make pollution visible, make it smell

Here is a simple idea to tackle carbon emissions - make them visible and unpleasant.

I know California has some tough smog standards, but even then I find it amazing that air is clear and pretty fresh here in the Bay Area. You could be right in the middle of a commute hour grind on Highway 101, and still not really smell the pollution the cars are spewing out.

So I don't really worry about it.

Imagine that the exhaust from your car is black and smells like a dump. I bet you'll notice that pretty soon. I bet everyone will notice the amount of this stuff they are contributing.

But it'll be so unpleasant, we won't like it. It'll never happen, not just for that reason, but more so because we'll need the oil companies to cooperate to make it work, and I don't expect them to be bending over their backs to implement this.

I still like this idea though. A very effective way to influence people's behavior will be to give them immediate and appropriate feedback. Incentives are nice, but they go only so far. A little bit of in-your-face disincentive may work better.

I love these asset bubbles!

I consider the timing of, first the stock market bubble, and then the US housing bubble and the alleged other asset bubbles (commodities, oil, you name it) that are going on right now to be a tremendous blessing for me and my generation.

Imagine being bitten by these a decade or more from now, when, in the middle of our lives and careers, we see a chunk of our lives' savings evaporate into thin air.

By being exposed to these surprises relatively early in our adult lives, I think we have a great opportunity to learn the right lessons and become wise. So by the next time when there is a Robotics bubble or a Near Earth Orbit Real Estate bubble, we'll play that market like the veterans we will be. I can't wait!

But wait a minute: did a gullible green-horn say this back in 2005: "A DESTABILIZING contraction in nationwide house prices does not seem the most probable outcome...nominal house prices in the aggregate have rarely fallen and certainly not by very much." It was none other than the maestro octogenarian Alan Greenspan.

Mm, so much for age and wisdom.

Can a clone be President?

No, I am not referring to John McCain, the Bush clone (as the Dems would like to charecterize him).

According to the US Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can be President. This the exact wording: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

As any one can imagine, the term "natural born citizen" is open to interpretation, and perhaps an anachronism.

There have been Supreme Court rulings and over-turnings, Congressional laws to address various cases; but still there is some confusion about say, someone born to US parents outside the USA - whether they are considered citizens by birth or by naturalization. (Incidentally, John McCain was born at a U.S. military base offshore to U.S. parents.)

But my concern is about the bio-engineered future - are persons born by artificial insemination, or in vitro fertilization, let alone cloning, considered "natural born"? There is no way the writers of the Constitution could have considered these cases. (In fact, there was apparently no debate or discusison over the "narutal born citizen" clause before the Constitution was adopted.)

If you argue that the Constitution doesn't say "naturally conceived", just "natural born", then how about Ceaserean births? Are those "natural" births?

My point is not to nit pick on definitions and Constitutional gray areas. I often wonder where the balance should be between conserving the sanctity of the Constitution and keeping it updated as values and realities change with time.

I also find it ironical that a country built on immigration has this exclusion, whereas India, a country brutalized by foreign rule doesn't.

important stuff

The important decisions in your life all seem to have some common characteristics:

• Your situation is unique (at least, different from all the people you know)
• You have most probably never dealt with something like that before
  
• There is no single right answer
• Circumstances are never perfect (you'll most probably have to compromise on something)
• There is no deadline
• It's extremely difficult or impossible to predict the outcome
• You can never reduce the data to any formula or spreadsheet or anything simplistic like that (i.e. there are always unknowns and unquantifiables)
  
• No matter how much you analyze, research, meditate, pray, in the end it will still feel like a gamble

But, you'll do well not to succumb to buyer-remorse, no matter what you decide!

Shakira and Education?

I admit it. I've not heard a single Shakira song or seen a single Shakira video before today. (But when I did YouTube just now, I recognized that video with some Indian dance theme - I've seen it before somewhere). Anyways, it seems this woman is a Pop Sensation. She's originally from Colombia. If that's all I knew about her, I would have ignored her - like I did until this evening.

I happened to listen to NPR when she was interviewed. She was talking about some education evangelism she's into. 'Photo Op', I dismissed it. And then she started really talking about what she's out to do, why and all the relevant stats, and I was taken quite aback. I certainly did not expect that clarity of articulation or the sophistication from a pop diva. Hillary Clinton would have been proud of that interview.

Today Shakira went before the US Congress to lobby for a legislation called "Education for All Act of 2007". Fantastic, I thought - given this Congress' reputation, only a Shakira belly dance can get their attention toward some important issue!

But wait! Listen to this:

"The measure would provide 10 billion dollars over five years to help poor nations implement strong, accountable national education plans designed to provide a quality basic education for all their children".

So basically 10 Billion Dollars of US tax-payer money to be distributed to poor nations so that they can improve their education systems.

That doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't the US' very own (public) education system SUCK? Hello?!! Isn't the governarator of California cutting Education spending left, right and center? Aren't US school children ranking in 3 digits in Math and Science among the countries of the world?

I hope this Bill doesn't pass.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for philanthropy. I do it myself, especially for educational causes. But that's the way it should be: private philanthropy can fund foreign educational programs. That's why there are all those Billionaire Dogooder Foundations.

The US Govt. must get its act together and fix the education system of this country first.

to learn like a child

I've read and heard many times about the amazing capacity of kids to learn and the lamentable decline of that ability as we age. As with everyone, I had assumed I am the exception to this rule. Reality has been slowly, but surely hitting home - for several years now. Observing my 17 month old son constantly is not helping my self esteem at all! He regularly amazes me by remembering things I tell him just once.

On the other hand, more and more regularly, I find myself evaluating the "use" of any new piece of information. Because it takes such an effort to learn something new, I'd rather use some excuse to ignore it.

There has also been this rather disturbing trend of taking things for granted. And then looking pretty stupid. Case in point: the other day, it was reported that the bathroom door was stuck. The knob won't even turn. I, being very smart (eh hum), quickly - and correctly - guessed that the lock should have been engaged when the door was closed, and now, since no one was inside to unlock, we are stuck. And I knew what the solution was. There would be a small hole in the knob, and I just need to insert a small needle like object; and the lock will disengage. I was wrong about that. (And I was foolish enough to make a cocky statement to the effect that people should watch and learn as I solve this mysterious problem with magical simplicity).

After struggling with a ball-pen refill for several minutes, it dawned on me that it wasn't that trivial. It also dawned on me that, I had just assumed that that's how it worked - never once bothering to verify that assumption. Once humbled, I did what was needed - took apart the lock in another door which I could observe from both sides, figured out how it worked and applied that knowledge to unlock the door that was stuck. (It turns out that this lock needs a small screw-driver to be inserted through that hole in the knob; and if you know exactly what to feel for and exactly which way to turn it, you can unlock it. I don't think this is a great design; but that besides the point).

We immediately realized how lucky we had been that we discovered this potential hazard before our little one locked himself up inside a bathroom. So we got hold of a knob-protector (which is supposed to deter a child from locking himself in), and installed it.

While we were discussing and demonstrating to each other how one can get locked in, our little fellow had been watching. Because, this evening, he was trying to open a door by turning the knob, and when it did not turn, he tried to undo the catch, while uttering "open, open".

Has Obama done an "uh oh"?

The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians' economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This could bury Obama. Clinton and McCain are already jumping on it.

If it does him in, it'll be sad. Because I think this is one rare occasion of frankness and intelligence from a politician.

change thresholds

Do you remember the last time you hiccuped? Perhaps you do, perhaps not. Nothing remarkable either way. But do you remember ever realizing your hiccups have stopped the same instant that happened? Let's give it an allowance of a few seconds, if you want. Even then, I bet not. We eventually realize we are hiccuping no more, but only after a while.

But I just had the once-in-a-life-time experience of knowing exactly when i had my last hiccup!

Not only that, it was easily the biggest hiccup I have ever had (at least in memory). I am sure i freaked my cube-neighbors out with that monster hiccup! Perhaps, I was so shocked at its magnitude, that my hiccups stopped right there!!!

I find this phenomenon of not detecting the end of such things interesting. Other examples include coughs, temporary pains, etc. One possible explanation could be that our brains are for the most part designed to detect change (in stimuli) a lot better than constancy. This might sound contradictory - when something stops happening, it's a big change. True. But, if the stopping happens gradually, the rate of change or frequency becomes so low at some point, that it falls below our brain's threshold. So we never notice the transition (from presence to absence).

This is pure lazy speculation on my part. But, while at it, let me have some fun.

As with most things, there should also be an upper threshold for rate of change that our brains can detect/cope with. An example I can think of is looking out a moving train. As long it is moving slowly (or the horizon is far away), we find it an interesting spectacle. But once the speed at which the scenery changes becomes too much, we tune out.

On the other hand, suppose that the train is passing through a desert. Now, again, we'd tune out quickly, but this time because the change is too little - the other extreme. I find this fascinating.

If you can think of more examples (or counter-examples) for the presence of the higher-threshold, or some real science related to this, do let me know.

what to do with old pills?

So, I found a bottle of expired prescription strength Ibuprofen in our med cabinet. I was about to throw it in the trash absent-mindedly, but luckily came to my senses before I did. What if some dumpster-diving druggie finds it? Or worse, what if the pills spill and some curious animal or child finds them? And there is always the silent danger of the stuff leaking its way into the water table from the land-fill.

The second option is to flush them down the toilet. This again can be a environmental hazard - because, apparently, sewage treatment plants are not designed to filter pharmaceuticals. So the chemicals can slip into lakes, rivers or the ocean, or end up in the sludge used as landfill covers or fertilizer. Even worse, they can find their way back into water supply - as has been rather sensationally reported several times recently.

So, what is a good citizen to do?

These are the options:

1. drop them off at a local hazardous waste handling facility
   
2. check with your pharmacy if they can take it back (and dispose it off responsibly)
3. find some charity that can (legally) accept (unexpired) meds to redistribute to those who can't afford them
   
4. if none of the above works, you still have the trash or flush options. picking between these two is a toss up. but if you must throw it in garbage, take some measures to protect your own identity and anyone who may get harmed, by:
• scratching off any ID info in the container
• pulverizing the pills, perhaps mixing with something unpleasant like cat litter, packing tightly first in a child-safe container and then in water tight bags perhaps

But I think the best action one can take is avoiding purchasing too many pills which they are unlikely to use.

what did i learn in the classroom?

While thinking about futuristic education for the last post, a little reflection back to my education, inevitably, happened. And I realized that, when I came out of my 16* years in classrooms, I :

• knew nothing about time management
• could not prioritize tasks
• had little idea about money
• had no clue about what kind of career i'd really like to purse
• had no idea what my career choices were (unless you want to count "doctor or engineer")
  
• didn't understand politics
• didn't understand government in any practical sense
  
• didn't know my basic rights or responsibilities as a citizen (i do remember memorizing some stuff for my 5th grade Civcs class, though)
  
• had little organizational or leadership experience
• didn't know anything about nutrition or exercise
  
• had no idea how to do research or complete a project
• had no confidence to stand up and speak to a group of people (it still hurts!)
• had no "extra curricular" skills (still don't)
• had no clue about art of any form (still don't)

Is it me, or was my education a bit off the mark?

Okay, not all was bad. I did pick up some good math and science skills. The math skills do help me out till today, both in my job and personal life (especially finances). I also (hopefully, obviously!) picked up some decent English writing skills - that's helping in griping about the system today ;)

(* I am not counting KG or the stupid extra year I spent in 6th grade, because I was "under aged")