Quantum physics

As I read more and more articles like this one, where quantum physicists are stretching the boundaries of what we thought we knew about the world around us, I can't help but shake the feeling that we are witnessing the beginning of a great scientific discovery. These scientists studying quantum entanglement remind me of Michael Faraday discovering electromagnetic induction, or Wilhelm Röntgen researching x-rays. The seemingly bizarre behavior they saw was eventually understood, then put to fantastic use in new technology. I'm certain quantum physics will lead in the same direction, I just hope I live long enough to see what that cool new technology will be.

Christmas thoughts

Online shopping has got to be the best thing to ever happen to Christmas shopping. You can get lots of different kinds of presents all at one time, you don't have to deal with going to stores, and since you don't need the benefit of having the items right away (you have to wait until Christmas to open them anyway), the shipping time isn't even an issue.

The one thing online retailers haven't gotten the hang of yet is not completely giving away what's inside the box they send you. I bought a unique gift for Amber this year, one of those ones you'd never guess. The box arrived, as many do, while I was at work. I came home to find it with a blanket over it and Amber swearing she hadn't read anything. Upon closer examination I found that this box had a detailed description of its contents printed on it six times - once on each side and on two separate stickers. Luckily, they forwent the full-color glossy pictures (I did buy it during their Christmas sale after all).

If you have kids at home and no Christmas train, you're missing out. Ours has done countless laps already. Definitely worth the investment.

Our neighbor down the street worked all year on his Christmas light setup and now has one of those programmable light shows with radio broadcast, so the lights do cool things to the music. We've had pretty warm weather the last couple days so we've walked over with a handheld radio several nights this week to watch (and dance) to the music.

The family next door to him must have been trying to keep up with the Joneses because they got a 21-foot inflatable snowman to go along with their lights and other sundry yard decorations. I literally LOLed the first time I saw it because it is so ridiculously huge.

Christmases are getting more and more fun as the kids get older. We're entering the golden age for Christmases, probably for at least ten years or so until we start getting surly teenagers.

We're back

We got back from our trip Sunday afternoon.  I will post more soon, after I finish sorting through the 1400+ pictures  Don't worry, I won't post all of them here.

So while you wait for that, I have an addendum to a previous blog post about the origin of the word chicken.  Another alternative is that it follows the pattern of kitty cat and puppy dog and was originally chick hen.  Ok, maybe not, but coincidences are still fun.

Also, I think there should be a new rule for computers that prohibits the blinking insertion cursor from appearing unless that window actually has input focus.  I have two monitors at work and I'm always switching between applications and I can't tell you how many times I've started typing while looking at one blinking cursor, only to realize, for example, that I've just typed my password for a website as plain text in my code window.  Oh, and an application should never be able to steal focus if I'm currently typing.  Not cool.

Memory

When it comes to memory, my brain works in an interesting dichotomy.  I'm good at remembering the details of an item or event, but would be hard-pressed to remember the item or event itself unless reminded of it.  So when I have to remember what I did more than a day ago, I invariably turn to my artificial memory -- my pictures.

I was organizing my external memory recently and got the last pictures and videos for 2009 organized and I thought it would be interesting to see how my memory usage has increased over the years.

Can you tell when I got married, bought a new camera and had a kid?

My replacements

This blog post idea has been sitting in my drafts for a couple months waiting for me to finish it. Perhaps that is for the better, though, because with the recent passing of my father, it's relevance has increased significantly.

Occasionally as I look at my perfect children I think to myself, "It's not really fair that they are so well off when so many others aren't."  They were born to two loving parents.  We are well-educated and actively involved in their learning and they obviously got some of the smart genes.  They have a mom who can stay at home with them.  They live in a nation with a high standard of living, and relative peace and security.  They live in a household that teaches righteous principles for happy living.

I think all those things and I feel a little bit guilty, because there are many children that get the short end of the stick in life.  Somewhere out there are my girls' opposites, slow kids born to a drug-addicted single mom in a poor, war-torn, amoral country.  But then I realized that it's not so unfair after all, because some day I will die.

From a purely biological standpoint, we prolong our own life indefinitely by reproducing, by replacing ourselves.  Some day I will die, and much like my material possessions and genetic information, all the intangible elements of my life -- my intelligence, my faith, my choice of where to live -- will be passed on to those who replace me, my children.  It's no random accident that my children are growing up in the good situation they are; they are the combination of generations and generations of individuals improving their own lives.  I am a continuation of those who fought to found a nation based on individual liberty, who came to this country and became pioneers, a continuation of my dad who served a mission and went to college, and I have built on that foundation to provide a good life that I will pass on to my replacements.

I have some of the skills, knowledge, and opportunities that my father developed and worked for.  No one would begrudge him those assets in life, and it doesn't seem unfair that as his replacement, the continuation of his life, I would have them too.  Children in unfortunate situations are generally continuing the unfortunate lives, whether inherited or self-created, of their parents.  We should help people, obviously, whenever possible, but we shouldn't feel guilty for picking up the lives of our ancestors where they left off, nor should we feel too proud of a life of which we are only a small fraction.

Unintended Consequences

It seems like there has been a rapid increase in problems like allergies, autism, and depression that we have yet to fully explain scientifically. In thinking about it broadly, though, the root cause has to be a combination of these three things:

1. Weakening gene pool - Medical science has allowed people that otherwise might not have reproduced to reproduce, potentially weakening the gene pool.
2. Increased recognition - These conditions existed, but were not previously diagnosed either because they weren't recognized (depression), they were hidden (autism), people died of other causes before the condition could present (cancer), or the cause of death was attributed to a more common condition.
3. Environmental changes - Our lifestyle has changed more rapidly than the body can adjust to.
   

It's the third point that is really interesting to me. When it comes to medicine and nutrition, I think of what the most natural state of a human would be, if he were living as an animal. He would be in constant contact with nature (and germs), subsisting on basic plant products and occasionally obtaining meat, etc.

My life now so little resembles that "natural" state that it's almost comical. I can eat whatever I want whenever I want, I live isolated and sanitized from nature, and I interact with thousands of artificial mechanical, electronic, and medical innovations that are meant to improve my life. But are there unintended consequences?

Think of all the things that have changed in just the last few hundred years, probably for our betterment, but that could potentially affect our body in unintended ways. Here's some stuff I thought of in no particular order:

• Microwave ovens
• Anti-bacterial soap
• Antibiotics
  
• Immunizations
• Cell phone signals
  
• Television/radio signals
• Watching television (brain development)
  
• Preservatives
• Artificial sweeteners
• Fast food
• Fluoridated water
• Refrigeration
• Pasteurization
  
• Prescription meds
• Pollutants (air, water)
• Standardized food (lack of genetic diversity)
  
• Birth control pills
• C-section births
• Higher survival of premature birth
  
• Growth hormones
• Fertilizers
  
• High fructose corn syrup
• Enriched food
• Hydrogenated oils
• Increased meat consumption
• Increased sugar consumption
• Non-stick pans

How many of these are the lead paints of today? What are some others?

Blogen

I realized the other day that be follows the same pattern as other older verbs, like take or eat in that it adds -en in the past participle to become been. Pronouncing it as two syllables ("bee en") also sheds light (sheds sound?) on the British pronunciation (like bean).

Riding a separate train of thought, but relating to the same suffix, was my curiosity about the word chicken. Like many common animals, terms exist for male and female chickens, rooster/cock and hen, and young chickens are called chicks. Seeing as how chickens have been around a long time, I was wondering if chicken was actually once the plural of chick, much in the same way children is the plural of child and brethren the plural of brother, oxen/ox, etc, and the term was borrowed as the term for all roosters, hens and chicks.

And if that is the case, were we only a linguistic alternate universe away from calling rams and ewes lamben? What about kittens? This is why BYU needs to give access to the OED to alumni.

So Merriam Webster online has some limited etymology and it looks like chicken is actually a diminutive from of the word that eventually became cock in English and kitten is also a diminutive of cat. Kind of disappointing.

So the moral of the story here is: -en can be a past participle, a pluralization, or a diminutive. Huh.

More than welcome

I heard the phrase "You're more than welcome to..." at church yesterday and I started wondering what it meant to be more welcome than just regular welcome. And if there's a "more than welcome", there must be the antithetical "less than welcome", right*? Thus formed the Spectrum of Welcomeness:

-5) Prohibited

-4) Unwelcome

-3) Not invited

-2) Discouraged

-1) Less than welcome

0) Welcome

1) More than welcome

2) Encouraged

3) Invited

4) Expected

5) Required


I had a few interesting observations while making this list.

• There isn't a good word for not having any opinion at all on the welcomeness of an individual, thus welcome tends to translate to "I don't have a problem with you doing that", necessitating "more than welcome" to convey what "welcome" should probably mean in the first place.
• There are not a lot of good words for the negative part of the scale except to negate the positive words.
• "Unwelcome", as the apparent opposite of "welcome", seems oddly out of place in the scale, but that's where it seemed to fit best.

Yes folks, if you ever see me pondering piously in church, this is the kind of thing I'm probably thinking about.


*I can just imagine that phrase being used in church: "You're less than welcome to come over to my house afterwards for refreshments!"

Texas vs. California

As it's said in the blogging world, "hat tip" to WILLisms.com for referring me to this book, specifically this chapter on the current economic differences between California and Texas. It's long for a casual blog post read, but fairly easy reading considering the subject matter. The authors show their bias, but their arguments are hard to refute.

Some points I found interesting:

• Texas is doing extremely well financially, despite having no state income tax.
• People and businesses are leaving states like California and New York that have high tax burdens and going to places like Florida and Texas, which do not. Generally, those that have the most incentive to leave are those making the most money, exacerbating the former states' problems.
• States such as California (and the Federal Government) that rely heavily on a progressive tax code where the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor (based on income) are more susceptible to economic downturns because of a wider swing in tax revenue. In boom times, more people fall into higher tax brackets amplifying revenue, but when the bust comes and salaries decline, much of the minority that was providing the bulk of tax revenues falls into lower tax brackets and the overall decrease in revenue is amplified.

The whole book is very interesting reading, if you have time. Also, one of the authors has an eponymous curve representing the optimal taxation idea I was trying to get across in a former post. Basically, I agree with what they say.

Carter baby

It hadn't occurred to me until just now that I was born under the administration of President Jimmy Carter. I had always thought of 1980 as the election year when Ronald Reagan was elected, but of course he didn't start until January 1981. So I've lived through one more president than Amber (take that!). Apparently I didn't miss much, however, seeing as how his major accomplishment on the day of my birth was to go fishing. Hmph.

Digital Television

When we moved into our new house we decided to save money and not get cable or satellite TV service. We like to watch an occasional show, but not enough to justify the cost. We've just been using an indoor antenna to get the local channels.

A few months ago I bought a really nice HDTV, ostensibly in preparation for the upcoming transition from analog to digital, but mostly because I wanted a really nice HDTV. Not wanting to waste its capabilities, of course, I also had to get a PS3 to play Blu-ray movies. We've been living with this setup for a while now and I have a few observations.

First, I like Blu-ray. I don't like the price yet, but I love the picture quality. I think it's a noticeable difference and improves the movie-watching experience. I also like that it's always widescreen -- no more hassle with fullscreen/widescreen versions.

Second, most people I've talked with don't agree. They're fine with their DVDs and upconverting DVD players. Maybe they didn't get a good enough TV? Or just really don't care about the quality? This apathy makes me worried that I'm a member of the latest reincarnation of the laser-disc club and Blu-ray will get overtaken by another medium like downloadable movies. At least those will be in HD.

Third, over-the-air digital HD looks great when the signal is good, but it's unbearable to watch if the signal is even a little bit weak. With analog, if the signal is weak the picture and sound get fuzzy, or perhaps you get lines on the screen or a shadow image, but the signal is displayed continuously. Your brain can filter out the fuzz and you can at least watch the show. With digital, it's all or nothing. If the signal weakens, the sound and/or picture will stop completely until the signal is strong enough again. So instead of watching a slightly fuzzy image, you get crystal clear video for 5 seconds, then 2 seconds of nothing, 10 more seconds of video, 1 second of nothing, etc.

It's really frustrating to watch anything this way. You miss crucial dialog, or the winning touchdown (and replay if it times it just right). People right in the city will be fine, but I think there is going to be a lot of backlash after the switch from people like me closer to the outskirts of town, or in rural areas. Right now I have the option to switch to the analog signal when the digital signal acts up, but after the transition I'm not sure what I'll do. I'd put up a rooftop antenna, but I don't want to buy one and drill holes in my roof not knowing how well it will work and my roof is too steep to do it myself anyway. I'd get cable or satellite, but their acceptable baseline price balloons with equipment fees, HD fees, etc. before it's something I'd want.

Fourth, the PS3 needs more games. Seriously. Not everyone wants to play war simulations.

List<CondensedThought> condensedThoughts = new List<CondensedThought>();

Sorry, the title is from too much C# programming. I've had a bunch of fragmented thoughts on the back burner (in draft form) for a while now, but the more I try to make a full post out of them, the more I feel like a windbag, so here they are in a list of condensed thoughts:

• The two major economic/political theories of the day differ in how they view the "forest" of people. One side would like to rain on the forest equally and let some trees grow big and other trees wither and die to make room for new trees, while the other side would like to water each tree individually to ensure even the weak trees contribute to the forest. The first is idealistically fair, the second idealistically compassionate (and neither idealistically practical). Almost any divisive issue boils down to this idea.
• The traditional broadcast network TV evening news is mind-numbingly stale and formulaic. It seems unfathomable to me that one network could not gain a considerable market share by hiring non-traditional anchors, allowing non-canned dialogue, and reporting on the news in more innovative ways.
• In a related thought, radio commercials should be 5-10 seconds long and interspersed between each song. I would gladly deal with the loss of "continuous" in order to lose 5-minute-long commercial breaks. I always change the station. Is no radio station brave enough to force their advertisers to break from the traditional 30-sec spot? You don't need 30 seconds, people, your ads are boring!
• It bugs me when I hear of "lost government revenue" due to tax breaks, as if the original tax is correct and right and the government is rightfully entitled to that money in the first place and it's unthinkable that the tax is too high to begin with.

OK, back to my regularly scheduled programming... ba-dum ching!

Thoughts on health care

I read two news items a while ago that got me thinking about health care.

The first was a story in the Daily Universe about a BYU student who found out he had bone cancer just a few weeks after his wedding. Treatment quickly maxed out his insurance and even after a fundraiser he was forced to accept government money to stay alive.

The second article was about scientists who decoded the genes of a person with cancer and identified the mutations that are likely the cause of the cancer.

The first article reminded me again of the fundamental problem with health care and why there is no perfect solution and the second article gave me hope that my pessimism is unfounded.

The main problem with health care is that life is invaluable. It's nearly impossible to decide when it is not worth the money to keep someone alive. Letting people die simply because they can't get treatment, regardless of the root cause, is not something most people feel comfortable with.

The secondary problem is that good health care always engenders more demand. Fixing a problem allows the patient to live to come back for other problems and treating the symptoms discourages lifestyle change, resulting in more health care. Treatment also increases the chance a patient will pass along defects to progeny, who will also need treatment. (While eugenics may have been popular in the early 20th century, no one has seriously considered it as a solution since the atrocities of WWII.)

The tertiary problem is that lowering health care costs encourages use of the system. Since there is a finite supply of health care and nearly limitless demand ("My toe kind of hurts, I might as well go to the doctor, it's free!"), a balance must be met that makes it worth everyone's time and money. Sounds like a job for the Free Market, but then you run into problem one.

I don't have a lot of hope for health care, because as healers become better at their trade the demand and expectations go up, without regard to cost because life should be worth more than money. There is no perfect solution, but the second article gives me hope that a shift in philosophy may at least alleviate the problem.

I think the future of medicine, to the benefit of health care, is in genetics. Instead of treating diabetes or cancer, we could alter our genetics to eliminate them. Instead of curing diseases, we could avoid them in the first place. This would tremendously reduce the strain on health care while keeping inviolable human life.

Is it even possible? Considering the advancements made in medicine and now in genetics, I'd be a fool to say it isn't. For now, however, I'm going to thank my genes and live healthy, and keep paying those premiums just in case.

Parable of the Commuter

The unwise investor is like unto the impatient driver, who when confronted with traffic watches with envy as the neighboring lane cruises by then juts in just as that lane slows and his original lane moves forward at greater speed. So it is with stocks. If a stock is rising quickly, should ye not be wary and stay in thine own lane, or in other words, with thine own reasonably priced stocks, that ye may gain when their value rises and that ye may avoid the loss from buying high a stock that may fall? Verily I say unto you, yea.

Thoughts on Politics

So I'm kind of politicked out. The incessant news coverage of the presidential primaries and campaigns, and the increased politicization of the economy, immigration, wars, and everything else got me all riled up (comparatively speaking, quick snickering) for a while. I read a ton of things and developed strong opinions. Then I read other things and saw the merits of opposing philosophies and the holes in my own. Now that the election is nearing and important issues are boiling down to "I'm right and you're an idiot", "Irrelevant facts disqualify your candidate", and "Relevant facts about my candidate should be ignored", I think I'm done.

I think what I've learned the most from this year's election is what is makes politics so contentious -- no one is right. And they never will be. Everyone ostensibly has the same general goals, something along the lines of peace, prosperity, and happiness* for everyone, but there is no perfect way to achieve this.

Each major party's philosophy, if executed to perfection, with perfectly able leaders and perfectly willing citizenry, would bring about our common goal. But in our imperfect world, each party's philosophy, if executed exclusively, would fail in one aspect or another. For example, Conservatives may rely on the citizenry to help the needy at the expense of those who lose their life waiting for help that never comes, while Liberals may rely on government to do the job at the expense of individual prosperity and freedom.

It's made me appreciate our two-party system a little bit more. With only two parties, philosophies must be gravitate towards center to keep a viable support base and it is easier to accomplish goals when you control a larger percentage of the government. Having mandatory 4-year presidential cycles allows enough time for one party to accomplish some goals, yet not enough time to completely convert the government to their style. Over time, our government becomes a blend of these philosophies in action, hopefully balancing out into something functional, if not successful.

What's interesting to me now and the cause of my newfound political malaise is the fervor with which each group defends its positions (and obvious weaknesses) while simultaneously inflating its own ego and debasing the opposition. They resort to half-truths, distortion, defamation, coersion, and downright lies to gain control of something nobody can effectively control. It's a pity a politician could never win by telling people the complete truth -- what they need, but don't want, to hear -- and that a politician can't win without exposing the faults of his or her opponent.

I just have to remind myself of two things. The first is that we are lucky to live in a country where we can more or less determine the quality of our life by our skill and effort. Precious few in the history of the world have had that privelege. The second is that given the basic freedoms that we have, the most important of our common goals -- happiness -- cannot be dictated by or achieved through a politician, the government, or economy. Ultimately it is our own doing.

So I'm actually at peace going into these elections knowing that regardless of the outcome and the consequences with which I may or may not agree, it will likely balance out well in the end. Everyone has the same goal. And I, personally, can still use my abilities to provide a comfortable, happy life for me and my family. Considering the alternatives, I'll take it.


*Sounds suspiciously like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Great minds think alike, I guess.

Thoughts on Taxation

Thought 1

It seems like there should be some kind of empirical way to find the optimum rate of taxation that maximizes revenue for government and minimizes burden on taxpayers. The level between being taxed so much that they can no longer stimulate the economy and being taxed too little that the government doesn't have enough to perform its fundamental responsibilities.

There are several cans of worms, I know, such as what constitutes the government's fundamental responsibilities, bull and bear markets, and inflation's role in balancing out income lost to taxes, but holding as many variables as possible constant, it seems like an optimal tax rate could be found.

Thought 2

I read this on a blog the other day, and it was an interesting idea. What if everyone, regardless of income level or situation, paid some income tax (flat or curved). This would make everyone personally invested in government spending. Then, have income tax be directly proportional to federal spending. If the government spends more, taxes go up. If they spend less, taxes go down.

You can bet politicians would be held accountable if the effects were that dramatic and immediate on their consituency. There are plenty of problems with this, too (cut-backs on necessary spending (defense?) for political expediency), but it's an interesting idea.

Incentive Theory

With the presidential election going on, I've been thinking a lot about the efficacy of politicians and the government. The founding fathers hit upon an inspired idea to form our government around a policy of checks and balances. Going off of what I am going to call Assumption 1, which is People will generally abuse the power they are given if they can get away with it, the founding fathers set a circular check on the powers of each of the three branches of government. So far it has worked remarkably well. While the roles of these branches has evolved over time, no one person or group of people has exercised undue power over the others. More than 200 years of stability is a testament to this principle's success.

The problem I have with government today is its ever-expanding size and scope and the spending that goes along with that. The root cause of this, I think, is what I call Assumption 2, which is People generally want to do as little work as possible to receive the greatest reward. The inability of the government to check its own size, scope, and spending is due to a lacking corollary to checks and balances that I call Incentive Theory:

Incentive Theory states that the incentives and disincentives of each involved party must be balanced to achieve the desired outcome, given Assumption 2, that people generally want to do as little work as possible to receive the greatest reward.

An obvious example in government is welfare and unemployment benefits. The desired outcome is that those in a poor financial situation can be sustained while finding the means to become self-sufficient. Receiving money while doing no work is the epitome of Assumption 2, therefore a substantial incentive or disincentive is necessary to achieve the desired outcome of self-sufficiency. In this case, since there is little incentive the government can give other than money, a disincentive is probably required. Discontinuation of funds if the individual fails to meet certain criteria, or a requirement to pay back an increasing percentage of funds received could be appropriate disincentives to remaining self-unsufficient.

As another example, let's consider a typical government entity. The desired outcome is to provide the service intended with the least amount of burden on the people. With little threat of losing jobs or marketplace, and in accordance with Assumption 2, the entity's workers can underperform, yet receive the same reward as if they had done more work. Sometimes inefficient work even provides a greater reward as it can result in greater funding. The individual taxpayer who helps fund the entity would have to exert a disproportionate amount of work to regain his fractional contribution, an unlikely occurrence given Assumption 2. Incentive Theory could suggest an incentive for the entity, such as bonuses for work achieved or for cost reductions or a disincentive for the entity such as firings for failing to achieve those goals. Another approach would be to give an incentive to the taxpayer by specifying the responsibilities of that entity and allowing non-government corporations to compete for the contract.

If that last suggestion seems far-fetched, consider a ubiquitous government entity: the public school system. The desired outcome is to give our children the best education possible for the least amount of money. As it stands, taxpayer money is collected from all, regardless of whether they have children or whether their children attend private school, to administer a government-run school system. This has an advantage over a completely private system in that it distributes the cost of educating children over the entire population (because well-educated children are a benefit to society as a whole) and puts schools in locations that otherwise would not have enough money to create demand. Because the funding is compulsory, the public schools hold a pseudo-monopoly, which encourages teachers' unions and reduces alternatives for education. In accordance with Assumption 2, the unions negotiate for higher pay regardless of suboptimal performance (and often because of suboptimal results), while the public school system retains underperforming teachers because the work required to fire them, which could result in strikes and poor parent perception, is too great. The work required by a parent to send a child to a private school in addition to compulsory education taxes is often not possible or worth the reward. Thus the teachers have no incentive to increase performance, the schools have a disincentive to firing underperforming teachers, and the parents have a disincentive to finding alternative options.

A voucher system balances some of those incentives. The government could continue to tax everyone since the reward for an educated populace is worth the amount of work needed for that fraction of one's salary, therefore there is an incentive for funding. The amount allocated to each child could be directed to the school of the parents' choice. For a small amount of work in choosing the appropriate school, the parents are rewarded with a better education for their child, therefore there is incentive for the parent to participate. With more employment options, the strength of the teachers' union would be weakened, allowing for higher pay for those who perform well and loss of employment for those who perform poorly, therefore there is incentive for teachers to perform well. Schools would want to reduce spending as much as possible to maximize profits, therefore there is incentive for schools to be fiscally efficient in accordance with the demands of the customer, the parent (e.g., some may want to pay more for music education). There are of course drawbacks to this method, such as what to do if no one wants to run a school in a certain area, or to a lesser extent, waiting for the market to balance school locations with demand, but it conforms much better to Incentive Theory.

As I said at the beginning, I've also been thinking about the efficacy of politicians. In my mind, the disincentive of being voted out of office does not balance the incentive of saying whatever it takes to get elected nor the incentive of doing things for power, influence, or money that are contrary to the constituents' desires or not beneficial to them. (I also think the incentive to do what the people want does not always balance the disincentive of misfortune if what the people want is bad for them, but it is the job of elected officials to do what the people want.) A disincentive such as criminal punishment, however, seems impossibly hard to adjudicate and unnecessarily restrictive when situations change and any physical incentive would be impossible to regulate objectively. Perhaps the politician's compensation could be determined by the satisfaction of the constituents at the end of each term?

Anyway, that's the gist of what's been swirling around in my head lately. If you skipped to the end, I don't blame you. This is one of those topics I wanted to think through by writing it out, and it took a bit of writing. I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my examples, but I think the fundamentals of Incentive Theory are sound and could be applied to almost any situation. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts any of you have or applications to other scenarios.

Anniversary Thoughts

Amber and I celebrated our 2nd wedding anniversary a week or so ago with an early trip to San Antonio, and dinner at Outback Steakhouse (without a wiggly baby) on the actual day. These last two years have been really good. We did our time as "poor" college students, we created a perfect child, I got my Master's degree, I got a good job, we bought a beautiful house, and things are working just like I always imagined and expected, including my marriage.

Amber recently posted her thoughts about our anniversary and I would have to agree -- I don't feel like it's been hard work at all. This is the way I always thought my marriage would be. We feel completely comfortable with who we are; there are no pretenses, there is no overt selfishness, just a desire to make each other happy. We communicate, we tell the truth, and we agree to disagree on unimportant differences of opinion. We naturally find a balance of labor and adjust it as needed, both long- and short-term. We're happy because we have someone with whom we can share everything, and who wants to share it.

Maybe I was unnaturally prescient as a child in what to expect from marriage. Only recently have I felt that the person everyone sees is what I really am on the inside. This is what I've been waiting for; I've always wanted to be a married adult. Instead of disillusionment after the initial newlywedded bliss, I feel a reassuring comfort in my pedantic existence. I love coming home to play with my baby girl and trade thoughts with my best friend. Going out is almost a chore.

I used to worry that I'd eventually tire of being around the person I married. After two years it hasn't happened. Maybe Amber's right and I'm the only guy in the world that doesn't irritate her and the only guy she could have ever married. In that case we were incredibly lucky to have found each other. Maybe we just have enough of the qualities necessary to make a good marriage. Maybe we enjoy what others call work, or maybe we just know enough to avoid it.

In any case, I'm happier now than I've ever been and I'm peacefully content with my life. Marriage is fun, not work, and I look foward to many more anniversaries.

Commercials 2.0

I was reading an article about how Google was trying to figure out how to make money off of its acquisition of YouTube through advertising and it made me sad. Video advertising grates on me. I can't stand the volume and harshness and ridiculous length of television commercials, and even the short clips before many online videos quickly become irritating. I would hate to think that Google, of "don't be evil" fame wouldn't know better than this. It's the reason they stuck to textual ads instead of flashy banner ads and pop-ups.

YouTube is the epitome of Web 2.0 -- a website of user-created content. If you want to advertise, why not keep that philosophy in its advertising? Let the users create the ads! Give them the motivation (cash kickbacks for popular videos), the subject and guidelines (determined by sponsor), and let the masses have at it. Since the meme fad started, advertisers have been futilely trying to create the viral success of a Numa Numa Kid or Don't Tase Me Bro! from the top down, when they should be trying from the bottom up. Ordinary people have the means, ability, talent, and most importantly free time to make hilarious videos. Harness that talent, essentially for free, to create a mass of commercials which will sort themselves in popularity. Gems will rise from dross, whether good for intentional reasons or not, and people will see advertisements they relate to and actually enjoy. If popular enough, they could become ad campaigns, even extending to other media.

Will it ever happen? I don't know, but if it does, remember, you heard it here first!

Coefficients of Indolence

Ever since studying about the coefficients of friction, static and kinetic, in high school and again in college, I've often found it interesting how well this concept applies in a metaphysical way to the human propensity to begin work and the continuation thereof. Much as friction impedes the motion of an object, some attribute impedes us from accomplishing work until enough force is applied. For the purposes of this post, I will call this indolence, an inclination to inactivity.

It is not particularly noteworthy that some of us are lazier than others, but what I find interesting is the division of this inclination to inactivity into static and kinetic elements. For instance, my coefficient of static indolence is fairly high, to which I'm sure my wife and mother can attest. It often requires a large amount of force to start me working on something. However, my coefficient of kinetic indolence is fairly low -- once I've started working, I usually have no problem finishing the job to completion, no matter how long it takes.

Amber, on the other hand, seems to have an other-worldly low coefficient of static indolence causing her to break into cold sweats when going 15 minutes without beginning some kind of work, meaningful or not. Combined with her low coefficient of kinetic indolence, she usually puts me to shame in accomplishing tasks (although I like to think I contribute to our partnership in other important ways).

And I know there are others out there, opposite of me, the kind who start hundreds of projects that grind to a halt unfinished due to a high coefficient of kinetic indolence. People can call us lazy, but it's really not our fault; it's the laws of physics! At most we're half lazy.

But don't get too down on yourself if your coefficients are high. Just like any physics equation, there are more factors than just indolence involved in our work. When we include love, guilt, greed, pleasure, nagging, duty, habit, disgust, shame, curiosity, fear, hunger and all the other motivating forces, the equation balances itself and the forces will overcome your coefficients of indolence to get the necessary work done. Just be glad you don't have to solve for x.