kwatts59's Open Salon Blog

A few of things bother me about the Obama administration.

Fri, 15 May 2009 03:05:43 -0400

The US Auto industry.

The American auto companies were bailed out at the US taxpayer's expense. Then the US government let Chrysler fail, and forgave the debt. Now GM is on the verge of collapse and the same thing is going to happen and more taxpayer debt is going to be forgiven. This is a total outrage!

Why lend them money and then let them fail and forgive the debt. It is better to just let them file for bankruptcy and then give them a restructuring loan.

I am all for saving the US auto industry and saving jobs. The US should lend the auto industry whatever money is necessary and put huge constraints on the union, salaries, capacity, nameplates etc. to make them more competitive. Then when the economy turns, they will emerge stronger and viable. It is NOT the auto industry’s fault that they are in trouble. It’s the economy stupid.

ã€€

Electric cars.

Why is Obama pushing the US auto industry to make electric cars? I saw GM’s Puma car and I think it sucks. Who would buy such a crappy car? Gasoline is cheap now. The oil bubble burst. Nobody will ever buy such junk cars and forcing the auto industry will waste billions of dollars making these junk electric cars is absurd.

ã€€

Salary caps.

Why are unrealistic salary caps being placed on TARP recipients. If a top exec gets paid an exorbitant amount of $10 million a year and you cap his salary to $250k, what is the incentive for that exec to stay. If $10 million is too much, then set the cap at $5 million or just fire the exec and try to hire a replacement. If you cut all the top execs to $250k, they will all leave and all the best talent will leave. There is even talk now about capping all exec salaries, even non-TARP recipients. This is totally crazy. Why not cap baseball players, or actors? They make way more money and they are not essential to the economy.

ã€€

Breaking contracts

Why are contracts being broken? The execs at AIG had signed contracts for compensation. Some of the execs were working for $1.00 a year and were counting on their bonuses. Then when the public found out that the bonuses totaled $165 million, there was public outrage and the contracts were voided. Many of the execs quit. The bonuses are less than 1/1000^th of the government bailout of $170billion. The government just totally nixed any chance of ever getting that money back. Who is going to run the company now? Would you work for a dollar a year and a worthless bonus contract?

ã€€

Why is senior secured debt in Chrysler/GM being placed behind non-secure debt?

That is like declaring bankruptcy, and selling your house to pay off credit cards before paying off the mortgage. This is totally absurd. Obama is stating that the debt holders on GM/Chrysler are evil and unwilling to compromise. Of course they are willing to compromise, but why give the UAW more money than the debt holders?

ã€€

Overall, I don’t like the way things are going with salary caps, breaking contracts, raising taxes, spreading the wealth, bailing out companies and then forgiving the debt. Seems like the US will be downhill for many years to come.

My Top Songs of All Time

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:02:33 -0500

Here are my most beloved songs of all time. I have listened to thousands of songs over the last 50 years so I am sure I forgot to put many great deserving songs. If you know of any that you like, please post a comment so I can add it to my list if I like it. Also if I made a mistake in the title or author, please comment.

Multiple Artists:

"We Are the World"
"Do They Know It's Christmas Time At All" Band Aid 1984
"Hands Across America"
"Voices That Care"

Top Love Songs of All Time

"The Rose" Bette Midler
"Its all coming back to me now" Celine Dion
"Save the best for last" Vanessa Williams
"Wind beneath my wings" Bette Midler
"Phantom of the Opera" Andrew Loyd Webber
"My heart will go on" Titanic theme song
"Endless Love" Lionel Richie
"Everything I do, I do it for you" Bryan Adams
"Killing Me Softly With His Song" Roberta Flack
"The Best of Times" Styx
"Faithfully" Journey
"Open Arms" Journey
"Always and Forever" Heatwave
"Here I Am" Air Supply
"The One That You Love" Air Supply
"Total Eclipse of the Heart" Bonnie Tyler
"Your Song" Elton John
"The Piano Man" Billy Joel
"Heat of the Moment" Asia
"Only Time Will Tell" Asia
"Sometimes when we touch" Dan Hill
"I Can't Help Falling in Love with You" Elvis Presley
"Against all odds" Phil Collins
"Can't fight this feeling" REO Speedwagon
"Eternal Flame" Bangles
"Time after Time" Cyndi Lauper
"From this Moment" Shania Twain
"What a Feeling" Irene Cara
"More than a Feeling" Boston
"You've Lost that Lovin Feelin" The Righteous Brothers

Top Non-Love Songs

"Heal the World" Michael Jackson
"The Best of Times" Styx
"I will survive" Gloria Gaynor
"Joy to the world" Three Dog Night
"Stand by Me" The Pretenders
"Lean on Me" Bill Withers
"California dreaming" The Mammas and the Papas
"Summer of 69" - Bryan Adams
"Fame" - Irene Cara
"YMCA" - Village People
"Born to be wild" Steppenwolf
"The Greatest American Hero"
"Turn, Turn, Turn" The Byrds
"Sweet Child O' Mine" Guns n' Roses
"I need a Hero" Bonnie Tyler
"Free Bird" Lynyrd Skynyrd
"Proud to be American"
"Hotel California" The Eagles
"Bohemian Rhapsody" Queen
"We are the Champions" Queen
"Imagination" The Beatles
"Yesterday" The Beatles
"Let it Be" The Beatles
"Hey Jude" The Beatles
"Blowin' in the Wind" Bob Dylan
"Mr. Tambourine Man" The Byrds (Also sung by Bob Dylan)
"Leaving on a Jet Plane" John Denver
"Country Roads" John Denver
"Sailing" Christopher Cross
"Horse with No Name" America
"Bridge over Troubled Waters" Simon and Garfunkle
"Like a Prayer" Madonna
"La Bomba" Richie Valens
"Candle in the Wind" Elton John - tribute to Marylin Monroe
"Empty Garden " Elton John -tribute to John Lennon
"Dancing Queen" Abba
"Soak up the Sun" Sheryl Crow
"American Pie" Don McLean

Classical:

A fifth of Beethoven
Hooked on Classics

The New Origin of Species by Dr. Kenneth Watanabe

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:02:00 -0500

The recent 200th birthday of Darwin has brought some attention back to the famous theory of evolution in Darwin's "Origin of Species". Sorry to say I don't buy this crud. In short, Darwin's theory implies that life "evolved" through a series of evolutionary steps, eventually becoming primates and then finally to modern humans. The driving force of this evolution is natural selection, survival of the fittest. The reason why I think this theory is so popular is that it implies that we as humans are evolving upward. Maybe in a million years (assuming we don't blow ourselves to bits in a nuclear war), the human race will be vastly superior in some form or another to what we are today. Maybe we will be smarter, or more athletic, or more artisitc, etc. I think this is total nonsense. Here is my paper on "The New Origin of Species". If you find flaws (and you should have no problems finding them as they are plentyful), please provide a comment so that I can fix them.
The New Origin of Species
By Dr. Kenneth A. Watanabe
I was taught about evolution in school and at the time it seemed like a plausible theory. According to Charles Darwin, a segment of a species that has a variation (genetic mutation) that is advantageous will survive and those that do not have this variation will die out due to natural selection. This will result in a stronger species and eventually through many genetic mutations, the species will evolve into a totally different and stronger species. This is a very elegant theory because it implies that in the very long term (millions of years) life has advanced from single celled creatures into worms, then into mammals, then into primates and eventually into humans; and it implies that in the centuries to come, we will continue to evolve into entities beyond our current human species and become superhuman beings.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Island scenario
Imagine an island with a population of several thousand inhabitants. There is a massive earthquake and the island splits apart. Half of the island drifts to the north towards the north pole and half of the island drifts south towards the equator. Let’s say for the sake of argument, the population and land area are split evenly. Let’s also say the halves of the island drift far enough apart so that the inhabitants cannot visit each other or communicate with each other. Let’s also say that this was a time far in the past where airplanes, boats, radios, cars, and electricity did not exist.
Each group will be exposed to different environmental conditions. The northern island fragment would be subject to much colder conditions. The inhabitants will have to adapt by storing food during the summer, building strong houses and making thick clothing to keep them warm in preparation for the cold winters. There will be freezing winters, and many of the unprepared will freeze or starve to death.
The southern island would be subject to a hotter climate. The inhabitants will not need strong houses or thick clothing to keep them warm. The southern island will be exposed to more hurricanes and very hot burning summers. The sun will be much stronger so there will be higher incidences of skin cancer. There will also be more mosquitoes and higher incidences of malaria an other tropical diseases like dengue, tuberculosis, Chagas disease, leprosy and many others.
Each group of inhabitants will be exposed to different elements, viruses and chemicals that will alter their DNA. Exposure to sunlight causes damage to DNA in the skin. Also, viruses attack and alter the DNA of their hosts. The inhabitants may also discover a way to make cans to preserve their food for the dreadfully cold winters. Exposure to the lead or other chemicals and heavy metals can damage DNA and cause genetic mutations. Since each group will be exposed to different levels of sunlight, different viruses, and different chemicals over the course of time, the DNA of the northern population and the southern population will eventually become distinct enough so that they form different species. Which group will be more intelligent, stronger, or superior is not known. The only thing that can be said is that the species diverged.
Now this “separation” may not necessarily be an island breaking apart and the inhabitants need not be humans (or monkeys). But it could be as small as a leaf with some bacteria on it, blowing a mile away. The leaf lands in a place that is exposed to different conditions and the bacteria adapt and mutate and change over time. And there can be MANY leaves drifting in many directions with many different bacterias.
There may also be “wanderers” that voluntarily travel north or south., or east or west, or climb high up on the mountains, or move into the deserts or jungles. Living things like to “spread out”. This voluntary separation may also be a factor in the generation of new species.
Some Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution:
The P Element in Drosophila melanogaster (the common fruit fly).
All modern D. melanogaster contain a 2907 base pair element in their DNA known as the P element. Early populations of D. melanogaster did NOT contain this P element. How did this element get into the DNA of D. melanogaster? The suspected vector is a virus or parasitic mite that infected the D. melanogaster. The P element is thought to have evolved in Western Africa, but with the advent of commercial shipping by humans, the P element spread to the Americas in the early 1800s and by the end of the century, ALL the D. melanogaster in the Americas were infected with the P Element through heredity and transposition.
http://engels.genetics.wisc.edu/Pelements/Pt.html
What this means is that within a mere 200 years, the DNA of all the D. melanogaster was modified to contain the P element. Interestingly, this P Element is not beneficial to the fitness and well being of the D. melanogaster . In fact, the modern D. melanogaster has a lower level of fitness and shorter lifespan than their predecessors which is contrarian to the Darwinian theory of evolution.

The Malaria effect.
“Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. “
“Usually, people get malaria by being bitten by an infective female Anopheles mosquito.”
“Certain people have a genetic variation or mutation of a single nucleotide (A to T) of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamate to be substituted by valine at position 6. The genetic disorder is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide, from a GAG to GTG codon mutation. “ (taken from Wikipedia)
People with this genetic variation are essentially immune to malaria. So according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, in theory all humans will eventually have this single nucleotide mutation and malaria will be eliminated. On paper this sounds very promising but in actuality, there is a side effect to this mutation. People with this mutation have the disorder known as sickle cell anemia.
In places where the incidences of malaria are very high, it is advantageous to have the sickle cell trait to avoid catching malaria and dying. However, having sickle cell anemia is no walk in the park either. Sickle cell anemia allows the hemoglobin to polymerize into fibers that distend red blood cells. This causes a large range of blood related symptoms and leads to a shortened life. Sickle cell anemia is a hereditary blood disease that prevents the manifestation of malaria, a protozoan blood disease. Although, people with sickle cell anemia will live longer than people infected with malaria, this is contrarian to the Darwinian theory of evolution. It shows that people are evolving downward rather than upward.
The American Bison (aka Buffalo)
The Bison population was in the multi-millions (maybe as high as 100million) in the early19th century. Because of massive hunting, the herds of Bison were nearly extinct by 1885. Conservation efforts have brought the numbers back to around 350,000. Now that the numbers of Bison have been devastatingly reduced, are the modern Bison a more robust specie than in the early 1800's? Are they any better at running away from hunters? Do they have better camouflage? Are they quieter? Are they quicker? Are the cuter? NO! They are pretty much the same. It was purely RANDOM which ones survived and which ones perished. Survival of the fittest played absolutely no role in this scenario and many other scenarios. (Population numbers taken from Wikipedia)

In summary, I believe that the divergence of life into different species arose from a prolong separation, either voluntary or involuntary. The separated population were exposed to different environmental factors which altered the DNA and over time, resulted in a separation of species. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection plays a very small role if any to the separation of species.

Physics: What is the mass of light

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:02:56 -0500

This question came up in one of my conversations with a friend. What is the mass of light? Well, there are a couple of equations relating to energy and light. The most famous was developed by Albert Einstein: E = mc², where E is energy, m is the rest mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum (3.0 x 10⁸ m/sec)
Another very famous equation is Planck's relation: E=hc/y, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant (6.626 x 10^-34 J s), c is the speed of light in a vacuum (3.0 x 10⁸ m/sec), and y is the wavelength of light.
So putting these equations together gives the following: E = mc² = hc/y. Thus m = h/cy. The wavelength of visible light is from 400 to 700 nm. So to calculate the rest mass of light in the visible range, that has a wavelength of let's say 500 nm, we plug in the information and get the following:
m = 6.626 x 10^-34 J s/ (3.0 x 10⁸ m/s x 500 x 10^-9 m)
m = 4.417 x 10^-36kg
So there you have it. The rest mass of a single photon of light at a wavelength of 500nm is 4.417 x 10^-36kg. Since light is never at rest, this number is actually the "effective" mass of a photon of light.
Another quick calculation is the momentum of a photon of light. Momentum is defined by the following equation: p = mv where p is the momentum, m is the mass, v is the velocity. Using the above mass for light at 500nm wavelength, and plugging the numbers into the momentum equation gives:
p = (4.417 x 10^-36kg) x (3.0 x 10⁸ m/s)
p = 1.325 x 10^-27 kg m/s
So the effective momentum of light is 1.325 x 10^-27 kg m/s.

To confirm this hypothesis, the mass of light must be measured experimentally. To measure the mass of light, first obtain two "perfect" mirrors (mirrors with 100% reflection) and weigh them. Then bounce light between the mirrors and weigh the mirrors while the light is bouncing back and forth between them. The mass of the light trapped between the mirrors is the difference in weight of the mirrors before and after the light was trapped between them. This method will unfortunately not work since the mass of light is so small and "perfect" mirrors do not exist.
Another method to measure the mass of light that is probably more realistic would be to take a flashlight of known mass. Then in a vacuum at zero gravity, turn on the flashlight. The momentum of the light leaving the flashlight will push the flashlight in the opposite direction. Then after a period of time, the velocity of the flashlight can be measured, and the momentum of the flashlight can be calculated and from this the mass of light can be calculated.

Corporate Image

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:02:49 -0500

Corporate Image

I seem to hear time and time again about how companies receiving government bailout money are "wasting taxpayer dollars".
Here are some examples:
AIG, one of the largest insurers filed for bankrupcy. Shortly after receiving about $40 billion in government bailout funds, AIG held a corporate resort junket costing about $340 thousand for a secret gathering for the top execs. It was all over the press and everybody was complaining how these execs have been living high on taxpayer dollars.
When the big three automakers were to appear to congress to request a $40 billion bailout which could decide the fate of their companies, they flew to Washington in private jets. Again, this was all over the press how these top CEOs are flying to Washington in their multi-million dollar private jets to ask for government bailout money. How arrogant and audacious.
Then there was that $1.2 million office renovation by a top Bank of America exec that included things like a $10,000 waste basket, a $87,000 area rug, and a $35,000 commode. And this was after receiving $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds to loosen up credit.
First, I agree that being spendthrift in a time where money is tight, especially after receiving billions in government aid, is not appropriate. These people should be scorned for this. But why is this being proliferated so much on TV? Why are the TV and radio waves wasted on this crud? In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. If Bank of America receives $45 billion, and an exec spends $1 million renovating his office, that is only 1/45,000th of the taxpayer money received. Sure it was a waste of money, so scorn them behind the scenes and stop wasting TV and radio time. That is a pittance of an issue. A more notable issue is the $18 billion in bonuses paid out to execs, or the fact that they are using taxpayer dollars to complete a merger rather than loosen up the credit freeze. Those are noteworthy issues.
Also the planes that the auto execs flew in. They probably cost $20 million, but they do serve a purpose. If the top execs need to do a lot of travel to visit their plants and supplliers across the country, then buying a private plane may actually be justified. After all, we are paying these guys millions of dollars a year and we dont want them wasting their time at an airport security checkpoint or spending a night at a hotel, when they can fly to a meeting and return the same day on a private jet. If a company is spending $5 billion a month, do you think selling the corporate jet is going to solve their problems? Absolutey not! The problem is not the execs wasting money on privet jets, the problem is not their salaries, the problem is the economic downturn. Demand for autos dropped by over 40%! Why are we bothering over these jets?
After being scorned in Washington for flying in on privet jets, the next meeting the CEOs drove hybrid vehicles to Washington. How stupid is that? Stupidity playing upon stupidity! Like driving hybrids is going to save the company.
I am just sick of hearing about these stupid things. It is just a waste of time. Talk about the bigger issues. Talk about the real issues.