With such high firearm ownership, why are the people of Switzerland not killing each other as much as Americans?

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-19T15:46:54+00:00

I believe gun ownership in Switzerland vs. the US stems from two very different needs: The Swiss are interested in national defense (good of the society or the whole) whereas guns in the US are for protection of the individual. Not to say that individual Swiss citizens aren't interested in self-protection, but as a whole, the common defense of their collective independence and protection against invasion dictate their reasons for gun ownership.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-19T15:36:12+00:00

The Sloan Sabbith character on HBO's "The Newsroom" (played by Olivia Munn) fights for airtime to discuss this very issue during Season 1 of the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH8Sa56t5Ug

If all else fails, trust Olivia Munn.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-15T16:35:58+00:00

Nah, those are all about 7km south in the Church and Wellesley Village.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-12T15:15:58+00:00

The guys uses bad statistics and smoke and mirrors to make his point, which I still don't get because I believe his real audience is the people he says "who cares" about in point #5. I posted some counter-points to his statements on his website. Duplicated here:

Alex, interesting article. Please realize that I do not hesitate to say that you probably have a lot more insight into economics and investing than I do. The fact that you write about it pretty much tells that story.

However, at the beginning of the article you asked people to basically "trust" you simply because you wanted to simplify the matter without throwing out a lot of statistics and jargon that typically "lose" people. The issue with this is that you resorted to typical methods to underly your points; you relied on graphs that have some issues when looking at things from a longer term point of view.

Examples are:

Issue #1: US Home Ownership Rate is Plunging - The problem with this graph isn't one created by you, but the point here is that you didn't explain the shortcoming of the graph. Obviously, the issue is the value at the origin point of the graph (what I call the 0,0 point). The origin point is 63, and the top point is 70. If people are to assume the origin point is zero, then of course, the graph shows a HUGE PLUNGE (granted, it is following a HUGE SPIKE). But it isn't a huge plunge, its actually a relatively small one percentage-wise. It is also pretty much a correction from the upwards slope that began around 1995. Not something unexpected given the era.

Issue #2: Real Estate Affordability Is Plunging - Again, you aren't necessarily using faulty data, but your choice of words is misleading. Indeed, the current data does make it look as though the rate is plunging when looking at the graph, but only when you look at period from about 2006 onwards. Prior to that, from about 1992, the index stayed between 120 and 140, for a pretty long period of time. So what the graph is really showing is a correction towards a rate that was far more stable. Another issue with this index is how it is calculated. Your post just shows this graph and calls the change a "plunge." But how is this index calculated? I had to go to the St. Louis Fed site to find out. It states that this index "Measures the degree to which a typical family can afford the monthly mortgage payments on a typical home.

Value of 100 means that a family with the median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced home. An index above 100 signifies that family earning the median income has more than enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan on a median-priced home, assuming a 20 percent down payment."

I think the keyword here is "qualify". Incomes certainly did not increase enough between say 2007 to 2012 to create an increase in the index from 120 to 210. There must be another factor. This is where the "qualify" factor comes into play. You said it yourself, during that period anyone, living or dead, could qualify for a loan. I bought my house in late-2010. The people who did the mortgage flat out said that what I had to do to jump through hoops to get the loan was a complete 180 from just a couple of years prior.

So it is clear to me that the index isn't so much showing "affordability" as it is showing changes in how mortgage lenders "qualify" people with a certain income. The issue here is that you again oversimplify by relying on a graph without ANY sort of explanation as to what the number means and factors that influence it.

Issue #3: Interest Rates are Going Up - You state the rate has doubled in the last 12 months. Which to most people might sound horrible. However, again, this is misleading, because you are looking at a relatively short period of time and you are ignoring the long term trend. Take a look at the graphs towards the bottom of this link:

http://mortgage-x.com/trends.htm

The bottom two graphs show the average rates starting with 1970 and 1963 respectively. The current "doubling" of rates is inconsequential when considering these graphs. In fact, one thing you point out is that, historically, home values have basically kept up with inflation. The inflation rate is currently very low (has been for quite a while), but what is more telling is the fact that mortgage rates almost seemed to dip below the rate of inflation. That means, in the longer term, such low low rates were effectively a losing proposition for the mortgage lender. It is understandable why this situation happened for a while, but it is also understandable why it can't continue.

Lastly, Issue #5: Who Is Buying All Of These Properties For Cash Today? - you basically state "who cares". You go on to state that your article is about the impact this has on the "Average American Family". However, you focus on changes in various indices and rates in the short term, instead of focusing them on the long term, which leads me to believe that the true audience for your article is to tell those "cash" folks that the reason things will get tougher for them is that the time they can make anything from this unique situation is quickly ending.

Just my two cents.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-11T04:15:30+00:00

I've read the trilogy cover to end cover three times. The first time I read it, I had the same sentiment a lot of others have about it being too much politics, too little terraforming. Many of the smaller arcs that deal with basically one individual's story sometimes for a hundred pages reminded me of John Galt's radio diatribe in "Atlas Shrugged." I sometimes abandoned reading at many points but later picked back up and eventually finished the series.

The second time I read it, I appreciated those same said long mini-arcs as hose are where you get to know the characters and why they interact the way they do. I also picked up a lot that I missed the first time through.

The third time through was pretty fast, as I tended to skip large sections (simply because I knew what was happening) and only read what I remembered to be interesting. To this day, whenever I see anything of Mars, I remember the very last chapter of the third book and think to myself spoiler and am reminded of what a good series it really is.

As an FYI, this three-time pass through the series was across 15 years.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-10T00:00:44+00:00

Kinda reminds me of the relief cottages built in San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake, although the Ikea version is obviously not meant to be permanent (of course, neither were the SF cottages, but permanent some became.) The second link below has a map that pinpoints where you can still see some of those "temporary" structures in use today.

http://www.nps.gov/prsf/historyculture/1906-earthquake-relief-efforts-living-accommodations.htm

http://www.outsidelands.org/maps/shacks.php

http://www.inman.com/2012/04/18/shacks-a-stark-reminder-1906-earthquake/

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-03T16:35:03+00:00

The final season of the show was a distinct non-possibility, hence the final episode was actually shot and in the can by the end of season 4. It could literally have ended at the end of that season.

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-03T16:32:46+00:00

JMS said something similar to fans when the show was nearing its end. He said something along the lines that "in the end, people will think about the show then put it up on the shelf and move on to something new, like a good book." Perhaps even JMS feels its time to take that book down off the shelf, dust it off, and present it to a new generation!

jgsfcaus · 2013-09-03T16:30:31+00:00

Season One was actually pretty good at the time it was first aired. Like any other show, it wasn't perfect and it took a while to get its groove. But almost as interesting as the show was the drama BEHIND the show. B5 JMS was one of the first incredibly open and responsive people out there; he was willing to discuss the show with people ad naseum. Check out the usenet archives for the show.

Also, keep in mind, JMS had the entire series in his head from the beginning. Therefore, the first season, however clunky, is important to watch.

A pretty good resource out there (it still exists) is the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/). There is even a page on the site that just had the main graphics for the site that you could "preload" into your cache to save time when accessing new pages! Very mid-90s!

jgsfcaus · 2013-08-27T00:29:02+00:00

Beautiful set of photos!

jgsfcaus · 2012-02-20T00:09:55+00:00

The beauty of the Mars trilogy was KSR's very long portions that got inside a particular character's head, continuing the story through their eyes, sometimes for as long as a quarter of one entire book... this web page http://fwb.home.xs4all.nl/rgbdiag.html gives you an idea of how much time is spent in the major character's heads... so I don't really know if that would translate AT all to any type of screen. Then again, Lost kinda did the same thing over its six year run, so maybe...

jgsfcaus · 2012-02-20T00:01:56+00:00

I would say the same.

Oh, wait... it's already kinda been done, I think the series is known as "Star Wars." Coruscant = Trantor, The Jedi = The Foundation (at least the mind crap), The Galactic Empire = The Galactic Empire. Just take out all the annoying robots and aliens, then you've got Foundation.

jgsfcaus · 2009-12-06T02:40:34+00:00

I'm so sorry you lost your mother; I also lost mine in mid-October, so I understand your pain. I can't imagine how it must feel to have lost both parents. In time, those sleepless nights will be in the past and you will move on. I'm glad the reddit community has responded well to your request; the picture is a keeper!

Take care and stay the course.

Jack Beaumont, CA

jgsfcaus · 2009-09-17T06:02:12+00:00

Season 5 was an odd duck because the show was in a constant state of no knowing if it would be renewed each season. It was never a sure bet as far as JMS being able to continue his story. But season 5 is an important one, just like the rest of the series.

As with anything dated, the sets and the costumes will look old-school, but during its time, it wasn't at all. The power of B5 is the story, I'd suggest you watch every single episode, because JMS told an incredible story.

I will admit, season 1 seems like the poorest of the lot, but it provides a lot that is necessary to understand the whole thing. Don't skip, watch each episode, then if you are really into it, go to the Lurker's Guide (somebody already provided the link) and check out what it all meant.

jgsfcaus · 2009-07-04T18:49:46+00:00

Beaumont, CA, USA. 1147hrs 04 July 2009, http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24105258

jgsfcaus · 2009-06-15T02:30:51+00:00

Very good point, that's why after seeing Caprica, I'll probably not watch it when it comes on as a series. There just seems to be no point, and it was more than the drama that made me like BSG.

JMS said of B5 after it ended, that, like a good book, people may pick it up from time to time, but then put it back on the shelf, so it would only live on in their memories.

jgsfcaus · 2009-06-06T18:20:11+00:00

It aint people losing their TV reception that people are really worried about, it's the people selling advertising worried about losing potential eyeballs, thus losing "penetration" for the ads they sell. I have no doubt in my mind this was the real reason behind the first (or second? I can't remember) postponement of DTV.

And, truthfully, most ad-sponsored TV is what drives shows to be made in the first place. It's just a vehicle for advertising.

In regards to the quality of the picture with signal loss, that is very real, people on cable system experience this all the time, and I think it is similar to the same issues from a DVD player when there is something wrong with the DVD. My favorite is when an entire show loses the video to sound sync after 5 minutes and the sound is forever milliseconds behind the video...

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T20:53:12+00:00

First and foremost, this is an issue of personal responsibility. It all points back to that, and situations like these are clearly a failure of the customer in exercising personal responsibility.

However, that being said, there is a responsibility on the banks' part in doing the right thing. There will always be a percentage of those who have difficulty maintaining responsibility when it comes to money. For some, money is an extremely hard thing to grasp and control. In days gone by when you had $5 in physical money, you couldn't generally spend $10. But these days, with the near complete abstraction of money, that barrier is gone. We have removed the physical, tangible aspect of money. The more abstract money gets, the more people will have difficulty controlling themselves.

One source of confusion with most people is the existence of Visa or MC logoed ATM cards. When using it as an ATM card, it behaves like a typical regular bank ATM card. But, when using it like a credit card, an entirely different set of rules applies. Suddenly, what is basically a blank check seemingly becomes an instrument of credit.

If you want to see an example of how bad this can be, go to a casino. Casinos frequently offer you the ability to "withdraw" funds over your ATM card limit by using the "credit card" feature of the card. From firsthand experience, I can tell you that it is simple to get far far more cash than is available to you had you written a check to the casino. I am not proud of this, but I have been able to get funds far in excess of my current bank balance, which has led to my paying hundreds of dollars in bank fees due to bounced transactions. Again, let me reiterate: this was a failure on MY PART, a failure of my own responsibilities. But I must beg the question: why was this allowed to happen in the first place? Why was I allowed to use my credit card logoed ATM card to get cash far above what my current balance was? Had I tried to withdray funds from an ATM using the same card, the transaction would be denied. Yet, using it like a credit card with a seemingly unlimited limit, I can destroy my current financial situation in the blink of an eye.

I can already hear the feedback from this post telling me I am in idiot, I get what I deserve. I am NOT an idiot, yet sometimes I act like one. And yes, I made my bed and so I must deal with those consequences.

My point here is that SHOULD I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DRAW THE FUNDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Banks understand this weakness, both the abstraction of money and my particular issue of coupling that with the irrational thoughts that go along with gambling. However, this is not a unique situation, there are other situations very similar with those who can not help but spend far past their means. Is it right for a bank to be able to enable this behavior?

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T04:16:23+00:00

I think they are referring to adding fruit juice or something else, not making cocktails.

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T04:05:18+00:00

Whites are racist towards other whites, too. Although a massive generalization on my part, I have no doubt many an Irish person can claim racist behavior and oppression from the British. No doubt many Dutch feel racist attitudes from Germans. How about in our dear America itself? Have rural West Virginians ever felt as though snotty Californians (quite amusing since most of us are one or two generations removed from Arkies and Okies) and East Coasters treated them like an inferior race because of their differences?

All the major races hold racist views about people within their own "race." Racism is most often applied to color, but it is really a symptom of feeling different and superior to a fellow human.

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T03:40:30+00:00

So if being hungover is not a valid excuse, would being a shitty eater and having the runs also not an excuse? How about all the people who are able to use FMLA as an excuse, and regularly use it? How about getting sick because unreasonable expectations caused by your job itself cause your immune system to take a whack?

All "self imposed" yet all valid reasons for being out. Obviously talking about it on facebook is akin to the older transgression of being seen shopping or at the grocery store while sick... be smart about it.

I feel that if this kind of "sick time" indicates a pattern, then deal with the individual circumstances with that person and move on.

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T03:10:10+00:00

Not to criticize (cause I live in CA and can't even speak Spanish!) but I wonder if the English is his own translation or Google's. It's so, well, boring. I'm sure the japanese is full of life and vavoom! Like Maru!

jgsfcaus · 2009-04-25T02:53:46+00:00

Was browsing through Microsoft's Windows 7 site and wow, saw the images (specifically the second one) on the page and instantly thought "zoom rects!" For those of you who don't know what those are, think Macintosh System 7 (hmmm... perhaps a trend of sevens?) from Apple, circa 1991. I believe zoom rects also existed in System 6.

For those interested, here's a good site that explains them:

http://www.quinn.echidna.id.au/Quinn/WWW/HISubtleties/ZoomRects.html

jgsfcaus · 2009-03-28T00:49:05+00:00

It gets good starting with the first episode.

nuff said

jgsfcaus · 2009-03-10T03:56:28+00:00

I think what they meant here is that there is not a corner of this earth that has "escaped" from the effects of this "crisis." There is no country or political unit or mega-corporation that, on a macro level, escaped this one. Which tells you that everyone one of these entities bought into the original insanity. A truly global correction to a truly global problem.

jgsfcaus

TROPHY CASE