life, liberty, and the pursuit of purpose

The Scientific Method and its Value to Society

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:40:00 +0000

Now that we have a President who is a conspiracy theorist on climate change and vaccines, issues around which the wrong policies can lead to significant loss of life, it is important that we remind ourselves of what science is, and its value to society.

Science is a METHOD for improving our understanding of how the universe works; for moving that understanding gradually closer to the truth.

In one sentence, that method is: Ask a question, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis with experiment, make observations, draw conclusions, adjust hypothesis, test the new hypothesis, make new observations. .. etc..

It is iterative. It is self-correcting. It is peer-reviewed. It is evidence-based. It is repeatable. It is never finished.

Science is NOT the conclusions of a single study. It is NOT the results of one or two experiments. It is not the untested hypothesis (which is where conspiracy theorists stop). It is not even a consensus among a group of people. It is a PROCESS by which we test those hypotheses, conduct those experiments, reach those conclusions, and achieve that consensus.

Science is not a one-person endeavor. It REQUIRES multiple people testing each other's hypotheses, criticizing each others' experiments and reasoning, and challenging each other to improve our understanding. "Consensus" only comes when many different people or groups test the same hypotheses and come to the same or similar conclusions.

The METHOD is sound.

The PEOPLE carrying out the method are flawed. We make mistakes. We succumb to bias. We overlook important details. We are ignorant of important phenomena that may affect our experiment's ability to detect.

But we are also motivated to criticize each other, and we are trained to not take those criticisms personally. To meet argument with argument, not insult. We are trained to support claims with evidence. To re-consider claims when other credible evidence emerges.

Dedication to the method requires us to make an effort to set aside some of our human nature. To repress the urge to defend a flawed argument. To set aside our attachment to the work we just carried out, and consider the possibility that we may have made a mistake. To admit when we made those mistakes, and to correct our methodology and try again. And to admit that our original hypotheses may have simply been wrong, and to follow the evidence instead of our preference for how we'd like the universe to work.

Carl Sagan once described human ignorance as inadvertently constructing a "demon-haunted world". A world in which the darkness of our ignorance leads us to assume the existence of demons, dragons, devils, (or angels), and all manner of human-contrived gap-fillers to artificially alleviate the absence of understanding in our minds. In the demon-haunted world, we are have no way of telling truth from artifice. We are vulnerable to unfounded fears, unsubstantiated assumptions.

And we are vulnerable to snake-oil salesmen. To people who make statements that are not based in reality, in an effort to control us or to convince us that we should outsource our critical thinking to them.

The scientific method, then, is a "candle in the dark". It's a way to avoid contriving gap-fillers. It's a way to shine a light and dispel our wrong ideas about the demons, the dragons, the devils, the angels. To dis-arm the snake-oil salesmen, and to regain our own power to distinguish truth from falsehood.

So here is my challenge to you, my friends, on this inauguration day where we have installed a snake-oil salesman as our leader:

Be scientists. Be critical. Check sources. Search out evidence. Be wary of biases, both in yourself and in others. Apply the method.

Become a candle in the dark. We need them. Now more than ever.

-------------------------

If you're interested in the book I'm referencing by Carl Sagan:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By Carl Sagan.

Turning over a New Leaf (part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:46:00 +0000

Part 2:
The New Car

Our new Leaf SV. Black and white coloring, not unlike a space shuttle.

When deciding how to replace our beloved blue 2014 Leaf, we considered several options, with the constraint that we would definitely be replacing it with another 100% electric vehicle. "No plug, no chug" is our mentality, as we are committed to plug-in vehicles from here on out for the benefit of the global environment our kids will inherit (i.e., far less induced greenhouse gas emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle), for the benefit of improved local air quality (i.e., no smog-producing tailpipe emissions), and for the financial benefits of "free" fuel from our over-producing solar panels as well as reduced maintenance costs compared to gasoline vehicles. At some point we will be replacing our 13-year old SUV, and for that we'll want a larger vehicle that can better accommodate our soon-to-be-5-member family on long road trips. For that we'll relax the 100% electric constraint, but still try for a plug-in hybrid vehicle that would allow us to at least make our commutes 100% electric. (I'm looking hard at the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid mini-van with 30 miles all-electric range). If that van had been available today, we probably would have gone ahead and purchased that, relying on our old SUV for a while until we were ready to replace it with a smaller 100% electric commuter vehicle. But the Pacifica Hybrid is still a month or two out from being available, and meanwhile we needed a car.

As for our Leaf replacement, we knew it would be primarily my commute vehicle (~22 miles each way, 44 miles round trip per day), but that it would need to have the capability of carrying all 5 members of our family if necessary. This meant we eliminated the smaller EVs (Fiat 500e, Chevy Spark) based on size, and we eliminated a lease option since I've been averaging just over 16k miles per year on the Leaf and lease deals start to look less attractive when you have to pay for more than the typical 10k - 12k mileage allowance. Also, in the interest of reducing demand for building new cars, and the environmental impact of manufacturing new cars, my goal for this replacement car (as it was for the blue Leaf) is to keep driving the car until its wheels fall off. Hopefully it will be my son's first car when he is old enough to drive in 10 years.

At first I looked at the idea of replacing our 2014 Leaf with another used 2014 Leaf. Edmunds and Autotrader had listings between $11,500 and $12,000 before sales tax, pushing it to ~$14,000 including sales tax, and effectively more given that we'd need to finance the car and would likely be unable to access 0% APR like we had on our Leaf when we bought it new. I wasn't clear on what the warranty status of each of these listed vehicles would be, either. So while this was a decent option in terms of cost, I wasn't sure if it was the best choice for us moving forward.

Given the major increases in EV range that are being deployed in the very near term (Chevy Bolt with 238 miles range within a couple months, likely 2017 Leaf with rumored ~160ish miles range within a couple months, Tesla Model 3 within a couple years), the idea of buying a vehicle now with the same 84 miles EPA range that was available 2.5 years ago seemed less than-ideal future-proofing. I don't want to upgrade my car every couple of years as the higher ranges become available, but I am interested in getting the best range per dollar available to me right now. I looked at used 2014 Toyota Rav4 EVs, which are listing for ~$22k before sales tax, so probably close to $24k with sales tax. But again, that's used, without a warranty, and for a vehicle that, from what I've heard, neither Toyota or Tesla are strongly motivated to continue servicing. Plus it would cost another $3.5k to have an after-market quick-charge port installed on that vehicle, and I have become convinced over the duration of my Leaf ownership that no one should own a low-range electric vehicle without the option to Quick Charge, which greatly extends the use cases of the car.

I ended up deciding to go for a new 2016 Nissan Leaf SV (one trim level higher than our totaled Leaf), for the primary reasons that a.) it would come with a 30 kWh battery, allowing for 27% more range than our previous Leaf (EPA estimated 107 miles vs. the previous 84 miles), and b.) would come with all the warranties of a new car, plus be available with 0% APR financing. Obviously, this still involved spending more money, as the net cost to us (accounting for federal tax credit of $7500, state rebate of $2500, Nissan promotional discounts of $6000, sales tax, and gap insurance) would end up being about $20.5k. That's a good ~$5k+ more expensive than getting a used 2014 Leaf, but we decided that the benefits of having more range and a new car (warranty, 0% APR) made it a more sensible long-term purchase.

One might argue that we could have waited a couple months and gone all in for a 2017 Chevy Bolt with 238 miles of range. But that would have been an even greater cost, since the Bolt starts at $37,500, and once you add sales tax is up over $40k. I doubt there will be many dealer or Chevy incentives for this hot new vehicle right out of the gate, so you're looking at a net cost of over $30k after applying the federal tax credit and CA state rebate, which is ~$10k more expensive than what our net cost is on the 2016 Leaf. If this were going to be our only car, I could justify that premium for a Bolt. But given we are also planning on getting a Pacifica Hybrid when it comes out, and that vehicle will end up becoming our family long-hauler for road trips, I'd prefer to save the money for that.

After just a few days, the new Leaf is quite satisfying to drive. The extra range is real, and after living 2.5 years with a 84 mile car, its a bit surprising how much the extra 23ish miles of EPA range on the new Leaf relieves range anxiety. Our car came from a Goleta dealership, and it was driven the full drive to Woodland Hills without needing to stop and charge. (We've done the same trip in our old Leaf, and definitely needed a quick charge along the way.) I believe we could drive it to San Diego with only a single stop to quick-charge (a trip that would take 2-3 stops in the 24 kWh Leaf. Work-to-home commutes from Santa Monica to Woodland Hills that used to take 29% of the old battery only take 17% of the new one. The "guess-o-meter" remains as variable as ever, but it's nice to drive it from home to work without it's estimate ever dropping below 100 miles remaining. On my tuesday drives down to Long Beach, I used to have to charge the old Leaf to make sure I had enough juice to get back home. I expect I won't need to do that anymore, saving the cost of charging (50 cents/kWh), and leaving the charging space open for some other plugin driver to use.

The guess-o-meter reads 121 miles of predicted range when the car is fully charged after having driven from Santa Monica up over the mountains and down into Woodland Hills.

Guess-o-meter reads 144 miles of range when fully charged, after having driven from Woodland Hills up over the mountains and down to the sea-level Santa Monica.

Plus, stepping up to the SV trim from the low-end S trim brought some extra perks in addition to the bigger battery, including the ability to "pre-condition" the car by starting the heater or AC from my smart phone, so the car is a comfortable temperature before we get into it. Not critical in Southern CA with our mild weather, but I foresee it being a nice-to-have when taking the kiddos to school on cold winter mornings.

Turning over a new Leaf

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:09:00 +0000

Summary:

Our beloved first electric car, a blue 2014 Nissan Leaf (S trim, with the Charge package and a 24 kWh battery), has been "totaled" in an accident.

We have replaced it with a white 2016 Nissan Leaf (SV trim, with a bigger 30 kWh) battery.

This transition has led to some "lessons learned" about the process of being in an accident in which you are not at fault, dealing with insurance, the subtleties of electric car depreciation and some observations on the impact of larger battery capacity on life with an EV.

This first post is about the accident and it's insurance-related aftermath.
The second post is about choosing a replacement electric vehicle.

The Accident:

Around noon on Tuesday, Sep 20, I was driving alone, southbound on I-405 in the #1 lane (not the carpool lane, but the "fast" lane), just south of National Blvd, at a speed of probably about 50 mph, when the vehicles in front of me slowed to an abrupt stop. I was able to come to a stop with a few feet to spare, and no screeching tires. In my rearview mirror I could see the vehicle behind me (a Lincoln) was attempting to slow to a stop, but was hit, hard, from behind by the vehicle behind him (a white SUV). This pushed the Lincoln into the back of my Leaf, and my Leaf into the back of the pickup truck in front of me. So, at least 4 cars involved: 1. The pickup truck in front of me, which was only hit from behind. 2. My Leaf, which was hit from behind and pushed into the truck. 3. The Lincoln behind me, which was hit from behind and pushed into me. and 4. The white SUV that hit the lincoln. I don't know if that SUV was hit from behind as well, or whether it was the main at-fault source of the accident.

The pickup truck in front of me sustained what looked like relatively minor damage to its bumper, and the vehicle 2 cars behind me (the one that hit the Lincoln from behind), a white SUV, also seemed to have only minor damage on its front bumper. Both the Lincoln and my Leaf sustained major damage on the front and back (we were both "sandwiched"), and I think the Lincoln probably got the worst of it, since the driver was clearly in some sort of shock after he stepped out of his vehicle, leaning on his wrecked car for support and grabbing at his neck and back in pain. He was only giving incoherent, stuttering responses to questions, though he seemed cognizant of his surroundings and was able to walk around and follow directions. No one else showed any signs of injury or shock.

I had called 911 before even getting out of my car, and a CHP officer in a cruiser showed up within 2 minutes. He stopped traffic across all lanes of the freeway, and had each driver move their car over to the right shoulder. He tasked me to drive both my own car and the Lincoln, since the Lincoln driver did not appear to be in a confident state to drive his vehicle. Within 6 minutes of the accident occurring, all 4 vehicles involved were on the right shoulder and traffic on the 405 south was moving again. (I know this by comparing the timestamps of photos I took immediately after the accident, and then again when all our cars were on the right shoulder.) Another CHP officer showed up and took statements from each driver regarding what had happened, and gave me his officer ID number so I could later retrieve the CHP report (which would take "8 business days" to become available). An ambulance picked up the driver of the Lincoln, and a tow truck took me and the beleaguered Blue Leaf to a collision auto-body shop in Reseda, about 2 miles from my house. I came away impressed with the efficiency of the California Highway Patrol, and as we were leaving the scene the tow truck driver was telling me that he and others had heard a call of another major accident on the northbound side of the freeway, not too far from ours. The driver said some days he only responds to 1 or 2 accidents on the West side of Los Angeles, and other days it's 10.

Insurance when not at-fault:

My wife and I had some incorrect assumptions about how car insurance works in the case of an accident that is not your fault. We assumed that it would be the responsibility of the at-fault party's insurance to "make us whole" for the damage caused in the accident. This is not quite true. Since our car was "totaled" (meaning our insurance company assessed that it would cost more money to have it repaired than the actual market value (AMV) of the vehicle), the insurance companies would only be responsible for paying the AMV to the title holder. But who was at fault would not be determined until the CHP report was available and all insurance companies had reviewed it, a process that would take at least 30 days. So, we started a claim on our own insurance so we could get a rental car for a while and then a replacement vehicle. After we get our settlement from our insurance company, they will then seek reimbursement by filing a claim against the at-fault party's insurance company.

When we bought the Leaf in April of 2014, we put $5k down and spread the rest of the cost over a 72 month 0% APR loan. By this time we still owed $13.9k on the loan, however the AMV of the Leaf was determined to be ~$10,700 ($11.7k including sales tax). This meant that our insurance company would pay a $11.7k settlement (minus our deductible of $300) to the title holder (Nissan), we would lose the car, and we would still be responsible for paying Nissan the remaining $2.2k on the loan, which they would need us to pay quickly so that they could transfer the car's title to our insurance company. Basically, the benefit of the insurance was them agreeing to "buy" the totaled car from us for the actual market value it had just before the accident, even though it was wrecked. The downside was this AMV was less than we owed to Nissan for the car. So we had to come up with the difference out of pocket.

Gap Insurance:

Again, because of an accident that was no fault of our own, we lost our car and still had to pay $2,200 for the car we no longer had. After getting over the surprise of this situation, we realized it actually made sense: The at-fault party had no control over the way we chose to pay for our car, and therefore the amount of debt remaining we had on it, nor did they have any control over the rate at which our car depreciated over time. They are only responsible for the value of the property that was "totaled". The AMV of the car was determined based on what similar used cars of the same make, model, year, and mileage had been selling for recently (not the "Blue Book value"), and the fact that it was less than what we owed was a result of the depreciation of the car and the payment terms/duration we had set up when we bought it. The car's value, and what we owed on it, were two completely separate things.

The way we could have avoided this situation was to purchase "gap insurance", also known as a "debt cancellation policy". Our insurance company (Wawanesa) doesn't offer this service; it is something you can purchase from the car loan holder (in our case, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation) at the time you are buying the new vehicle at the dealership. Neither my wife nor I remember being offered this option when we bought the car in 2014, but it turns out it is offered right at the time the dealership is trying to tack all sorts of other costs on to the deal (theft deterrent devices, window etching, "rust-proofing", "fabric protection", . . . and, oh yeah, gap insurance), so I guess we must have just dismissed it as yet another thing we wouldn't need and didn't want to pay for. Turns out that if we had purchased it (for ~$900), it would have meant that whatever remained on our loan balance after a total loss settlement would simply be forgiven. So, in our case, if we had spent an extra $900 at time of purchase, we could have saved $2200 in an accident like ours. Not knowing that this accident was going to occur, I'm still not sure I would have purchased the gap insurance even if I had understood its value at the time. Do you (definitely) pay an extra $900 so that you can (maybe) save a (net) $1300 in the case that your car is totaled? Or do you save the $900 and bet on the car not being totaled?

This being our lesson learned, we did purchase Gap insurance on the new vehicle we bought as our Leaf's replacement: (a new 2016 Leaf, more on how we decided on that car in part 2). Leafs, in particular, have pretty bad depreciation from original MSRP (likely the result of people's fears about battery degradation, as well as due to the federal tax credit and state rebates that deeply discount the actual cost compared to the MSRP in the first place), so I'd recommend anyone purchasing a new Leaf spring for the gap insurance.

Memory, Fatherhood, and roller coasters

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:17:00 +0000

So Magic Mountain is going to shut down the Colossus roller coaster this summer, probably in preparation to demolish and replace it with a fancy new coaster.

Colossus holds sentimental value for me. I rode it as my first "big" roller coaster when I was 10 years old, with my dad.

I still remember being silently freaked out on it at first; not knowing how to deal with the intense falling sensation at the drops, so I would just grit my teeth and squeeze hard on the restraints, not really enjoying the ride. Dad saw this and happily shouted at me (over the din of the clacking coaster) "You gotta let it out, son! Scream! WOOOHOOO!". I did that on the next drop, and it really helped. I was even more encouraged as we rolled back into the station when he laughed and told me he was so proud of me for being brave. I remember bragging to my friends and family that I had ridden that roller coaster, mainly because my dad had been so encouraging that he had made me feel like I'd accomplished something great.

Aside from sparking a love of roller coasters, I look back on this memory now and take it as a lesson on how to be a good father. By being patient and providing good suggestions at the right time, followed by a warm reward (his pride), Dad helped orchestrate a really positive experience that became a lasting memory for me. And in retrospect I can see it as having bigger life implications: Don't try to hold back the sensations of life when you feel like you are not in control. . . just embrace the chaos and take whatever enjoyment you can out of it.

Also, this was the first time in my memory where I had a legitimate want (I wanted to ride the coaster), coupled with a significant fear (it was intimidating and scary), and my dad helped me to gain the confidence I needed to get on the coaster in the first place and to make it through the ride. This had a positive impact on my confidence in taking on new and exciting/intimidating experiences throughout my life.

Holy smoke I sure wish there were a way I could guarantee that I can somehow have a similarly positive impact on my kids before I die.

. . . so to sum up I think I may need to visit MM some time before August 16.

Jailbreaking your Apple TV 2 to watch Hulu

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:55:00 +0000

Below are the steps I took to get Hulu up and running on my Apple TV 2 (hereafter referred to as ATV) using the latest firmware 4.4.4.

Since it took some effort to get all the steps right, I figured I'd try to save someone else some time and post the instructions here.

(Credit where credit is due: This post has been largely based on an anonymous post at the Firecore blog comments section. That original post is available here:

http://blog.firecore.com/5180

The anonymous post was left at Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:51 pm, but was based on the 4.3 Firmware. So thanks to that anonymous poster!)

What you will need:

-Apple TV2 (Black)  with aluminum remote.

-Mac 

-Latest version of iTunes 

-Latest version of Seasonpass from Firecore, available for free download here: http://support.firecore.com/entries/387605

-A micro USB cable to fit the back of ATV (This did NOT come with your Apple TV, and is required to connect the ATV directly to your computer so you can perform the jailbreak. You can get this online cheap. Or perhaps you already have such a cable. . . they are often sold with Blackberry phones. Just make sure it’s a “micro” cable, NOT a “mini” cable. Here’s an example of one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001K7I62Q?ie=UTF8&tag=atfl-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001K7I62Q )

1. Download and install the untethered “Seasonpass” – Latest Version – from http://support.firecore.com/entries/387605. This is the software that will “jailbreak” your ATV, so that you can install non-Apple software on it. You can also read about this process to see what it does here: http://blog.firecore.com/6434

2. Run Seasonpass and follow instructions at this site: http://support.firecore.com/entries/387605

This may take 20 minutes or so. When you are done, read on below.

Your ATV is now jailbroken. (Don’t worry, if you decide you want to go back to the original factory settings, you can always go to “Restore” in the Settings section of your Apple TV.)

3. Hook your ATV back up to your TV and make sure it can successfully connect to the internet/your network. You should see a temporary Firecore emblem in the lower right corner of the menu, indicating the unit was successfully jailbroken.

Now you want to install some software on your jailbroken ATV. This will require the use of the Terminal app on your mac to SSH into your ATV. For that you’ll need to know your ATV’s IP address.

4. On your Apple TV go to Settings à General à Network and note the IP address. Should be something similar to 192.168.0.186

5. Open the Terminal application on your mac and type the following:

“ssh –l root 192.168.0.186” and hit return.

(Don’t actually type the quotes, just what’s inside them. And use the actual IP address of your particular ATV, which is likely different from the number I used above)

6. You will be asked for a password. Unless you have changed it, the default password is “alpine”. You are free to change this later if you wish, using the command “passwd”. But it’s not necessary.

7. Update apt sources - type “apt-get update” 

8. Install NitoTV - type “apt-get install com.nito.nitoTV” 

(NitoTV is a feature that allows you to easily install other programs on your ATV from the ATV’s menu system, so you won’t have to use the command line as much.)

9. Type “killall AppleTV”. This will restart the Apple TV menu system so you can see the new software (NitoTV) you just installed.

10. On your ATV, go to NitoTV and install XBMC, updatebegone, and openSSH. XBMC is the Xbox Media Center software which will allow you to watch Hulu. updatebegone stops the ATV from auto updating or nagging you about updating to the next Apple Firmware update, since you won’t want to update the firmware until the next jailbreak update comes out. (Otherwise you’d lose your jailbreak when updating to the next Apple firmware.) OpenSSH just makes it easier to install the Hulu plugin for XBMC later. (not completely sure that openSSH is necessary, but oh well)

XBMC has now been installed! But it’s not ready to stream Hulu just yet. . .

Now we need to install the bluecop repository, which is just a zip file containing “add-ons” that will augment XBMC and allow it to stream Hulu. You can see a post about this plugin, with instructions on how to install it, here:

http://www.appletvhacks.net/2011/03/02/how-to-watch-hulu-on-apple-tv-2/

If you are savvy enough with SFTP and the command line to follow the instructions at the link above, go for it and you are done! If you need a bit more explanation, see below.

11. Download the .zip file for the bluecop repository from the above link to your mac.

12. In the terminal application on your mac, exit out of the SSH session you started earlier with your ATV by typing “exit”. Then navigate to wherever the zip file you just downloaded is. For example, if the zip file went into your Downloads directory, you would type: “cd” and hit return to change directory to your home directory, and then “cd Downloads” (and hit return) to go to your Downloads directory. Make sure the zip file is in there by typing “ls repository*”. This will display the file (full name is repository.bluecop.xbmc-plugins.zip) if it is there. It will display nothing if you are in the wrong directory.

13. Type the following: “sftp root@192.168.0.186” (again, use the correct IP address) This sets up a SFTP: secure file transfer protocol session which will allow you to transfer the zip file from your mac to the ATV.

14. Type “cd /private/var/mobile/Media” (this will change directory to a Media folder on the ATV where XBMC will know to look for this zip file.)

15. Type “put repository.bluecop.xbmc-plugins.zip” (this will actually transfer the zip file from your mac to the ATV)

16. Type “quit” to exit SFTP.

17. On the ATV, go to XBMC. Then go to System --> Add-ons --> “Install from zip file” 

18. Browse to var/mobile/media (the folder where you put the zip file), find “repository.bluecop.xbmc-plugins.zip” and press OK (Bluecop is already enabled) 

19. Go to System --> Add-ons --> get add-ons, find “bluecop Add-on Repository” click OK, choose video add-ons, find Hulu and install it. Note that after it is “enabled”, you can select the plugin again and select “configure” to enter your Hulu login information. Whether you are a HuluPlus subscriber or just a user of free Hulu, the login can be handy because it allows you to configure your “subscriptions” (which shows you like) on Hulu.com via a computer and web browser, and then you can conveniently access just those subscriptions in XBMC on the ATV, instead of having to search or browse through thousands of shows using the remote.

20. Finally, back out to the front XBMC main menu and go to Videos -> Video add-ons. Find Hulu and enjoy (should work with both regular Hulu and Hulu Plus).

At this point you should be able to watch free Hulu on XBMC on your ATV! Life now has meaning.

P.S.: You may have noticed there are other video add-ons in the bluecop repository besides Hulu. For example there is one that is supposed to let you watch Amazon OnDemand content, one for ESPN that claims to allow you to watch live streaming sporting events via ESPN.com on the ATV. Feel free to install these and try them out for yourself.

Prop 23: "We're in a crisis at least 90% of the time!"

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:21:00 +0000

Prop 23 on the California ballot this year proposes to repeal the climate change restrictions in the law AB 32 until the state's unemployment rate drops below 5.5%, and stays there for 4 consecutive quarters. It embodies the spirit of the "We're in a crisis!" mentality; that is, "We'd love to reduce our impact on the environment, but the economy is bad, so Now Is Not The Time!"

One might wonder, though, just how often does our unemployment rate drop below 5.5%, anyway?

The answer, as the plot above shows, is not very often. Out of the 416 months for which CA has kept unemployment rate monthly values (since 1976), only 81 of those months had unemployment rates below 5.5%. That's 19.5% of the time.

But Prop 23 goes further with its requirements: If it passes, then we will only be able to enforce the restrictions in AB32 AFTER we've had 4 consecutive quarters of unemployment rates below 5.5%. That means that you have to watch the unemployment rate for 12 months, and if it has been below 5.5% for all 12 of those months, then on the 13th month you can start enforcing the climate change restrictions, and continue to do so until the rate pops above 5.5% again, at which point you have to wait until it stabilizes below 5.5% for another 12 months before you can start enforcing the law again.

So, if we assume that prop 23 passes and that the next 34 years will be statistically similar to the last 34 years, how much of the time will AB32 be enforceable?

Answer: 4.8% of the time.

(Actually it depends on how you count the unemployment rates. If you are using monthly rates, and interpreting the "4 consecutive quarters" as 12 consecutive months, then only 20 out of the 416 months of the past 34 years would meet Prop 23's requirements, hence 4.8%. If you are using quarterly unemployment rates (3-month averages of the monthly unemployment rate), then 13 out of the 136 quarters in the past 34 years would meet Prop 23's requirements, which is 9.6% of the time.)

Thus, according to those who would vote for Prop 23, we shouldn't worry about the environment when we are in an unemployment crisis. . .

. . . and (oh yeah) we are in an unemployment crisis over 90% of the time.

Gee, it's almost as if the backers of Prop 23 (oil companies) chose 5.5% so that AB32, which was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Republican governor, could never be effectively enacted. And all they had to do was get enough signatures to get Prop 23 on the ballot.

Vote no on prop 23.

(Data for the plot was obtained here: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=164)

(More on prop 23 here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100703_3065.php)

Some thoughts on the LOST season premiere. . .

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:03:00 +0000

1.) That Juliet is such a great practical joker! When I die, I am going to wait until the last minute, then pull my family members close to me and tell them "I have to tell you something! It's REALLY REALLY REALLY important. . ." and then die right then. Man I'll be chuckling all the way to oblivion!

2.) I know that guy is a U.S. Marshall and all so he's rough and tough. . . but still. . . don't pick stuff up off the floor of the airport bathroom. That's just gross. Even Kate knew not to do that!

3.) So, let me get this straight. The leader of the temple Others can speak English just fine, but chooses not to and instead has his version of Mr. Smithers on hand to repeat every dang thing he says. What kind of a total jerk of a leader has the ability to speak English, and yet, during an emergency (like oh, say, a murderous smoke monster on its way to kill everybody) STILL shouts out his defense orders in another language while his English-speaking subordinates have to wait for Smithers to repeat it? No wonder the Others lost that war in Yugoslavia.

4.) Can anyone explain to me why a hydrogen bomb would have enough energy to disintegrate an entire island, and all the land beneath the island down 100+ feet below the ocean surface. . . and still not be able to damage that foot statue? What is that thing made of, anyway? (Also, was that the Dharma shark down there?)

5.) Apparently, the most secure way to send someone a message is to write it down on a paper note, roll it up, then build a giant wooden egyptian ankh around it. Slap that puppy in a guitar case, and it's good to go! Jacob clearly never went to junior high school. Can you imagine him trying to pass a secret note in class? Teacher: "Jacob! are you passing a note?!" Jacob: (holding a giant wooden ankh behind his back) "No. . .".

6.) It's nice to know that the enigmatic rules of time-travel and parallel-universe-hopping at least take convenience into account. Jack et al. time-jumped when the H-bomb went off because it would have changed their histories. But what a pain it would have been if that Volkswagon bus hadn't time-jumped with them!

7.) Oh, Charlie. How dumb are you? I've never taken heroin in my life, but even I know you're not supposed to try to inhale it until AFTER you take it out of the plastic baggie. I thought the way you died in the underwater station was dumb (with the door you could have opened OUT into the non-water-filled moon pool room), but this death would have been even dumber. Headline: "ex-Rockstar dies in airplane lavatory somewhere over the Pacific Ocean. Choked on plastic baggie full of heroin." . . . come to think of it, that's actually kind of awesome.

The latest new Vision for Space Exploration

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:28:00 +0000

The Obama administration released its plan for NASA's budget in the coming year today, and with it comes an attempt to largely change the goals for NASA's manned spaceflight program. I like the most of the plans for increasing funding for Earth and Planetary sciences, as well as Heliophysics and extending the operational life of the International Space Station. But I am highly skeptical that the plans for giving up on the Constellation program in favor of giving some seed money to small start-up space companies are a good thing.

I'm all for stimulating spaceflight innovation in the private sector, but not at the expense of the existing NASA plans for continued human spaceflight. I would much rather they continue the Constellation program and tack on some additional money to NASA's budget to be used for this X-prize-like private stimulus. Obama's current proposal means we just stop putting people into space using the tried-and-true methods we've been using for the past 49 years, and say "Here's some seed money, private sector. Reinvent the wheel for us while we sit on the sidelines and wait." I'd love to see the private sector come up with a cheaper method of getting people into space. . . but let them do it in parallel and demonstrate that it outclasses what NASA is already using. Yes, this would come down to increasing NASA's budget, but as we both know that ought to happen anyway.

Also, since we are extending the life of the ISS (a good thing), shouldn't we consider extending the life of the Shuttle program as well? The whole idea back in the '60's and '70's was to have a space station and a "shuttle" to ferry people and cargo to/from it. Now that we actually have both in operation, how does it make sense for the U.S. to announce a continued commitment to the ISS, but WITHOUT the ability to ferry either cargo or crew to/from the station at all? Bush's reasoning for cancelling the shuttle program was that we could free up money to use on human spaceflight outside of LEO, and it wouldn't be that big a deal because the ISS would only be around a few more years after the shuttle was retired. Obama is basically proposing we extend the life of the ISS without having the most useful tool for servicing it.

I predict this will only serve to lengthen the amount of time that the U.S. is without the ability to put people into space. Then, at some point, as India, China, and Russia are all able to launch humans into space, the American people will get restless and start to wonder why again did we just give up doing that? Congress will get spurred into action, and the next President will have his or her own new vision for space exploration that essentially returns to the idea of NASA creating and operating (through a big company like Boeing or Lockheed) its own manned spacecraft.

At JSC, in the ISS flight control room, they have several models of Space Station Freedom hanging from the ceiling. Each model looks a little different, and the joke we'd make when giving tours was that "this is the 100th Congress's plan for space station freedom, this is the 101st Congress' plan for space station freedom, this is the 102nd. . .". Just as Bush tried to overhaul the Vision for space exploration 6 years ago, and Obama is doing this now, so it will be overhauled again by the next politician. Sigh.

Tikit Rear Rack Affects Folded Stability

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:17:00 +0000

I love my Bike Friday Tikit, but I had noticed that it wasn't very stable when folded. It would tend to lean to the side the front wheel was on, and the only thing keeping it from falling over was the handle bars acting like a tripod leg. This of course wore on the handlebar. It was fine sitting on flat ground, but if it was on a train or a bus, a turn would cause the bike to fall over.

I was a tad dissapointed at this, especially since everything I'd seen online had said that the rear rack made the tikit extremely stable when folded. I chalked it up to the fact that I also had a double-front-rack, which perhaps was making the front wheel side heavier, causing it to lean.

Luckily, the good people at Bike Friday called recently, out of the blue, just to see how I was liking my bike. Yes, seriously. I had heard tales of the great customer support at this smallish Oregon company, but I still wasn't expecting such attention. I mentioned the problem, and the customer service rep called the guy who oversees Tikit production (Tim) over from the other room. I described the problem to him, and took some photos and e-mailed them to him. He told me what he expected was the problem, and later confirmed it when he received my photos: My rear rack had posts that were too tall. This meant that, when folded, the rear wheel was being held too high off the ground, causing the bike to lean to the other side. This is evident in the photos I sent him (also in this post) by looking at how high the rear fender is held by the too-tall rear rack. Tim put another rack with shorter posts in the mail.

I swapped out the rear rack, and now the Tikit is rock-solid-stable when folded! I sent them back the too-tall rear rack in the same box, as they said they could modify it for future use.

See the comparison photos below:

Before. . . . . . and After!

Before. . . . (Note how high the rear rack is over the wheel)

. . . and After!

Note the difference between the two racks (shorter one is the good one; taller one makes the Tikit less stable when folded).

It's so nice to have a company that provides this kind of support. I had been willing to live with the annoyance of the leaning rack, but the company called to check on me just because, and now my bike works even better. So glad I went with this bike, and this company!

Dog on a Tikit!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:00 +0000

Success!

I took Lucy on a short (~2 mile round trip) ride to the local park and back, using the milk-crate I attached to my Bike Friday Tikit's double front rack with bungee cords (as shown in a previous post). Worked like a charm, cost me nothing (since I found the milk crate in a pile of stuff my neighbor was going to put in the recycle bin, and I already had the bungees), and it's easy to attach and remove. Perfect size for Lucy, who weighs about 17 lbs. I bet I could fit a slightly bigger dog in there, though.

My point-of-view when stopped at an intersection. I laid a couple towels down to as a cushion for Lucy to sit on. You might notice a slight skew comparing the handlebars to the crate. That is actually due to the handlebars being slightly misaligned, which I hadn't really noticed until this ride. Took 30 seconds to re-align them using an Allen wrench. The crate itself is quite stable with 5 taut bungees holding it in place, and doesn't shift around.

At the park. I could attach the crate to the rear rack, but I like having the dog up front to interact with, and I'm pretty sure she would get antzy in the back as well.

Attaching a Milk Crate to a Tikit

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:29:00 +0000

My Bike Friday Tikit has basically replaced my previous bike, a cheap mountain bike that folds in half. That bike was ok, but it was really cheaply made, and I'm tired of expecting it to break while riding around town. The Tikit is well made and has been a great all-around city bike so far.

One thing my older bike could do that my tikit could not, however, was carry Lucy using a handle-bar mounted pet carrier. The Tikit's handlebar stem is not meant to carry much weight, so I decided not to use the same pet carrier on my little folder. Instead, I've been brainstorming about how to rig something up using the Tikit's double-front rack. That rack is really meant to support panniers, and I do use it to carry my Teeco Detours bag once in a while, but I wanted to use it to support a pet carrier on top.

As fortune would have it, I saw that one of my neighbors had put a milk crate by the recycle bin down in the garage, so I figured it was finders-keepers and snatched it up. A few bungee cords, and it is quite stable on my double-front rack. I put lucy in it and moved around a little, but I haven't taken her for a full-blown ride yet. Perhaps this weekend. I could mount the milk crate on the rear rack as well, but I like to be able to interact with the dog when stopped at an intersection, and I think she likes to be in front anyhow.

I used 5 bungee cords to secure the crate to the rack, as I wanted it to be as stable as possible and not wobble around. Might have been overkill, but it is indeed pretty solid. Don't want the dog falling off the bike!

Pics showing how I attached it below:

Solar power

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:02:00 +0000

I was walking Lucy this morning and noticed that some neighbors just a few doors down from our condo are installing photovoltaics on their roof! A sign of the times? People investing in their home infrastructure with the future economy and the environment in mind? Either way, it was nice to see! With Los Angeles having so many days of sunshine per year, I hope more and more people make the investment to do things like this.

Interesting Day for Government Economics

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:31:00 +0000

So the state of California is apparently close to resolving our budget crisis, thanks to a bunch of spending cuts (a compromise for Democrats) and tax increases (a compromise for Republicans). This includes major cutbacks to education funding, for all public schools in CA including the university systems, and we're all gonna have to pony up more money in the form of state income tax surcharges and increased sales tax.

But one tax increase I think might actually have a positive impact on society is the increased gas tax (an additional 12 cents per gallon), and increased vehicle licensing fees:

"Vehicle license fees would nearly double, going from the current rate of 0.65% to 1.15% of the value of a car or truck. The sales tax would increase by 1 cent, raising the rate in Los Angeles County to 9.75%. Gasoline taxes would increase by 12 cents a gallon. And residents would pay a new surcharge on personal income taxes, amounting to 2.5% to 5% of their total tax bills, depending on how much federal money California gets." (From the L.A. Times article)

All these extra costs are going to be hard to swallow, but perhaps the increased vehicle-related costs will encourage people to use their cars less and use public transit, car-pools, and bicycles more often. In a city like L.A., where so many people drive alone in their cars to work, contributing to pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and traffic congestion, a significant change leading less people to drive could have a major impact. We already saw that ridership on L.A. public transit went up by a whopping 10% in a year (hey, it's a big increase by public transit standards) from September 2007 to September 2008 due to the gas price increases through the summer, and then remained high despite gas price reductions, probably at least partially because people who changed their habits didn't trust that the gas prices would stay low for very long.

On the Federal side, it sounds like the Stimulus package has been put into its final form, with a big surprise for transit advocates: $8 Billion for the construction of new High Speed Rail lines. Wha?!? That's great, but it's a big surprise because the Senate Bill only allocated $2 Billion for HSR, and the House Bill didn't allocate any special funding for it. So, after each of those bills being crafted over weeks, to compromise between $2B and nothing, the Conference Committee bumped it up to $8 billion in one day?!

Well, whatever. I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. With this news and hopes that the Kerry HSR bill will eventually make it through congress, it's getting more and more plausible that the CA HSR system (which needs $10B from state bonds, $10B from the federal government, and $10B from private/commercial sponsors) will actually happen.

iPhoto '09 will have built-in geotagging and Flickr integration

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:51:00 +0000

New geotagging and Flickr features in iPhoto '09!

Just announced at the Macworld Keynote: the new version of iPhoto (2009) will ship with the following cool feature additions (among others):

A "places" section that groups your photos according to where they were taken. This appears to be fully-integrated with google-maps, showing a map with a pin representing each geotagged photo you have, very much like Flickr's map. It also includes the ability to geotag a photo right there in the iPhoto interface.

Even better, the new iPhoto will have a simple "upload to Flickr" option, that sounds like it will replace the third-party iPhoto plugin I've already been using. Sounds like there will also be Facebook integration as well.

This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Now I'll be able to take care of all my geotagging, labelling, keyword/tag adding, and captioning in iphoto, and just upload my finished photos to Flickr in a one-step action, without any additional steps. Count me in.

Check out Macworld's coverage of the keynote for more information (the iPhoto posts are near the bottom of the page, as they were talked about early in the keynote address).

Shuttle Landed at Edwards!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:40:00 +0000

So this morning I arrived at my desk at UCLA and popped open a web browser to see a CNN article that said that the Shuttle Endeavour would be landing at Edwards Air Force base today at 4:25 pm Pacific time. As it was only about 10:30 am when I got in, I briefly entertained the idea of driving the 2 hours up to Edwards to see the landing. The shuttles are scheduled to be retired from service in 2010, and Edwards landings don't happen all that often, maybe once a year, so this could possibly be the last shuttle landing in California ever. I spent 20 minutes looking around online and reading about viewing locations, before I went to NASA.gov and found that CNN had got the times wrong: It would be landing at 4:25 EASTERN time, 1:25 pm pacific. Thanks CNN. And yes it was their mistake, not me misreading the numbers, as I had kept that browser page open and compared it with the NASA site. Serves me right for trusting CNN on details. Oh well.

I did get a shuttle-related treat anyway, though. I had heard anecdotally that you can hear the double-sonic booms from the Shuttle as it passes over the L.A. area on its way to Edwards. But I'd never heard it firsthand in L.A.. I remember back in college, when I worked at EarthKAM, wondering if we'd hear the booms in San Diego, but we never did. I guessed, at the time, that the shuttle was simply to high and too far away from our location on the ground to be able to hear it unless you are right under it. I know it also depends on whether the shuttle is approaching Edwards on an ascending (south to north) or descending (north to south) section of its orbit, as it will be coming in farther north if it's on a descending track.

Anyway, I expected I might be able to hear a soft double-boom if I went outside at the right time. So at 1:15 pm, when the NASA TV announcer said the shuttle was at an altitude of 20 miles and only 137 miles from the Edwards runway (which put the shuttle right over the coast, right around Oxnard) I walked outside onto the roof and listened. I waited for about 5 minutes, figuring that it would take less time than that for the shuttle to pass the area on its way to Edwards, as it was going about Mach 2.5 (~2000 mph). I waited and looked upward, listening. Nothing. A tad disappointed but not too surprised, I walked back toward the door, and was about 2 steps from going back in side when. . .

BOOM-BOOM!

It was unmistakable, and much louder than I had been expecting! I walked down the hall to see if my friend had heard it from his office, but he wasn't there. I then thought to call my friend Phil, who lives in Downey to the southeast. He had the same idea, apparently, as my phone was ringing and I answered to hear his voice: "My house just shook!". Next came a text message from Regan, who was in the valley. She had heard the booms, which she said were so lound it sounded "like a bomb went off". Curious, I texted my sister and called my mom, who both reported hearing the booms clearly all the way in San Diego. Apparently, everyone else in the Southern CA area heard it as well, according to the OC Register and LAist.

From the timing and from listening to the NASA TV broadcast, I gather the shuttle was somewhere between 15 and 18 miles (80,000 ft and 95,000 ft) in altitude when I heard the boom. So, since sound travels around 700 mph at sea level (~11.5 miles per minute), it makes some sense that Endeavour's shock wave took a couple of minutes to reach me. As the shuttle flew right over L.A., I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I could hear it. . . but I am impressed that my family in San Diego, another 150 miles south, could hear it so clearly!

Finally!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:53:00 +0000

I'm so glad the election is over. After nearly 2 years of hearing about this presidential campaign, it's finally over. We're getting a new president. A smart, inspiring, reasonable, Democratic president. I'm so glad! I have so much more hope for our country now! I think our standing in world politics, our reliance on science and reason for policy decisions instead of religion and tradition, our dedication to the Constitution, and our civic progress will all improve under Obama!

And, though Obama has been reluctant to play the race card throughout his campaign, all the emotion that comes with the fact that he will be our first African American President has come pouring out in me and in many others now that he has won. To think that, if we were living 150 years ago in this country, he would probably be a slave. To think that, if we were living just ~40 years ago in some parts of our country, he would have been a second-class citizen, with all the discrimination and "separate-but-equal" treatment that comes with it. And come January 20, he will be our president. Seeing Jesse Jackson's tears of joy as he stood among the huge crowd at Grant Park nearly moved ME to tears. Free at last.

I did not vote for Obama just because he was black. And I don't think most voters did either. If Americans were going to vote for a candidate because he was black, they had their chance with Jesse Jackson in 1984, and Al Sharpton in 2000. No, I voted for Obama because I agree with his policies, his positions on the issues, and I admire his background in relying on intellect and reason and dedication to the constitution. But, all that said, for the rest of my life I am going to be able to say that I helped elect the first black President in U.S. history. And yeah, I'm pretty proud of that.

John McCain's concession speech was excellent. It reminded me that I really do like that guy. He's probably my favorite Republican politician. And, if he had been running his campaign supporting the same ideals he had espoused for much of his career, I think I would have felt more sympathetic to his cause. But his switch to the more conservative of the far right side of his party, his changing positions on issues (like the Bush tax cuts) where I agreed with his former position but not his latter one, and his choice of a right-wing veep candidate, all heralded his loss. Of course, a huge reason why the country voted as it did is due to the economic crisis, and there's plenty of blame to go around for that crisis amongst the Democrats, the Republicans, and Wall Street. McCain just happened to be running for the party with a sitting administration. Well, he's a good man and I know he has more good work to do in the Senate.

As for California, I'm mostly happy with the results of our ballot measures. I'm especially happy that both Prop 1A (the high speed rail initiative), and Measure R (the L.A. County public transit initiative) have passed. As a result of those, my city and state are going to get a new, expanded, modern transit system that will help give people more travel options, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our emission of smog and greenhouse gases, and demonstrate California's leadership in civic progress. I already believed that California is a great state, but I now also believe that Los Angeles has a chance to become a great (not just big) metropolis! And with a Obama in the White House, and a hugely Democratic Congress, where Pelosi has hinted that she will try to make infrastructure funding a major part of the next stimulus package, I'm confident we'll actually get the federal fund matching we need to complete these projects.

Despite these other victories, I feel a huge bitterness that Prop 8 appears to have passed. I am genuinely surprised, first of all. I knew it would be somewhat close, but I did not actually believe it would pass. I had more faith in the awareness of the people in this state than was warranted, apparently. I've already explained why Prop 8 is unfair, wrong, and completely analagous to the racist "separate but equal" Jim Crow Laws that survived until the 1960's, so I won't go into all that again. (Except to point out that California's Supreme Court was the first in the nation to strike down the ban on interracial marriage as unconstitutional in 1948, and I was glad to see the Court repeat its wisdom back in May, despite the stupidity and bigotry of the voters.)

All I'll say is this: Those who voted for this initiative (apparently a majority of this state) are, in my eyes, as equally bigoted as those who supported the ban on interacial marriage that became law in California in 1850 and lasted until almost 100 years later. You do not get a pass on this just because your church told you to do it and you were too indoctrinated to think for yourselves and realize it was wrong. And when homosexuals finally are granted the same rights as heterosexuals, hopefully some time in the not-so-distant future, your legacy will be that you opposed equal rights, opposed equal treatment under the law, and supported discriminatory policies that were along the same lines as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and Japanese Internment camps. Shame on you. You made a horrible mistake. And I won't be letting you forget it.

Yes on Measure R!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:51:00 +0000

It's a political season. What can I say?

I already posted about prop 8 a few days ago. Now I'd like to talk about another important proposal on the ballot for L.A. County. It may seem more logistical in nature than the civil rights being addressed in Prop 8, but I think it can potentially be just as important to Southern California's future.

Measure R is a 0.5% sales tax increase for L.A. County. It would increase our sales tax from 8.25% to 8.75%, and generate about $40 Billion over the next 30 years. Unlike other sources of public transit funding, this money would be forbidden to be used for anything other than public transit in L.A. County, and a committee of retired judges from throughout the county would provide oversight to make sure the funds were not being diverted by the county OR the state of California to other projects (which has been a problem with public transit funds in the past).
Click here for the short, impartial summary of what Measure R provides over at smartvoter.org.
Or here for Metro's information guide on Measure R.

Ridership of each of the metro rail lines and of bus services has increased by around 10% in the past year. That is a major increase, likely originally caused by the rise in gas prices over the past year. Those figures are based on comparing September 2007 ridership numbers to September 2008, after gas prices had already started to go down again; so it's possible that people have established some gas-saving habits that they are now wary of changing. This is encouraging news, at least to me. Driving our cars less will help to solve so many problems: environmental, economical, geopolitical, you name it!

Measure R would do too many things for me to talk about in this post, though the highlights include finally building a subway under the uber-congested Wilshire Boulevard to UCLA, where 70,000 people arrive and leave every day. There's also the extension of the Gold Line at both ends (one into East L.A., the other through the San Gabriel Valley), the extension of the Exposition light rail (which is currently being built from Downtown L.A. to Culver City) all the way to Santa Monica, the building of Green Line connection to LAX, and various highway, bridge, rail, bus, bike and traffic light improvement projects throughout the county.

Instead of just listing all the things that Measure R would do, however, I thought I'd address the three main arguments against it I've heard made by a variety of people and organizations.

-------------------------------------------------------

Arguments against Measure R:
1.) "It unfairly puts the tax burden on the poor and lower class, while many of the benefits will go to the middle and upper classes! "

Measure R is a sales tax increase, which means that anyone in the county who purchases goods and services incurring sales tax will be contributing to this transportation fund. Now, let's think about those poor people in the lower classes: what are they spending their money on? At the most basic level of subsistence, they are paying for food, rent, and transportation. Well, there is no sales tax on food if it is purchased at grocery stores and markets, no sales tax on rent, and improving transportation access for all is exactly what Measure R is trying to do. Many of the poor and lower class take the bus because it is cheaper than driving, and Measure R includes a statute that will freeze the current fares for a few years longer than was originally planned (without R, the fares will go up in 2010), and keep the bus and rail fares for seniors, students, and the disabled from increasing before 2015.

Now let's think about the middle and upper classes; what are they buying? Meals out at restaurants (where sales tax IS incurred), electronics, flat-panel TV's, cellphones, maybe a new car, etc. They are contributing more to the transit fund because they are participating more in the sales economy, and that's because they can afford to spend more money on sales taxable items. A sales tax does not affect everyone equally across the board: it draws more money from those who can afford to pay more.

And, what's more, how does Measure R benefit only the middle and upper class? This is a claim I've seen made by a few organizations, chief among them the Bus Rider's Union (BRU), which is so pro bus that they oppose any contribution to public transit that is not a bus system. They are vehemently anti-rail, and anti-Measure R because: "The MTA funds rail projects (subways cost about $350 million a mile to build) that serve development interests and a more white, more affluent ridership not low-income, transit-dependent riders that are Latino, black or Asian-Pacific Islander, and more than 60% of them are women." --BRU and Strategy Center website

Ok, first of all, I posit that whatever members of the bus rider's union wrote that sentence have never set foot on the metro rail system. I've been on the blue line every week or so, riding between Downtown L.A. and Long Beach. If you're going to characterize the people on that train as "white and affluent", you're blind. I am usually one of only two or three "white" people in my train car, while the other 50 - 80 or so people are decidedly not.

It's true that trains are usually built along corridors that serve development interests, but that's usually because those corridors have already naturally grown to have high population density, and the rail would best serve the population by traveling in that particular area. This is the case for Wilshire Blvd, where the subway will be expanded.

Also, if you are in the upper class of L.A. ("white and affluent"), you have probably never set foot on a bus or rail line, and 65% of the funding appropriation in Measure R is for mass transit (buses and rail). Another 20% is highway expansions and improvements such as car pool lanes, and 15% goes to the individual cities to be used for light synchronizations and road maintenance. So only 35% of the funding in R is going to benefit the upper class who drive their cars on the freeways instead of using rail or bus. I wouldn't call that primarily benefiting the middle and upper class. Besides, buses need to travel on the roads and highways just like personal cars do, and so bus-riders would also benefit from that 35% as well.

-------------------------------------------------------
2.)"We should have increased income tax, gasoline taxes or traffic congestion fees to fund the MTA, not a sales tax!"

Why not an income tax increase? Because income tax is a state revenue. One of the major plusses about Measure R is that it ensures that California doesn't raid these public transit funds to cover budget shortfalls due to mismanagement. The state has done this in the past, but Measure R money would be safe, as it can legally only be used for public transit in L.A. county. If we decided to raise money for L.A. public transit by raising the state income tax, there would be nothing that we could do to prevent the state from dipping into that L.A. transit money for use elsewhere in the state. And why should people in Eureka be paying extra income tax for public transit in L.A. county, anyway?

Why not a gas tax increase, vehicle registration fee increase, or congestion fee? Each of those things would be great if they could actually happen. I challenge someone to try and get a measure to increase those fees or taxes on the ballot. My prediction: it will not happen. Most of the people in this county drive, and everyone is looking for the cheapest gas price they can find. I highly doubt that people who are so worried about having cheaper gas are going to vote to increase their gas price. People tend to see sales tax as the most egalitarian of the types of tax: Everybody pays. To quote the L.A. Times editorial:

"We'd rather see these projects funded by motorists, via higher vehicle registration fees or gas taxes. That would properly place the burden of relieving our traffic and smog problems on those who cause them. Sales taxes, by contrast, hurt low-income people the most and do nothing to discourage driving. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only politically tenable course. Tax increases require a two-thirds vote for approval, and polls show that the sales tax is the only funding source that comes close to reaching that level of public acceptance."--L.A. Times

So, if we want this public transit funding, the sales tax is the most likely way to get it. If we reject Measure R, it's unlikely that the same plan with a different funding source will be approved. This is an opportunity we shouldn't miss. And, besides, this is a city that has up-to-now embraced the car and the freeway system. We can't simply quit our cars cold turkey! For many people there currently is no bus or rail service that offers convenient service to or from their area, and driving really is the only option. Those people should not be penalized with higher car expenses when the current transit system is unable to meet their needs.

-------------------------------------------------------
3.) "It doesn't proportion the funding equally according to population! Region X has Y percent of the population of L.A. County, but only gets Z percent of the funding!" or "It doesn't do anything for the San Gabriel Valley!" or "It doesn't do anything for Long Beach!"

First of all, as a general philosophy: devoting money to public transportation corridors is a strategic endeavor. It involves evaluating the population density, concentration of residential areas, concentration of businesses providing jobs for those residents, and then finding the bus or rail route that will provide the highest ridership at the lowest cost. At any given time a sizable portion of the money needs to go into the highest priority transit corridor. The benefits then reach throughout the county, as the reason those corridors have such high population density is due to people from other parts of the county commuting in there to go to work. Even if a commuter from suburbia will never take public transit, the traffic on the freeway they're driving on will improve as other people do opt to use the bus or rail line.

Hence, the decision of where to distribute the rail lines and transit corridors has to be based on population density and need, not spread throughout the county equally. Still, I'll argue that most parts of the county, including the San Gabriel Valley, would be getting plenty if Measure R passes.

You can see for yourself what projects will be funded, according to region, here:
http://www.metro.net/measurer/region.html

The San Gabriel Valley (SGV) leadership has decided to take a stand and demand some pork from the county. They have their hearts set on an extension of the Gold Line all the way to Ontario Airport. Since Measure R does not include enough funding appropriation to do this, they are taking stances against it. Never mind that the Wilshire subway project will serve an area with far greater population density, to which many SGV residents need to commute anyway. Never mind that the Gold Line currently has the lowest ridership numbers of any of the metro rail lines, and has consistently been below ridership projections since it was completed. Never mind that the SGV will lose the opportunity for lots of other project funding if Measure R fails. Never mind that Measure R ACTUALLY INCLUDES funding for the "Foothill Extension" of the Gold Line, which will extend it from Sierra Madre all the way to Montclair, AND funding for the completion and maintenance of the "East Side Extension of the Gold Line, which is on time to open next year. They want an even higher priority for the Gold Line. This is unreasonable, greedy, and parochial.

Let's look at what the SGV will lose if R does not pass (you can check these for yourself in the Measure R info section of MTA's website), and thanks to Ken Alpern who summarized these points in a comment on the Bottleneck Blog:

-- Improvements to the 10, 60, 210, 605, 710 and freeways

-- The Alameda Corridor East grade separations, which would gets lots of trucks off the 60 and 10 freeways while keep SGV residents from having to stop at rail crossings as often.

-- Foothill Gold Line extension toward Clairemont

-- Eastside Gold Line extension BEYOND the Atlantic station (which will open next year), to stations farther east.

-- The Downtown Light Rail Connector which will allow Gold-line trains to connect directly to the Blue Line

-- Improved Metrolink service for the SGV area

-- Local bus service funding for the individual cities

-- The Wilshire subway extension to UCLA, which will have SGV residents as its second-highest ridership constituency

Regarding that last point about the subway: 22% of the people expected to ride the Subway to the Sea are residents of the San Gabriel Valley. They are the next highest constituency of projected riders after west side residents, who will make up only 36% of the ridership. Those figures are based on a ridership study done by the MTA to determine which parts of the county will benefit from a Wilshire Subway. It's on page 25 of the linked presentation:
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/2008_0505_presentation.pdf

Public transit project funding should not be appropriated according to population size. It is population DENSITY that matters. East L.A. and the San Gabriel Valley (SGV) are a large percentage of L.A. County, it's true. But they are spread out over an enormous area compared to West L.A., downtown, and even the San Fernando Valley. We would have to build many more rail lines, branching out in many directions, in order to provide improved access for most of the SGV. The reason the MTA is targeting projects like the "Subway to the Sea" under Wilshire Blvd, or a Green line LAX connector, or the downtown light rail connector, is that those projects would help far more people than the Gold line extension to Ontario, and so they are of higher priority.

The L.A. Times, the L.A. Daily News and the South Bay Daily Breeze newspapers have all published editorials in support of Measure R, while the Long Beach Press Telegram and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune oppose it.

I was so annoyed at the Long Beach Press Telegram's editorial that I left a comment about it on their website. For one thing, their opposition to Measure R seems hypocritical: Two previous countywide half-cent sales tax increases passed in the 1980's and 1990's, respectively. The funds generated from them went to build the blue line from downtown to Long Beach and the red line from downtown to North Hollywood, respectively. That means that, back in the 1980's, West siders were apparently happy to vote for a countywide sales tax increase that gave Long Beach a great public transit rail line. . . and now the Press Telegram is urging its readers not to return the favor? Sure, Long Beach has it's rail line, thanks to the residents of the rest of the county; why should it bother helping out other parts of the county now?

-------------------------------------------------------
4.) "Now is not the time for a tax increase!"

Yes, the economy is bad. But it turns out that big investment in public infrastructure projects during hard economic times is probably not such a bad idea. Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, says that now is a good time to invest in infrastructure. He says "The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling." We have plenty of old roads and bridges in L.A. and throughout the country that need repair. A good dose of government spending ala the New Deal and Works Projects Administration might be just what the doctor ordered. The Golden Gate Bridge was financed by a bond measure during the great depression, and there it is still benefitting the Bay area some 80 years later. And a sales tax increase is better than a bond measure because we won't have to pay double the cost in interest.

A good public transit system is a sound investment that will improve the lives of people in this city for decades, even centuries to come. Keep in mind that the first train of the London "tube" subway system began operating in 1863, and now that city, which is arguably just as sprawled out area-wise as Los Angeles, has one of the best public transit systems on Earth.
-------------------------------------------------------

Wrapping things up:

What bothers me most about the opposition to R is this "try again next election" mentality. How much do you want to bet that whatever other distribution of funds is proposed at the next election, there will be just as many communities crying out that it is unfair? Sure, there are details in this measure that I don't think are perfect. But it's a comprehensive public transit measure, chalk full of language and details. OF COURSE some people are going to have problems with someparts of it. Sure, we could reject it this time and hope they put together another plan next election, but it's likely that another group of people will dislike some details about THAT plan, so maybe they'll say "try again next election". And this goes on until suddenly 10 more years have gone by and we're still arguing over the details when we could have had a new rail line built by then.

This passing the buck on to the next election is one of the reasons why, 20 years after the subway to the sea was first conceived, construction has still not begun. Sure, we can keep passing on good public transit for this city because we don't like this or that detail in the bill, while L.A. County's population continues to grow (expected 30% rise by 2030), and our roads get more and more congested, and commute times get longer and longer, and less and less tourists will want to come here because there is no easy way to get around town.

Or we can take some responsibility for our future and make a commitment to better public transit, and a better county for our children and our grandchildren; and we don't have to wait until the "next election". We can do this now.

So, if you live in L.A. County, when you have your ballot in front of you ask yourself this: Do you want Los Angeles to have a great public transit system like other great cities do? (Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C., London, Paris) Then why would you vote no on R? If it's because of some minor detail in the plan, ask yourself if that minor detail is important enough to delay these great projects even further into the future; to keep this city chained to it's car-based, smog-creating, oil-guzzling, time-wasting freeway infrastructure even longer. Let's quit wasting time and do the right thing.

Vote yes on Measure R!

Rocket Launch

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:38:00 +0000

Uh, I guess I might have over-hyped the rocket launch last night. Sorry about that.

Reg and I went to the park with Lucy and watched the launch. Even though it was only an hour and a half after sunset, I guess it was still too late for the rocket to enter sunlight during its climb into orbit, so the exhaust trail was not lit up by sunlight, as it was in my photos from the launch a few years ago.

Still, the rocket's red/orange flame was clearly visible as it rose southward in the night sky. It was brighter than most other lights, save nearby planes, and you could see it blink momentarily as it dropped it's first stage.

Didn't really get a good picture, sort of just looks like a red dot rising in the sky. But it was still fun to watch!

Rocket Launch Tomorrow night!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:00:00 +0000

Rocket launch tomorrow night out of Vandenberg! These tend to be lovely spectacles when they happen close to twilight, and this one should be visible for "at least 200 miles", weather permitting. IE: if you live somewhere in Southern CA, you will probably be able to see this if you have a clear view to the West. Actually, just based on the geometry of a typical Delta II rocket launch and a spherical Earth, the above map shows the range of visibility (the farther from the rocket you are, the lower over the horizon it appears).

Once the rocket climbs into sunlight, the exhaust plume and trail tend to be very visible! You can see pictures from a previous twilight launch a few years ago here:

If you're in Southern CA, just be outside looking Northwest (toward Vandenberg) at 7:28 pm on Friday (tomorrow) 10/24! The rocket should come from the Northwest and head pretty much due South.

Oh, and you can check for updates on this particular launch at the following website, which will have a launch video webcast starting 30 minutes prior to launch:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/missions/cosmo-3//

And this is a great website with lots of info on all-things-space for the Southern California community:
http://spacearchive.info/

(P.S.: These launches do sometimes scrub at the last minute, so if you're not seeing anything within 10 minutes or so of being out there, you might want to check the above update website to see if it was canceled.)

No on Proposition 8!

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:03:00 +0000

When I was in High School, I remember distinctly taking the position that, if I could do one thing right in my life, it would be to never in any way get involved in politics. sigh.

The coming election is an important one. In addition to the president, the entire U.S. House of Representatives is up for re-election, 1/3 of the U.S. Senate is as well, and there are a variety of state propositions and county and citywide measures that will appear on our ballots.

I've been reviewing the propositions that will be put before California voters. Some are matters of logistical progress: Prop 1A is the high-speed train bond measure I discussed in a previous entry, Prop 7 and Prop 10 have to do with solar and wind energy. Others are the usual suspects: Prop 4 is the latest of many attempt to force doctors to notify parents 48 before a female minor has an abortion, a proposition that has appeared in at least the last two state elections, was voted down, but seems likely to pass this time, based on polls taken a few months ago, due to the inclusion of parental waivers.

Such propositions have a flavor of business-as-usual to them. They are either interesting ideas that need to be analyzed to see whether they are the best way forward, or old standbys on which I had formed on opinion long ago.

But there is one proposition on the ballot this year that gets to the core of the freedom and equality on which U.S. citizens often pride themselves: Proposition 8. This is important.

My friend Molly already wrote a great blog on her reasons for opposing proposition 8. All are good points. My own reason for opposing it is simple: it takes the right to marry away from a group of people. That is wrong. Inherently wrong. Disgustingly wrong. I feel as if the "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws that civil-rights era leaders of the 1960's fought to overcome are being completely forgotten by everyone who has been convinced to support this ban on gay marriage.

Prop 8 seeks to add the following words to our state Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It's quite simple: the ONLY thing this proposition does is take a right away from a group of people because of their sexual orientation. That's it. It takes a right available to the heterosexual population away from the homosexual population. No matter what argument anyone who has been convinced to vote yes on the proposition makes, that fact will remain. Insert the word "white" in front of the words man and woman in the proposed language, and any cosmetic differences between this and the divisive Jim Crow laws fades into transparency.

It's bad enough that there are enough homophobic people in this state that Prop 8 has made it onto the ballot, what's infinitely worse is that, at the current rate, the proposition actually has a chance of passing.

It's interesting that recent polls show prop 8 gaining ground since the earlier polls this summer all showed it was likely to be rejected. It seems the "Yes on 8" community has struck a nerve with their recent TV advertising campaign. They use a form of fear-mongering and misdirection that is really working on some people.

The yes-on-8 ads, funded largely by the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization), allege that, unless we ban gay marriage, students as young as Kindergarteners will be taught that men can marry men in public school. Apparently this actually happened in Massachussetts for a class of 2nd graders.

Here's why this argument is misleading:

-Prop 8 has absolutely nothing to do with education. I already wrote above the entirety of what prop 8 proposes: to take away the right of gay people to marry. It only ads those 14 words to the constitution. Nothing about education. At all.

-If students are learning about gay marriage in elementary school, it is due to ambiguities in the state health education standards. The statute to which the yes-on-8 ads are referring is California Education Code Section 51890-51891, which lists the expected topics of instruction for school districts that want a state-funded health curriculum. Among the topics is the following:

"For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
. . .
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood."

What this basically means is that, if a school district wants state funding for its health-education curriculum, it must, at some point between kindergarten and 12th grade, discuss the legal and financial aspects of marriage. The Code says nothing about exactly which grade marriage is to be discussed in. The issue of what topics are to be taught at which grade level is addressed in the Standards for Health Education, which doesn't mention anything about teaching marriage until it gets to high school:

"High School
As a result of health instruction in high school, all students will demonstrate the ability to:
. . .
HS.1.G.3 Discuss the characteristics of healthy relationships, dating, committed relationships, and marriage.
. . .
HS.1.G.10 Recognize that there are individual differences in growth and development, body image, gender roles, and sexual orientation. "

So, according to this, marriage and sexual orientation are to be discussed in high-school "careers and family studies"-type classes.

Here's the rub: though the standards clearly say that students should learn about marriage and sexual orientation in High School, they seem to also leave open the option to discuss marriage in earlier grades. It seems to be the prerogative of the school district:

"Section 51933

51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. (b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
. . .
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
. . ."

"Age appropriate instruction" seems to be up for interpretation. I included number (8) to show that some of the curriculum standards DO state clearly at what grade the instruction is to begin (in the case of birth control, it clearly states that it can be taught starting in grade 7). This does not seem to be the case for marriage, and leaves some leeway about when it can be discussed.

-Now, what does all of this have to do with gay marriage? Well, obviously, if gay marriage remains legal in this state, then it should be discussed and addressed whenever the school decides it is time to instruct the children about marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage probably wouldn't want their kids learning about it at a young age in public school.

The reason the fear-mongering ads of the "yes-on-8" campaign are misleading, however, is this: the age at which certain topics are taught to public school students is a matter that can be addressed by revising state school standards and codes. One could petition to make these laws more clear about only addressing the topic of marriage in junior high or high school, for example. Putting a "Beginning in grade 7. . ." before the bit about marriage in the Standards above would do it. One could also pull their child out of the class. One could discuss the interpretation of the state codes with the school district. All of these are better options for clearing this up then just taking the right to marry away from an entire population of people.

But no, the yes-on-8 campaign wants you to believe that the best way to solve this ambiguity in our state health education code is to eliminate the right of gay people to marry entirely. It's not right to take a civil right away from a whole population just because some people don't want their kids hearing about it in school. This is not the right way to address the problem of what kids learn and when.

And then there's a more fundamental issue: Why did this argument convince some people, who would otherwise have been content to leave well enough alone and let homosexuals continue to marry, that they should now remove that right entirely? Before these recent ads started running, polls were showing that prop 8 was likely to fail. After the school-ads, polls show it likely to pass. So some people who previously were against prop 8 suddenly were for it. If you are ok with it being legal for gay people to marry, why would you want to keep it a secret from your children? Say your child asks you if two men can get married; what are you going to do, lie to them? You can teach your children anything you like in your home and your church, but if you expect the public school system to preach inequality, I have little sympathy for you.
--------------------------------------

Sigh.

Underneath all the fear-mongering and obfuscation of the "yes-on-8" campaign, the primary motivations for passing this ban are religious. Well, marriage in the sense that we are talking about is NOT a religious institution. It is a civil one. And there are real differences between marriage and domestic partnership.

In the end, this issue is much simpler than everyone is making it out to be. Heterosexual couples enjoy the right to marry. Homosexual couples now do as well. Prop 8 would take that right away from them. It would be the first time I know of that an entire demographic would be stripped of their civil rights in a constitutional amendment in this state.

History does not look back fondly on those who support taking rights away from people. Think of how we regard those who espoused the "separate but equal" doctrine in the '60's. We think of them as racists. Those who vote Yes on prop 8 this November 4 will join their prejudiced predecessors in attempting to ensure that certain people do not get the civil rights and equal treatment under the law that is supposed to be guaranteed to all men and women in this country and in this state. Shame on them. They should be smarter than this. Don't let fear mongering and religious dogma cloud your judgment. Vote no on prop 8!

Race across London

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:54:00 +0000

I've heard people compare Los Angeles to London in that both cities are sprawled out over a large area. While London has had a metro-rail system for over 150 years now, the rail system of Los Angeles can not compete, and probably won't for quite some time.

Anyhow, a friend told me about this show, Top Gear, which typically does car reviews. In this particular episode, 4 guys race across London using 4 different modes of transportation: car, bicycle, public transit (bus and rail), and a speed boat up the Thames river.

It's tremendous fun to watch, only about 23 minutes. Can you guess the order in which they cross the finish line?

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/129403.html

Scroll down to find out who won.

Bicycle, then boat, then public transit, then car.

SCUBA Cylinder Explosions

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:30:00 +0000

So, we got a new compressor at the aquarium to fill our SCUBA cylinders with between dives. Unlike the old one, this compressor has some better safety features. For one, it only fills the cylinders when the door is closed and the cylinders are encased in a thick steel compartment; the idea being that, if a rupture were to occur, the extra metal would minimze the damage to the surrounding dive locker, where there are typically lots of people walking around. The process of loading a tank into the compressor and heaving the door shut before the compressor can start filling the tank reminded me of how the Ghostbusters would load their ghost trap into their "containment system" in the movie.

Anyway, I got curious about just how often SCUBA cylinder ruptures occur, and found some information on the website of Luxfer, on of the biggest manufacturers of SCUBA cylinders in the world.

Here is one of their charts, listing 13 SCUBA cylinder ruptures/
explosions since 1988, the most recent in 2007.
http://www.luxfercylinders.com/support/faq/sustainedloadcracking-australia.shtml#q5

It is unclear to me whether this is a list of only SLC (sustained-load-
cracking) ruptures, or all SCUBA cylinder ruptures worldwide. Either
way, it appears that many of them are due to a specific alloy of
aluminum (6351) that is more susceptible to SLC than other alloys of
aluminum or steel. Luxfer stopped making these tanks in 1988 (in the
U.S.) and in 1990 (in Australia), afterwhich they switched to 6061,
which is apparently not susceptible to SLC.

Still, statistically speaking the risk is low. . . but if you google
around for any of the events on the list, you're likely to find
personal accounts and photos of the aftermath of the explosions. On
the couple I looked at, the scuba-shop people filling the tanks
noticed no defects on the tanks whatsoever. In one case, the cylinder
exploded after being placed in a water-tank to be filled, but BEFORE
the staff member even opened the compressor valve to fill the tank
(IE: it exploded when it was not being filled, at least, according to
the account at this web site, near the bottom of the page).
http://biobug.org/scuba/scubatank/

Note that the energy contained in the compressed air of a SCUBA cylinder, relative to atmospheric pressure around it, is equivalent to the energy of about 2 hand grenades, according to the link above.

Not sure how reliable that account was, but, anyway, with the number
of cylinders we have being using in the dive locker, and the fact that
the fill station is right next to where divers and tour groups walk
all day long, I'm happy to have the new ghost-buster containment system.

Of course, a person is MUCH MUCH more likely to be injured or killed by driving a car, getting hit by lightning, having a coconut fall on his head, or getting crushed by a vending machine than being injured or killed by an exploding scuba tank. . . but I see no problem in mitigating risk, especially since the most likely time a tank would rupture is during the filling process.

Finally, for fun, I'd like you to use your current state of mind
thinking about exploding 3000 psi scuba cylinder to reflect on the
idea of a new "air car" that will be powered by an on-board compressed
air tank holding air at 4500 psi. . . situated right next to a fuel
tank. . . in a car that can drive up to 90 mph. All in the name of
saving energy. (Because I'm sure air compressors that can fill tanks
up to 4500 psi are highly energy efficient, right? ;) )
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html

The Subway, The Earthquake, and the iPhone

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:22:00 +0000

I was about 100 feet under downtown Los Angeles, when the earthquake hit.

On Tuesdays I commute from North Hollywood station all the way down to Long Beach to volunteer at the aquarium, using the Red line (L.A.'s only completely subterranean heavy rail) and the Blue line (a light rail that is only underground breifly at its northernmost station).

I think we were somewhere between Vermont/Santa Monica and 7th/Metro (where I disembarked) at the time of the quake. The reason I am unsure exactly where on the route we were at 11:42 am is because I DIDN'T FEEL THE EARTHQUAKE AT ALL. No one in my train car did, as far as I can recall. I do remember that, at one of the red line stops, the train was stopped for longer than usual (maybe 30 seconds), and the conductor said something inaudible over the speaker, but I didn't know what it was, and it didn't seem to matter much since we were moving again pretty quick, so I assumed it was some random delay. No one around me was reacting to anything (several were sleeping), so I think it's not just me on the train that didn't feel it.

(I am actually curious at why I didn't feel the quake on the red line. Was it simply because the regular vibrations felt when riding the train masked the vibrations from the quake? The red line feels (to me) like it has shocks cushioning between the wheel chassis and the car somehow, making it a smooth ride. Did those shocks (if they exist) damp out the jolt of the quake as well? I dunno.)

After disembarking the red line at 7th/Metro, I went up the stairs to wait for the Blue Line. This station is a double-decker subway station, with the red line at the lower level and the blue line at the upper level, but both still underground. After waiting 3 or 4 minutes, someone came on the station loudspeaker and said "(something inaudible) We are running all trains as normal, but (something inaudible) there may be some delays. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience."

I was playing a stupid game on my phone, so I wasn't really paying attention, and figured there was some random reason why the trains might be delayed. This didn't seem all that unusual, so I just waited as normal.

The blue line train showed up only a few minutes or so later than expected. I strolled onboard, still blissfully unaware that anything had happened. It was now around 11:55 or so. Once people had mostly sat down and had gotten quiet, the conductor for this train came on the loudspeaker:

"This train will be departing for Long Beach. Because of the earthquake, we will not be traveling faster than 15 miles per hour. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

Earthquake? There was an earthquake? Huh.

I pulled out my shiny new iphone, which of course gets no reception underground, and opened the web browser. As soon as we emerged from underground and were approaching Pico station, I went to CNN.com. On the top of the CNN front page was an alert in big red letters: "5.4 Earthquake rocks Los Angeles. Details soon."

Yeesh, I thought, talk about alarmist reporting! Here CNN is warning the nation of a natural disaster possibly destroying L.A., and here I am coming out from beneath downtown L.A. and I didn't even feel the darn thing. I then browsed over to the USGS web site and found out that it was indeed a 5.4 quake, whose epicenter was near Chino Hills, about 30 miles east-southeast of downtown. I figured, well, maybe it was too far away for us to feel it. Right then I get a text message from my sister in SAN DIEGO. "Did you feel the earthquake?", she asked. I responded that I hadn't, and she immediately replied that the room she was in (a classroom in a larger building) was "rockin' and rollin'". In San Diego. 113 miles from the epicenter! Everyone else I talked to that day definitely felt the earthquake. In a weird way, I feel sort of left out.

The main impact it had on my day was that the blue line was forced to run much slower, I guess as a safety precaution in case of aftershocks. We were going 15 mph most of the 30 or so miles to Long Beach. I could hear chatter on the speakers, which sounded like communications between the conductor and higher authorities. By the time we were street-running in Long Beach, it sounded like the conductor was given approval to take the train up to 45 mph, but at that point it was moot for me, since we were stopping at stoplights and such anyway. The 53 minute scheduled ride between 7th/Metro and the Long Beach Transit Mall instead took about 1 hr 40 minutes. Luckily I could call the aquarium and let them know I would be late so someone could cover for the first part of my volunteer shift.

While I was checking out news sites for more quake info, some guy sat down next to me, having just boarded at Pico. I asked him if he felt the quake. "Oh yeah," he said. Then he noticed that the train was going really slow, and I told him that it was for safety. He realized that, at this rate, he was not going to make to where he was going by using the train, so I used my iPhone and the MTA website to figure out an alternate route for him to take, using a bus that was scheduled to stop at the next blue line station we'd be stopping at in just a few minutes! Worked out kind of well, and he walked off the train saying "I need to get me one of those!". So I guess these things aren't just toys afterall.

Mass Transit: California and Los Angeles

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:44:00 +0000

EDIT: Thought I'd quickly add a cool link I found with information about metropolitan rail systems around the world. Has info on their history and the present day states of the system. Did you know that the first Metro rail system was the London Tube, which started operation in 1863? (!!)
http://www.urbanrail.net/index.html

As a follow up to my last post, I thought I'd talk a bit about transit issues specific to California and Los Angeles, in particular.

As for state-wide service, check this out: A high-speed rail (220 MPH trains!) system that will eventually extend from San Diego through Riverside and Los Angeles and San Francisco all the way to Sacramento. A trip from downtown L.A. to San Diego would cost $35 and take 1 hour and 20 minutes. A trip between L.A. and San Francisco would cost $55 and take 2 hours and 40 minutes. And we can vote to approve it in November's election! I'm glad that California government is taking the lead in trying to make this state more European in dealing with high gas prices and making long-range high speed rail transit more commonplace than it is today. I only hope the rest of the population will see the benefits that such systems can bring to their children and their grandchildren, instead of leaving their descendants to deal with the rising national debt we are incurring, and the environmental impacts we are causing, by continuing to rely on personal transport and fossil fuels.

In Los Angeles, public transit is a challenge. The city is a sprawl, with a huge number of people living in the San Fernando Valley, the west side, Santa Monica, Hollywood, East L.A., Pasadena, South Central, the South Bay, Long Beach, etc. L.A. Metro has a very difficult problem ahead of them: they are trying to expand and improve their network of rail and bus lines across a huge urban and suburban sprawl. Subways and trains are fast, reliable, and can keep to their schedules without having to worry about traffic throughout the day. Everyone would love a train that goes straight from their house to their job, but obviously we can only have so many rail lines. They are expensive to build, especially in areas where the region to be developed into a rail line is privately owned.

The regions that are too far from a rail station (most of the county) are served by buses. I can say from experience that the local versions of these buses are simply not worth it if you have access to a car. You will waste 15 to 20 minutes waiting at the bus stop (they are rarely able to hold to the schedule), and they make so many stops that you could almost always make the trip much faster in your car. And if you are only traveling ~5 miles or so, the distance over which you’d likely want to use a local bus, it’d be much easier to use a car.

Over longer distances, the “rapid” lines become quite useful. These are usually larger, articulating buses that make fewer stops along their route, allowing them to get you from one place to another much faster than a local bus. I use a rapid line to get from UCLA to my condo in Sherman Oaks.

L.A. Metro really is trying to make improvements and expand service. But of course, we only notice the little problems, and take the good things about the service for granted. The fact that the buses are not able to arrive and depart on the scheduled timetable does not really surprise me: the buses are subject to the same traffic fluctuations and stoplights that cars are. We can’t expect the buses to arrive within minutes of the time on the schedule; especially when it’s near the end of that bus’ route.

What I would love to see is something like Chicago has. A way for people to tell how long until the next bus arrives at the bus stop. Something that is accessible by cellphone would be great. Anything accessible online would work as well. If I could know how long before the bus will actually arrive at the bus stop BEFORE I leave my house or office, I could save a lot of time that I am currently wasting waiting at the bus stop, not knowing whether or not I have time to sit down and work on my laptop, or whether there is a bus coming within a couple of minutes.

The rail system in L.A. is actually very effective (see map above), but if you don't live near a rail station, it is useless to you. The entire west side of L.A. is not served by a rail system. The purple line (a subway) currently goes from downtown to Wilshire and Western, and it will eventually be extended all the way to Santa Monica. That will be great when it's finished, as it will take lots of car congestion off of Wilshire, Santa Monica Blvd., and I-10. But that is probably 10-15 years out. . . and I can not imagine having to deal with all the legal issues and property owners underneath and along Wilshire Blvd.

The MTA has a long term plan, and it is moving in the right direction, but I hope that the recent rises in gas cost will inspire some political motivation to inject even more money into the transit system here. This could be an even greater city if public transit were fast, affordable, and efficient. I don't expect that people will be able to live here easily without cars anytime soon, but reducing car usage by a large amount (as in, the ability to commute to work without using your car) would be a significant and attainable goal.

Rising gas prices and public transit

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:31:00 +0000

I thought I’d spend a couple of blog posts talking (mainly to myself, I know, but it’s therapeutic) about public transit in general, and mass transit in Los Angeles in particular.

First, in general: It seems to me that one of the major economic problems the U.S. will be facing over the next few decades is the increasing cost of petroleum. I’ve seen many websites (some alarmist, others more reliable and practical) proclaiming that we are nearing the age of global peak oil. That is, within my lifetime (and probably within the next 30 or so years) we will reach a point at which humanity is producing oil for consumption at the highest possible rate, and after which the oil production rate will fall lower and lower. This time, called “Hubbert’s Peak” corresponds to the point at which we have used half of the crude oil that is accessible to humanity.

The fact that Hubbert’s peak exists for oil should not be surprising. It exists for any non-renewable resource. Crude oil is produced by processes of biological decay and geological compression that take thousands to millions of years, and we humans are using the energy from oil in much less time than it takes the Earth to produce more of it. Hence, on the timescale of human society, oil is non-renewable.

In his book “Out of Gas”, Caltech Physicist David Goodstein points out that we don’t have to wait until we are literally out of oil for a crisis to erupt. That’s because, as soon as we’ve hit Hubbert’s peak, and the rate of oil production begins to forever decrease, oil prices will be forced to continuously rise as the supply of oil decreases. In the 1970’s, oil production within the United States hit Hubbert’s Peak. OPEC realized this and, due to a variety of economic and political motivations, reduced the amount of oil they were willing to sell to the U.S.. The result was the Gas Crisis, with people waiting in long lines to get the small amount of gasoline available to them. We weren’t out of oil. . . availability just decreased for a time. And, when our car-based, consumer lifestyle continues to increase (along with our population), a small decrease in the availability of oil can mean real problems for the every day consumer.

Average gas prices in the U.S. have gone from the lowest (adjusted for inflation) real cost per gallon ever in 1999, to the highest real cost per gallon ever, right now. (See the plot above, collected from the U.S. Energy Information Administration) Though some types of governmental incentives and fiscal policies might cause the prices to go down by a few tens of cents at some point (the temporary band-aid of a "gas tax holiday" supported by McCain and Clinton), they will not be decreasing by half. Gradually, our gasoline prices will be increasing for the foreseeable future. Some people, including myself, think this might actually turn out to be a good thing. Check out this op-ed piece in the L.A. Times: The Joy of $8 Gas.

However, though it may be great that rising gas prices will encourage more people to use public transit, there needs to be a useful transit system available for them in order for the switch to work. This is where the U.S. gets hit in its weak spot. Use of trains and public transportation in metropolitan areas was high in the U.S. in the first half of the twentieth century. But after the economic prosperity that came about after World War 2 and during the Cold War, and with the (temporary) availability of cheap oil, U.S. society changed. People moved away from the centers of big cities, and created the suburbs. This was possible because roads could be built out into suburban or rural areas, and people could afford to drive their own cars to wherever they pleased without the governments having to invest public funds. The federal government began investing much more in the interstate highway system, and much less in the train systems. Even state and city governments put more of their tax revenue into maintaining more and more roads, leaving less money to maintain (let alone expand) public transit systems. The U.S. became a car country.

Now we are finally seeing some of the error in our ways. If gas prices keep going up at the current rates, it will become economically unfeasible for many lower middle class families to use their cars to commute to work. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if our society were used to using a good public transit system. But we are not used to public transit. We are used to the convenience of personal transit. And most U.S. cities do not have a good public transit system, though it is improving.

Robert Reich, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, sometimes gives commentaries on NPR. One of his recent suggestions (on the June 4 podcast) was for the federal government to enact some fiscal policy and inject a real economic stimulus package that amounts to more than giving each American $600 to put in the bank. Instead, Congress should vote to imbue a great deal more money into public transportation. Gasoline is not going to get cheaper, and hybrid cars are great but will only solve the economic problem for the upper middle class people who can afford to buy them.

A better public transit system, one that allows people to conduct their daily lives without having to use their cars as often as they do now, is the right solution. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our production of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming, and give relief to those who find it more difficult to pay for gas.