MyATMPinIs1234

If you do not procrastinate at work, you are are inefficient and waste a lot of time. Procrastination, if you think about it, is really a manifestation of the Japanese Just-in-time production methods, which they used to crush our auto industry.

"But I don't build cars. I work in a knowledge profession so you don't know what you're talking about, dick."

If someone gives you a task that will take 2 hours to do, and they don't need it for a few days, you could either start now, or wait until a few hours before they need it.

If you do the task right now, several things could happen.

1) The requirements might change

Unless you work for the government, situations are fluid and in the next few days you will find out more information about what you were supposed to do. If you've done it already, you either have to change it and do extra work, or hand it over the old, poor quality work that doesn't include the new information.

2) The task is no longer required at all

The project gets changed or canceled. The person requesting it gets fired or promoted. The software that automates the task is finally purchased. If you've done it already, it's completely wasted time.

3) The task gets delayed

Other people screw up and they don't need your piece for a few more days. If this happens, it creates even more time for #1 or #2 to happen.

4) The task is required on time and as specified

Then you do it before it's needed and no harm no foul.

I came across a video on the causes of obesity that is amazing. It's an hour long, but if you think you are too busy to view the whole thing.... put this way, there is no way what you are doing today is more important than viewing this. Partially because it's extremely informative, but mostly because the work you are doing would probably subtract zero value from society if it were just not done at all. Back to the matter at hand...

I'm sure anything I write will not do it justice, but basically, the lecturer, Gary Taubes, points out that most people think obesity is caused by overeating and not enough exercise. But when you say that, what you are really doing is rewriting the First Law of Thermodynamics, while at the same time implying a causality that is not supported by the facts (and actually has numerous counter-examples), and ignoring the fact that the variables involved (eating and exercise) are not independent of each other.

In other words, if the problem was the level of eating and exercise itself, poor people that do manual labor would be skinny, while rich city elites who can afford to eat whatever they want and sit in front of a computer would be gigantic. There would be no cases of societies where infants are malnourished while the mothers are fat. These are both the exact opposite of reality.

So the problem is not the Energy_In and the Energy_Out. Those factors try to adjust themselves in response to each other to maintain your body weight. If you eat less you will be less active and have a slower metabolic rate (you will be colder). The problem is the other side of the equation, the obesity. Something causes your body to change it's idea of how much fat your should store.

Last year you didn't gain any weight? So that means you consumed and burned 2,500x365 calories = 912,500 calories. That means, if you think overeating causes weight gain, you had to titrate your diet to with .4% (3500 cals extra would've caused a pound of weight gain) to not gain any weight. It is ridiculous to think that you were that accurate on purpose. Clearly, your body adjusted your hunger and activity level to be in balance.

So what is the answer? I've already blathered enough. Watch the video.

Yesterday I was watching Meet The Press where Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for POTUS. While listening to him discuss his policy stances, I was impressed with Nader's ability to keep his American accent after what must've been an extended training in the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, I will be donating to his campaign.

For your convenience, I've taken Ralph Nader's positions and included a translation into non-crazy speak.

Nader Position: Adopt single payer national health insurance
Translation: Have you been through airport security lately? Yeah, make the doctors office more like that.

Nader Position: Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
Translation: You know the FIRST SENTENCE of the Constitution? Where it says the purpose of the new government is to "provide for the common defense." I'd like to not do that anymore.

Nader Position: No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Translation: I'm not just ignorant of economic laws. I'm also poorly versed in the laws of Physics.

Nader Position: Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
Translation: Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco are mocking our judicial system with their measly 25 year prison sentences.

Nader Position: Open up the Presidential debates
Translation: To include me.

Nader Position: Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Translation: If it breathes, tax it. If it keeps breathing, regulate it. If it stops breathing, subsidize it.

Nader Position: Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Translation: Our current policy -- trying to win -- should be reversed.

Nader Position: Impeach Bush/Cheney
Translation: The current standard, allowing for impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be amended to also include "disagreeing with Ralph Nader." Not included would be "lying under oath during a deposition in Federal Court after sexually harassing a subordinate."

Nader Position: Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Translation: I'd like to make it more difficult for American workers to compete against the Chinese.

Nader Position: Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Translation: Sometimes companies have to access the capital markets to raise money for building new factories and hiring more workers. I'd like to make that much more costly and less efficient.

Nader Position: Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Translation: Because I want to be on the ballot but don't want to work hard to get there.

Nader Position: Work to end corporate personhood
Translation: Unfortunately Microsoft Word's grammar checker doesn't prevent stringing together words in meaningless combinations.

My rule on restaurant ordering: If there is something on the menu with the name of the restaurant in it, order that. They usually don't name a mediocre dish after their own restaurant.

So it's Thursday afternoon. For a second, I thought to myself, "I wish I could just fast-forward one day, so it could be Fri afternoon." It is NOT OK to think this. It means you want to put yourself one day closer to death without any consideration. Clearly the answer is to put yourself in a position where you are spending your day in a way that is more desirable than slowly killing yourself. AKA, get a better job.

Which brings me to the main point of this post. Gold-diggers are unfairly maligned, since they are critical to the global economy.

Once a man has an income above the subsistence level of being able to afford a crappy apartment and an occasional steak and whiskey, there are only two reasons to work harder in order to make more money. The first reason is the male species' innate competitive nature. But if you think about it this is not really a good reason, because guys could just compete in things they enjoy, like sports, rather than at work.

The only reason men actually work is because all women, some more than others, base mating decisions on the male's earning power, wealth, and/or status.

If there was no relationship between money and attractiveness to females, it is my opinion that most men would only make enough to live, and the global economy would collapse. This is the same reason why gold-diggers caused communism to fail. So next time you call a girl a gold-digger, make the tone of the comment appreciative.

Why do travel agencies still exist?

New business idea: Bathroom door handle coated with germ killing silver ions.

The tagline could be... "Easier than training the Indian villagers you hire to wash up afterwards..."

You'd think it would be reassuring, and girls often claim to value honesty, but then you get booted off a dating website for making your handle IWONTKILLYOU.

Sometimes I pick up the free newspaper Metro to read on the subway. I like it, because I have a very short ride and the paper has very little content. But today they had an opinion piece that was pretty incredible. Does this paper even have editors? In some kind of crazy rant about black history month, some guy who is allegedly a professor in "Urban Education" at Temple university said,

"While it is a miracle that blacks were able to survive the worst holocaust in human history, we are anything but stronger. If not for slavery, is there any doubt that black people would be more healthy, happy and humane?"

First of all, yes slavery sucked, but unless there is information I was not taught in the admittedly horrible public schools, I don't think there is any way you can say slavery was the worst holocaust in human history. What about the capital "H" Holocaust, where people were stuffed in train cars, gassed, and incinerated in large ovens? What about Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia? What about the millions of people killed by Stalin?

As to his second point, that black people would be more healthy, happy, and humane if not for slavery, fortunately we have a controlled experiment to test this theory. It's called all the people that were never slaves and stayed behind in Africa. Yes, they were colonized (so were we), but do they seem healthy, happy, and humane? Maybe I'm reading the wrong newspapers, but usually the stories I hear about Africa are the 140% AIDS rates (some people have it twice). Oh yeah, sometimes there are stories about a country that goes berserk and a million or so people are hacked to death with machetes. Sounds super awesome healthy, happy, and humane to me.

The thing that's keeping you down, Professor Hill, is dwelling on some shit that happened 150 years ago. The Jews, who went through a real Holocaust and much more recently, got their fucking act together and went on to found a country and pretty much take over media and finance in the US.

Also, dude, if you want to be a stronger people, it would help to study something useful like PHYSICS. What the fuck is Urban Education? You are literally training the next generation to be unemployable. Nice work.

Every day when I wake up, I boot up the computer and fire up the Google homepage to check their logo to make sure it isn't a holiday I forgot about. If the logo is orange and black, get yourself a costume -- it's Halloween!!!!

I can't wait until they own all information in the universe, and can change the logo individually so you know when it's your anniversary.

Global warming, I'm told by all of the PhD climatologists and scientific computation experts in Hollywood who moonlight (during the day) as actors and actresses, is a very bad thing. I'm not convinced, based on my observation that most people prefer to vacation in Florida rather than Calgary, but that is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is, how these people are not choosing the most efficient way to reduce their global warming impact. You can purchase a costly battery powered car that looks ridiculous, but that is a waste of resources. There is another, better method that uses a device no larger than a matchbook. Well actually it is a matchbook.

CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O

You probably know the above equation is the combustion reaction for methane. What you might not know, is that methane is 21 more powerful a global warming gas than carbon dioxide, and may contribute to half of the alleged and unproven warming effects from human activity.

And the vegetarian burrito tofu sundays that are the diet staple of most celebrities causes a lot of farting, which is composed of... you guessed it... methane.

So get rid of that absurd Toyota Prius, and just make sure you always have a lighter or matches on hand so you can ignite your farts.

Food is an item that is critical for survival. So why is it, that in a country as rich as America, most people are forced to purchase their food from powerful corporations such as Walmart? Why is there not food insurance, paid for by employers or better yet the government, whereby people can go and get this critical substance for a small co-pay or free, without having to go up against the powerful and connected food industry and their lobbyists?

I'll tell you why. Because if people no longer have to "pay" for food, everyone would eat Filet Mignon every night and the price of food would skyrocket and become unaffordable. Politicians would talk about the food crisis and campaign for government regulations and price controls to fix the problem. The regulations would reduce all incentives for the food producers to actually improve, and as a result food quality and supply would be reduced. People would starve.

You might recognize the above situation as exactly what's happening in health care. Employers providing health insurance started out as a loophole so companies could pay their employees more during the wage price controls during WWII. This slowly caused market distortions that were fixed by more and more government regulations until it has metastasized into the clusterfuck we have now.

Hillary wants to fix the problem by taking the cause of the problem and doing more of that. That doesn't make much sense to me. If a guy is bleeding because he was shot in the arm, you don't cure him by shooting him in the head.

From where we are now, we can go in two directions.

In Canada/England/Cuba, everyone has healthcare. But you have to wait 6 months to get an appointment with your oncologist, and the only reason they even have MRI machines (the few they have) is because we invented them, improved them, and most importantly, what's left of our free market created a reason for companies to build them. If G.E. had to sell these things to the FDA instead of for-profit hospitals, they just wouldn't of bothered, we wouldn't have them, and no one would even know what would've been possible.

So what would happen if people had to pay for healthcare themselves? Take a look at laser eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance. 15 Years ago surgeons were using scalpels. Now, we have advanced computer controlled lasers that literally remap the cornea with incredible results. At the same time the price has tumbled.

That's the weird thing about making people pay for things. They demand high quality and/or low prices. And suppliers have immediate feedback on what to produce and in what quantity.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that price signals and market clearing should be EVEN MORE DESIRABLE when you are dealing with something important like food or health. Why is it OK that we can have incredible leaps forward in something as trivial as MP3 players, and be satisfied with the current situation in healthcare?

Democrats, it is NOT OK to propose something destructive just because you have good intentions.

The only things that have raised my ire today I found on websites I would rather not admit to viewing, so in lieu of a post I will just keep my rage bottled up inside today. Thanks for reading.

The federal budget for next year is supposed to be in excess of $3000000000000. Holy crap that's a lot of money! What in the world are we getting for that? And the Democrats think this isn't enough! I bet my mom could cut that budget to 2% of the total without anyone missing anything.

Democrats say,

"Do anything you want with your penis, but we will tell you what to do with your wallet."

Republicans say,

"Do anything you want with your wallet, but we will tell you what you can do with your penis."

I want someone who says,

"I will keep you safe from crazy bombers from Oklahoma City and/or Saudi Arabia, while you do whatever you want with your penis and wallet."

Or at least someone who has the honesty to say,

"You are a moron, I will tell you what you can do with your penis and wallet for your own good."