Here's a terrific article you need to read in case you were thinking about sending in your bits of gold for some desperately needed cold, hard cash.
You could get up to 40% of it's "melt value" (that's the value of the gold when melted down) but only if you hold out and refuse, refuse, refuse their offer until they give up in frustration and send you less that half of what it's worth.
Advice? Pawn it!
Link:
http://consumerist.com/5349663/the-article-cash4gold-doesnt-want-you-to-read
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
"Supershear" Quakes
Who ever heard of such a thing? Is that like "rogue waves"? (Apparently, those do in fact exist - anyone see The Poseidon Adventure or it's remake?)
A quake supposedly has a limited speed
Now they've tossed that theory out and they've found that earthquakes can travel faster than this, reaching up to 5 kilometers per second.
What's the difference?
If a quake goes "supershear", it can travel much faster, but also farther, including places that we thought were safe(er)
Fortunately, the researcher believes these supershear quakes should only occur along a "strike-slip" fault if it happens to have long, straight sections "that do not deviate by 5 degrees or more over a distance of 100 kilometres", dubbed "superhighways".
Links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.400-seismic-boom-breaking-the-quake-barrier.html?full=true
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/superfast-earthquake-could-hit/
A quake supposedly has a limited speed
"Mathematical equations show that ruptures cannot propagate at speeds in a so-called "forbidden zone", between around 3 and 3.5 kilometres per second. At these speeds, the fault's frictional sliding would have to convert heat into mechanical energy - something that is thermodynamically impossible. Since a rupture can never accelerate through this zone, the possibility of quakes faster than 3.5 kilometres per second was ruled out."
Now they've tossed that theory out and they've found that earthquakes can travel faster than this, reaching up to 5 kilometers per second.
What's the difference?
If a quake goes "supershear", it can travel much faster, but also farther, including places that we thought were safe(er)
"it could mean that regions previously thought to be outside of the worst effects of an earthquake, and maybe even beyond its reach altogether, could be caught unawares by a supershear quake. The Mach front's high amplitude means that it travels further through the ground than normal shear waves, putting millions more people at risk."
"The most recent building rules in the US, established in the late 1990s, place tight restrictions on the design of structures within 5 kilometres of an active fault. That's because these regions are considered vulnerable to the so-called "near source pulse" of an earthquake."
Fortunately, the researcher believes these supershear quakes should only occur along a "strike-slip" fault if it happens to have long, straight sections "that do not deviate by 5 degrees or more over a distance of 100 kilometres", dubbed "superhighways".
Links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.400-seismic-boom-breaking-the-quake-barrier.html?full=true
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/superfast-earthquake-could-hit/
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Depression is Now "Mental Adaptation"
In an article recently published in Psychological Review, we argue that depression is in fact an adaptation, a state of mind which brings real costs, but also brings real benefits.
The research was done on rat brains (of course, isn't it always?) and it has to do with a molecule called the 5HT1A receptor which binds to serotonin. We humans have so many of these receptors in our poor, over-worked little brains that we become depressed. The fact that we still have so many of them (evolutionarily speaking - is 'evolutionarily' a word?) "suggests that it is so important that natural selection has preserved it."
Okay, so they're saying it's a good thing to become depressed? What are the advantages? Are there advantages?
Apparently so...
Depressed people often think intensely about their problems. These thoughts are called ruminations; they are persistent and depressed people have difficulty thinking about anything else. Numerous studies have also shown that this thinking style is often highly analytical. They dwell on a complex problem, breaking it down into smaller components, which are considered one at a time.
Makes sense, break the problem down into smaller bits. Everyone knows that!
But what about the rest of it? What about when you stop hanging out with your friends and family, what about losing interest in everything around you, even sex?
And just what the heck are they talking about when they say you lose interest in food when you're depressed? That never happens to me!
Many other symptoms of depression make sense in light of the idea that analysis must be uninterrupted. The desire for social isolation, for instance, helps the depressed person avoid situations that would require thinking about other things. Similarly, the inability to derive pleasure from sex or other activities prevents the depressed person from engaging in activities that could distract him or her from the problem. Even the loss of appetite often seen in depression could be viewed as promoting analysis because chewing and other oral activity interferes with the brain’s ability to process information.
So you're busy concentrating really hard on whatever is depressing you and you don't want any distractions. I get it.
Now, how do you get out of that deep, dark pit?
Therapies should try to encourage depressive rumination rather than try to stop it, and they should focus on trying to help people solve the problems that trigger their bouts of depression.
Links:
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary
Original article: psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2009-10379-009
The research was done on rat brains (of course, isn't it always?) and it has to do with a molecule called the 5HT1A receptor which binds to serotonin. We humans have so many of these receptors in our poor, over-worked little brains that we become depressed. The fact that we still have so many of them (evolutionarily speaking - is 'evolutionarily' a word?) "suggests that it is so important that natural selection has preserved it."
Okay, so they're saying it's a good thing to become depressed? What are the advantages? Are there advantages?
Apparently so...
Depressed people often think intensely about their problems. These thoughts are called ruminations; they are persistent and depressed people have difficulty thinking about anything else. Numerous studies have also shown that this thinking style is often highly analytical. They dwell on a complex problem, breaking it down into smaller components, which are considered one at a time.
Makes sense, break the problem down into smaller bits. Everyone knows that!
But what about the rest of it? What about when you stop hanging out with your friends and family, what about losing interest in everything around you, even sex?
And just what the heck are they talking about when they say you lose interest in food when you're depressed? That never happens to me!
Many other symptoms of depression make sense in light of the idea that analysis must be uninterrupted. The desire for social isolation, for instance, helps the depressed person avoid situations that would require thinking about other things. Similarly, the inability to derive pleasure from sex or other activities prevents the depressed person from engaging in activities that could distract him or her from the problem. Even the loss of appetite often seen in depression could be viewed as promoting analysis because chewing and other oral activity interferes with the brain’s ability to process information.
So you're busy concentrating really hard on whatever is depressing you and you don't want any distractions. I get it.
Now, how do you get out of that deep, dark pit?
Therapies should try to encourage depressive rumination rather than try to stop it, and they should focus on trying to help people solve the problems that trigger their bouts of depression.
Links:
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary
Original article: psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2009-10379-009
"Clamshell packaging"???
I didn't know there was a name for this...
Well, I guess it makes more sense that there is a name for this crap because being able to 'name things' that traumatize us is an important step in the recovery process.
Yeah, and it also helps to have a 'cure'! So here's your cure for that frustrating plastic packaging your small electronics come wrapped in.
(Hint - like Dorothy in Oz, you've had the ability the entire time)
Link:
green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/88/how-to-open-clamshell-packaging.html
Well, I guess it makes more sense that there is a name for this crap because being able to 'name things' that traumatize us is an important step in the recovery process.
Yeah, and it also helps to have a 'cure'! So here's your cure for that frustrating plastic packaging your small electronics come wrapped in.
(Hint - like Dorothy in Oz, you've had the ability the entire time)
Link:
green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/88/how-to-open-clamshell-packaging.html
People Who Multi-task are Bad at It!
Whoopee! I always thought I was one of those people - someone who's not smart enough or quick enough to do 100 things at once, like those 'super women' can.
So maybe I'm not so bad after all, huh?
Link:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_sc/us_sci_multitasking_mayhem_1
So maybe I'm not so bad after all, huh?
Link:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_sc/us_sci_multitasking_mayhem_1
Loch Ness Monster - Found!
Or is it....?
On Google Earth, copy/paste in these coordinates and decide for yourself
57°12'52.13"N 4°34'14.16"W
Link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209118/Is-Nessie-Google-Earth.html?ITO=1490
On Google Earth, copy/paste in these coordinates and decide for yourself
57°12'52.13"N 4°34'14.16"W
Link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209118/Is-Nessie-Google-Earth.html?ITO=1490
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall
It seems that the super-rich aren't so super-rich anymore, which doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is what the rest of the article says about tax rates and income levels.
Since 1980, tax rates on the affluent have fallen more than rates on any other group
I guess that's great - for them.
In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation's income.... [t]he top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income
So if the US GDP in 2007 was $14,264,600,000 (that's 14.264 trillion dollars) and the top 1% of earners took home 23.5% of income, the top 1% took home $3.352 trillion dollars? Is that what this is saying?
Let's look at what this means worldwide. If the world's total GDP in 2007 was $60,689,812,000 (again, in trillions of dollars) and the top earners in the US took home $3.352 trillion of it, they took home over 5% (5.52346578%) of the world's income...
Am I getting this right?
Take a look at what the NY Times article has to say about income tax, the gulf between the rich 1% and the 99% of us not-so-rich, and how income tax rates have affected the size and affluence of the middle class, especially since the '80's.
Links:
www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/economy/21inequality.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Since 1980, tax rates on the affluent have fallen more than rates on any other group
I guess that's great - for them.
In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation's income.... [t]he top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income
So if the US GDP in 2007 was $14,264,600,000 (that's 14.264 trillion dollars) and the top 1% of earners took home 23.5% of income, the top 1% took home $3.352 trillion dollars? Is that what this is saying?
Let's look at what this means worldwide. If the world's total GDP in 2007 was $60,689,812,000 (again, in trillions of dollars) and the top earners in the US took home $3.352 trillion of it, they took home over 5% (5.52346578%) of the world's income...
Am I getting this right?
Take a look at what the NY Times article has to say about income tax, the gulf between the rich 1% and the 99% of us not-so-rich, and how income tax rates have affected the size and affluence of the middle class, especially since the '80's.
Links:
www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/economy/21inequality.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Mexico Decriminalizes Small-Scale Drug Possession
As amazing as this headline seems,"decriminalizes" does not mean "legalization"
"This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty," said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general's office.
The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams—the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines." For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.
Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A763HO0&show_article=1
"This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty," said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general's office.
The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams—the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines." For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.
Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A763HO0&show_article=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)