizens could easily see how they themselves benefit – either by employment or safe and easier transit.
Updating our infrastructure is a prime opportunity to take into consideration the grave facts about our ecological state, and need to conserve energy and reduce emissions. Indeed, these are necessary goals, if we want our children to have at least the quality of life we are accustomed to.
There are the obvious methods of greening our infrastructure: bike lanes, focusing on mass transit rather than freeways (Worldchanging has a wonderful article: “My Other Car is a Bright Green City” about cars and emissions). Effective mass transit that encourages urban, rather than suburban, growth, is better for the environment. While cities might seem dirtier, they have a much smaller ecological footprint per person, of which the population denseness and decreased need to drive is a major factor. To note (from the above-mentioned article), it is easier to effectively and prolifically green buildings than it is to green automobiles.
But there are other issues as well, such as sourcing energy for the system. Hot asphalt roads are natural solar panels. The Dutch are already beginning to use them to heat buildings and regulate roadtop temperatures so the roads require less maintenance. Or what about piezoelectrics – vibration energy? Two years ago the BBC did a story about the vibrations at the Victoria Cross underground station Granted, it’s not enough energy to power the trains, but between the 34,000 commuters and the hundreds of trains that pass through the station each day, it could certainly generate enough electricity to light itself. There is no reason to let that energy go to waste. The cost of maintaining the system is high enough as is.
And that brings me to my final point: using the overhaul as a way to boost the sorry financial state of the transit systems. While SEPTA and WMATA come particularly to mind, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no transit system in the world that breaks even, much less turns a profit. It is the maintenance that is so expensive – we are using century old technology at well over capacity. Updating the infrastructure is an enormous upfront investment, but, making it more durable, more energy efficient, paired with adjusting the routes and service (again, another large investment) to be more efficient, would greatly reduce long run costs. Not enough that they wouldn’t require subsidies, I don’t imagine, but hopefully enough that they won’t have an operation deficit.
*
There are so many other types of infrastructure, physical, communicative, or societal: energy, waste, water, the legal system, phone lines, financial markets, the school system, even the internet. Keeping them well functioning is necessary to keeping society well functioning – when they break down, so do we, and when they work well, people can put up with a lot – Sadaam Hussein was a harsh dictator, but the garbage got picked up on time. I think the provision of infrastructure is a primary reason why we need the government; parcelling the services out to firms without regulation can easily lead to monopoly pricing and favoritism.
I will have more to say on infrastructure in the future.
And more reasons why I am not a libertarian.
Filed under: economics, reviews | Tags: economics, Major Barbara, money, philanthropy, theatre
(or: How dirty can that fiver get?)
Today I saw George Bernard Shaw’s most famous satire, Major Babarba, performed by the The Shakespeare Company. It was an amazing performance, and I highly urge anyone in the DC area with a mind for theatre to attend. (They have great student rates, as well)
I found Major Barbara (synopsis here) a powerful commentary of conflict between idealism, realism, and cynicism. It is fascinating how well Shaw can preach for the capitalist, for the arms dealer when he himself was a socialist and an ardent pacifist.
Barbara Undershaft is a naïve and idealistic major in the Salvation Army who sees her conviction that the “Army cannot be bought” shot down when the cash-strapped Army accepts a large check from her father, a wealth arms manufacturer.
(Act III) BARBARA. …I was happy in the Salvation Army for a moment. I escaped from the world into a paradise of enthusiasm and prayer and soul saving; but the moment our money ran short, it all came back to Bodger*: it was he who saved our people: he, and the Prince of Darkness, my papa. Undershaft and Bodger: their hands stretch everywhere: when we feed a starving fellow creature, it is with their bread, because there is no other bread; when we tend the sick, it is in the hospitals they endow; if we turn from the churches they build, we must kneel on the stones of the streets they pave. As long as that lasts, there is no getting away from them. Turning our backs on Bodger and Undershaft is turning our backs on life.
*a distiller of Whisky who bought himself a Lordship by funding the building of a cathedral.
Barbara is sickened at the prospect of rich men buying their Salvation. The money is tainted with the blood of those killed by Undershaft weaponry. But that raises the question: is the salvation of those fed by Undershaft bread, is the health of those healed in Bodger hospitals, tainted because of the origins of the funding?
The cynicism of funding origin still exits today. The movie The Constant Gardner creates a downright paranoia towards “generous” pharmaceuticals . But the world needs it’s philanthropists, whether they give out of genuine charity or the desire for a good name or a good night’s sleep. It is funding on a scale the government won’t, and the public can’t, provide. It is money for good works, and indeed to be put to work for the “commercial ruin” of people like Undershaft and Bodger. Though, in this day and age, being seen as a philanthropic company, or a green company, is very much in vogue. It is advertisement and an instant reputation boost. There are many self-interested reasons why a company might want to invest in a causes that might seem to work against them. People might view them as less harmful, less “evil” or soulless, better than their competitors. The consumers might feel that if they support this company, they are supporting a certain cause.
But hen does money become too dirty that even good works cannot launder it? Is it when that money has created wars? Formed addictions? Sold people? Been obtained illegally? Where would you draw the line?
As an aside, it seems to me that some people donate money from a sheer lack of knowing what else to do with it. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation comes to mind. There is only so much money a person can use. What is £5,000 to a millionaire like Andrew Undershaft?
Filed under: events, links, politics | Tags: eDemocracy, eDemocracyCamp, information, links, online politics, Policy commons
During the last session, I managed to impressively crash my computer and lose a lot of my notes. However, I do have a lot of interesting links for you!
Originally, the discussion was supposed to be about What should the Policy Commons be? I remember it being an interesting conversation, but, unfortunately little else. The premise was, that you have the environmental commons, you have cultural commons, you have information commons, but are there/can there be governance commons? Meaning (I think), not only allowing for the policies, both content and the creation process, to be accessible to all, but also the infrastructure for spreading that information and involvement.
There were only three of us in that conversation, after a while we migrated to the very popular Congressional Information being Awesome hosted by two representatives of one of our wonderful sponsors, the Sunlight Foundation, which is dedicated to freedom of information. They had a projector up and were showing us some nifty information related links:
IBM Many Eyes is a data visualization platform, that allows you to take pretty much any set of data, and gives you the options to analyze texts, compare sets of values, see relationship among data points, see the parts of a whole, see the world, or track rise and fall over time. It then allows you to share data sets and visualizations, comment on others, and join “topic hubs.” Very nifty.
Sunlightlabs has aContent Extraction Prototype which scans a document for information of a given type and returns each instance with the character number it appears at and the strength of it’s appearance. Sunlightlabs also has an API for finding information about Congress representatives, a script for adding pop-up information bubbles about congress members to your site, a googlemaps mash-up of Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations earmarks, and many other nifty applications.
But if you’re really interested in APIs and mash-ups, check out Programmable Web, which has over 500 of them, from using Google maps to find good fishing locations, to mapping campaign contributions to Flickr Sudoku. It’s fascinating just to see what people are creating these days.
There is Open CRS, which centralizations the collection of reports from the Congressional Research Service, the branch of the Library of Congress that does research for congress members and committees, and makes them available to the public. Normally CRS reports are only available to members of congress, but can be released to the public by any one of them. Hence, CRS report availability is scattered, at best. Open CRS lobbies for all CRS reports to be made immediately available to the public.
ZIPskinny is a cute site that allows you to enter your zipcode, and obtain demographic information on that area based on census 2000 data. You can also compare these statistics to other zipcodes, the state, or the nation. It also provides a map of the area and information on local schools. Helpful for anyone planning a move.
But the most entertaining website revealed was Fantasy Congress, which is very much as it sounds. It’s like a fantasy sports league, but with senators instead of baseballers. It was created to get the public more interested in the political process. You draft a team with a certain number of senior and junior members of congress and earn points based on their legislative success, voting attendance, “maverick score” (based on how far they deviate from party lines), speeches, and noteworthy national and local news. And, of course, you bench, trade, and pick up members. Remember, politics is a competitive sport.
Overall, the barcamp was wonderful, if exhausting. I met some awesome people and it’s very heartening to hear about all the concrete things people are doing to promote involvement in the political process, and the success they are having. The internet is a prime tool for fostering “bottom-up” interaction between citizens and between citizens and the political process. I will be keeping an eye on this community in the future.
Pictures from the day can be found in the eDemocracyCamp Flickr pool.
