Archive for January, 2008
Paper plane over New York
Jan 16th
This is one of the best YouTube videos that I have ever seen. It shows a guy throwing a paper plan from a skyscraper in New York. There is something about the way that the little plane flies over the busy city without anyone noticing which is beautiful. The accompanying music is also perfectly chosen to leave you with a great feeling.
I have watched it a few times already and more than 234,000 other people have seen it. I really recommend watching this if you can.
Disabled athlete Oscar Pistorius should not compete against able-bodied atheletes
Jan 15th
Oscar Pistorius is a South African disabled athlete who has just been banned from competing against able-bodied athletes. He lost both legs below the knees as a child and runs with carbon fibre prosthetics known as “Cheetahs”. Oscar was in with a chance of qualifying for the Beijing Olympics when the IAAF banned him.
There has been a lot of interest in the issue (here, here) but I agree with the decision. Here is my reasoning:
- If a prosthetic offers an advantage then it should not be allowed.
- Oscar’s prosthetics have been shown to offer an advantage.
- Therefore, Oscar should not be allowed to compete.
Oscar should get into swimming. Instead of the “Cheetahs” he should attach flippers to his legs – he could call them “Dolphins”. He could then power along and kick some serious ass in the pool. If you think that would be unfair then you agree with point 1 – advantageous prosthetics should not be allowed.
Now, my intuition tells me that the Cheetahs do offer an advantage over able-bodied athletes. But don’t rely on that – a pretty detailed study by a lab has concluded just that – the Cheetahs do offer an advantage over normal feet.
So we agree, Oscar should not be allowed to compete. Sorry Oscar, but it just wouldn’t be fair.
2007 Darwin Awards
Jan 14th
The Darwin Awards are true stories (they verify them) about people killing themselves in stupid ways. They are said to “commemorate those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it.”
The best of 2007 here and as usual they make for pretty funny reading.
Here are a couple of examples:
- (28 July 2007, Czech Republic) A pack of thieves attempted to steal scrap metal from an abandoned factory in Kladno. Unfortunately for them, they selected the steel girders that supported the factory roof. When the roof supports were dismantled, the roof fell, fatally crushing two thieves and injuring three others.
- (10 January 2007, East Germany) A 63-year-old man’s extraordinary effort to eradicate a mole from his property resulted in a victory for the mole. The man pounded several metal rods into the ground and connected them to a high-voltage power line, with the intent of rendering the subterranean realm uninhabitable. Incidentally, the maneuver electrified the very ground he stood upon. He was found dead at his holiday property on the Baltic Sea. Police had to trip the main circuit breaker before venturing onto the property.
- (23 June 2007, Illinois) Two Valparaiso men tested their reflexes by playing “chicken” with a train. Which man could stay on the rail longest in the path of an oncoming train? At the stroke of midnight, the contest was decided. The winner, aptly named Patrick Stiff, lost his life.
Nuclear power is good – it has an unfair reputation
Jan 11th
Humans need a lot of energy. We consume energy for light, heat, transport, food… Basically everything we do requires energy. The problem is that using energy in it’s popular forms is doing some serious damage to our environment.
Currently most of the energy we use comes from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) which we burn to create energy. Unfortunately burning those fossil fuels also pollutes the air and drives global warming. Global warming = bad.
So we need to change our habits (waste less energy) and we could change our energy sources (to those less damaging). There are renewable sources like solar and wind power which basically make use of the copious amounts of energy the sun beams down to earth every day. However, these sources are expensive, inconsistent, and chew up large amounts of space.
Nothing is ideal, but you should be rational and not emotional in your decisions.
There is another great option, also not ideal, but the best (in my opinion) currently available. Nuclear power has an unfairly bad reputation. When used properly it is an excellent energy source – and it produces no air pollution! As the Economist says:
- Nuclear power offers the possibility of large quantities of electricity that is cleaner than coal, more secure than gas and more reliable than wind. And if cars switch from oil to electricity, the demand for power generated from carbon-free sources will increase still further. The industry’s image is thus turning from black to green.
The Economist has articles here, here, here and here describing that:
- Nuclear power is very clean as the graph below shows.
- Nuclear power can be safely generated. Even taking into account Chernobyl (4,000 dead) and Three Mile Island (0 dead) nuclear power is extremely safe – and getting safer.
- Nuclear power can be generated cheaply. Initial costs are extremely high, but over time it makes economic sense. This would be especially true were the negative environmental costs of fossil fuels built into their already high cost.
- There are pretty good ways of storing the radioactive waste generated.
- Many previous nuclear protesters and “greens” are changing their minds and advocating nuclear power.
Why there is often no Row I in movie theatres
Jan 9th
I have often wondered why there is often no row I in movie theaters. I wondered if this was tradition, superstition (like skipping the 13th floor in a building), or something else. My theory was that it is because the letter ‘I’ resembles the number ’1′. I suppose that could lead to confusion and may warrant skipping row I.
I didn’t think that confusion was very likely so I Googled for a better explanation. There isn’t one. After quite a lot of scratching around it seems that possible confusion with ’1′ is the reason for skipping row I. Apparently many theatres also skip row O and/or row Q because they resemble each other and the number 0.
Richard Dawkins explains reasons to believe things
Jan 8th
Richard Dawkins is a great author and evolutionary biologist – I have several of his books at home. Dawkins is also well known as a vociferous atheist which means many people blindly reject what he says. I recently read a letter that he apparently wrote to his 10 year old daughter back in 1995 about belief. It makes for excellent reading – very easy to understand which is important.
Basically, he is writing about why she (and people in general) should believe things. The GOOD reason for believing in things is evidence:
- Direct evidence. For instance astronauts have been out into space and seen that the earth is really round. That is a good reason to believe that it really is round.
- Indirect evidence. Where direct observation is not possible we can still find evidence that an idea is right. Dawkins gives the example of a detective at a murder scene. He can still work out who did it, even though nobody actually saw the crime.
Dawkins then goes on to describe BAD reasons for believing something:
- Tradition. Beliefs are often passed down through generations. Just because they are old beliefs doesn’t make them true. As Dawkins says “No matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was”. Tradition is a bad reason to believe something.
- Authority. Just because somebody tells you to believe something doesn’t make it true. Sometimes I do take somebody’s word on something – like the speed of sound. The difference is that there is evidence that I can look at if I wanted. I have taken a shortcut, but I can do that because there is evidence available.
- Revelation. Dawkins defines revelation as when people have a “feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true”. Unless there is actually evidence (a good reason) which agrees with your gut feeling then it is a bad reason to believe something.
The last bit of the letter is what I am increasingly finding crucial. People need to learn to think a little:
Next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Tiger Wheel & Tyre insurance – not worth it
Jan 7th
Tiger Wheel & Tyre offers a tyre insurance that they heavily advertise (details here). I bought some tyres there recently and the salesman told me that it’s an excellent deal and that he “can’t understand how they are making a profit”. I know enough about insurance to be sure that they are making a tidy profit – but I still wondered if it would be worth it.
The short answer was: no it’s not worth it. Lets look at how I came to that conclusion in the shop.
First the details of the insurance policy:
- You must insure all 4 tyres. In my case that came to about R80 for R1,600 worth of tyres (after VAT).
- Insurance covers only the tread not used up. So if the tyre was 50% used up, then they pay 50% of the replacement cost.
- The insurance only covers 50,000km even if the tyres are still good after that.
- Obviously they only replace the damaged tyre even though you would almost always need to buy 2 new tyres.
So I ran some scenarios in my head.
Best case scenario
If I drove out of the shop and immediately lost a tyre then I would have paid R80 for insurance and it would have saved me R400 for replacing the tyre = R320 benefit. R400 (benefit) – R80 (cost) = R320 gained
However, what are the chances of that happening? If there is a 20% chance then I would only need the insurance once for every 5 purchases. So the benefit from insuring changes to R400 x 20% = R80!
So if I believe there is a 20% chance of needing the insurance immediately, then the insurance is still pointless! Any lower risk and purchasing the insurance is a waste of money. (I know that there is a chance of losing 2 or more tyres which changes things – still not worth it)
The insurance is only valid for 50,000km. I thought that the chances of losing a tyre in that time is about 5% not 20%. That means that I would definitely lose money if I took out the insurance.
R400 x 5% = R20 (maximum benefit) – R80 (cost) = a R60 loss!
Insurance in general
Remember, the insurance companies are making money. That means that on average the insurance is NOT worth it to us and they are taking the difference as profit. There are a few good reasons to take out insurance:
- If you think that you are more at risk that the average person.
- If you can’t afford to take the hit. I can’t afford to replace a car so I insure mine even though in the long run I know it will very probably cost me money. I take that cost because I can’t afford to take the risk.
In the case of tyre insurance, neither of the above reasons are relevant (I am less at risk than the average person and I can afford to replace a tyre) so I had a suspicion that the insurance would not be worth it. After doing some simple calculations I could see that it is a rip-off.
I can easily “understand how they are making a profit”.
Recent Comments