Statistically Signficant "Stuff" Happens

The modern version of perfection is "5 nines", or 99.999% reliability.  This is another way of saying 0.001% failure, or 1 failure in 100,000, and 10 in a million.  Pretty good if you're making a thousand or ten thousand of anything, in which case you will probably never have a failure attributable to your product.  But if you make millions of cars, you will have dozens of failures. 

General Motors sold cars with defective ignition switches that led to the deaths of many people.  General Motors sold a lot of cars with many defective components that led the deaths of a lot other people.  Every car company sold many cars with many defective parts that led to the deaths of many people.  The difference is that GM is very big and uses so many common components among its numerous car "platforms" that their mistakes reach the level of statistical confidence. 

If big and a small manufactures make mistakes that kill people at the same rate, they will also make their families unhappy at the same rate.  But the big numbers will make the lawyers happy.   Statisticians will probably be sanguine.

Memorable Days

We honor on Memorial Day the people who sacrificed to protect our freedom.  That's the standard construction.  Rightly so.  But those who object to war also serve and sacrifice, often even more.

I remember getting my draft card in 1974, in the closing years of the Vietnam conflict (war).  Although it was #50 or so (out of 365), reflecting below-average luck, I knew that the true odds of ending up humping through the bush and risking death, even if I were "called up", were actually pretty low.

Does anyone know anything when they are 18 years old?  I operated mostly on suspicions and hunches.  But I can tell you honestly, it would have been far harder to object than to go along with what I thought was a "bad" war (now I doubt there ever was a "good" war).  Enlisting would have required much less courage than resisting what I knew, or suspected, in my gut, even then, was wrong, wrong, wrong. 

You get what you pay for

The US spends about $700 billion annually on its military.  That is about $2,000 per American man, woman and child.  That is more than all our allies and most of our potential enemies put together.  What do we get for that?

This cost would be worth every penny if it helped us avoid World War III, because even in strictly simple economic terms war is far more expensive.  And during the half-century following WWII, keeping the military big and sharp almost certainly helped keep the cold war from heating up.  But now we should ask whether it is still worth the cost, and is the cost sustainable?  

Europe and Japan were in rubble after WWII.  They cleaned up and caught up in the subsequent few decades.  Now, an American visiting these countries must honestly marvel at their advanced state: stable politics, excellent culture, livable cities, wonderful infrastructure, inclusive and affordable education, universal health care, etc.  In a market economy, one nation cannot spend substantially more than the others on something that does not bring it any advantage.

In the community of nations, in the global neighborhood, are we the nutty family driving up-armor Hummers, buying assault rifles, and wondering how we can afford braces for the kids, or save for their college, or plan our retirement? 

"Natural Gas" is Methane, AKA climate killer

Please let's abandon the term "natural gas" (which sounds so nice and warm and, um, natural) and adopt the more descriptive name methane (1 carbon + 4 hydrogens = CH4).  Methane is a very efficient greenhouse gas, much more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2).  I heat my house and water with methane, as little as possible.

The scariest thing about methane is that a lot of it is leaking from pipelines and production fields.  (Coal is demonized as a contributor to climate change, but its insignificant vapor pressure means that at least it doesn't leak into the atmosphere in significant amounts). Ronald Reagan was right, for once, in saying that cow's farts (methane) were causing global warming.  The Union of Concerned Scientists published an article about "natural gas" not being the answer to global warming. 

But first things first: forget about "natural gas", an advertising pitch from the carbon industry, and let's call it METHANE.   

Surface flaws, Beauty inside

Thanks to the techie journalists who panned the Microsoft Surface RT!  Apparently it does not have the supercomputer specs or the slick interface they were looking for.  However, it has the "killer app" that 99% of people interested in productivity are looking for: Office.  The "fail" that the geeks awarded the Surface RT means that you can buy this tablet brand-new at your local Best Buy or online from Microsoft for $199, about what it would cost you to buy Office, alone.

Microsoft shares responsibility (or thanks) for a disastrous launch.  Inescapable TV ads featuring youngsters dancing around and attaching keyboards did nothing to illustrate this tablet's advantages.  A print ad, titled "port-ability" was much better, highlighting the USB connector (another key to real productivity, for memory sticks or adding a wired keyboard ....and missing in the iPad). [Edit: also an SD card slot, so add as much memory as you like, import pictures from your camera, or bring films with you no problem, no extra kit to schlepp.]  I tried the Surface RT at a booth in the AOL building in NYC (of all places, though staffed by one overworked manager and several disinterested and largely uninformed others...non-geniuses, at least at retail).  The Microsoft online store is also an experience to be endured. 

Thank you for allowing us to get a bargain on a great tablet! 

Other World Bank

Loans by big banks to third world dictators have left these nations in debt, obliged to pay for weapons and lavish lifestyles of their former oppressors.  Why don't they repudiate the loans?  After all, if a thief took you hostage in your own house and ordered pizza and bling, you would not feel obliged to pay for it after the ordeal ended.  The main way nations are forced to pay debts is because if they don't, they will never get another international loan, leaving legitimate development without support.  The World Bank and International Monetary Funds are mostly debt collection agencies for banks that have forgotten that high rewards must come with high risk, meaning they could lose their money.

Why not provide an alternate source of funds for legitimate development, loans that are only made to democratically elected governments?  Aggregated, many individuals contributing to a fund could replace the big bank intermediaries and allow countries to repudiate debts incurred by former dictators.  This would expand the smaller scale idea that has produced successful micro-lenders, making loans to individuals who bigger banks have ignored. 

Maybe Pope Francis could kick-start the process by re-purposing the Vatican Bank from a money laundry to an Other-Wordly Bank.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In one day since posting a mild suggestion that consumers avoid buying things from Koch Industries, I got more "hits" than in the previous year.  Most were from this "media monitoring service": http://www.moreover.com/   Welcome!  I hope you like your work and are well paid by David and Charles.  Now we can answer the classic question, 'who watches the watchmen?'.