Pem’s Tech Blog

I watched the presentation video here:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/livingproofproject/Pages/impatient-optimists-speech.aspx

> Gates said the generosity of the United States “has helped improve health and save lives and bring down population growth, so that money can be spent on all the other things that need investment – economic growth, jobs, and so on.”
– http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28794.html

Here is an embedded link:

The rest of this post is my notes while watching the video:

Child Deaths: Bill Gates said this chart is the most beautiful picture he has ever seen.  A chart shows that the number of children dying went down from 20 million children in 1960 to under 9 million in 2008.  This is less deaths, despite the 25% increase in number of births.  One of the great accomplishments of the last 100 years.  Bill claims two reasons: one is increase in standard of living and food / sanitation, the other is smart spending on global health.

2010 Federal Budget is $3.6 trillion, ~1% is foreign aid, and ~0.22% is for global health at $8 billion.  The Gate’s foundation puts in $1.8 billion per year, over half the foundation’s spending.

Small Pox: by 1977, small pox was eradicated: $130 million for US over 10 year period saved $17 billion (and also “untold human misery”).

Polio: has been eliminated in the US, and reduced by 99%, but still not completed eradicated.  It is still endemic in 4 countries: Nigeria, India (specifically Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Rotavirus: kills 500,000 per year.  In 1998 a rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield, by Wyeth) was licensed for use in the United States, but the manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.  In 2006, two vaccines against Rotavirus A infection were shown to be safe and effective in children: Rotarix by GlaxoSmithKline and RotaTeq by Merck.  Paul Offit is credited as an inventor of RotaTeq.

They also mentioned how you have to invent, then manufacture, then transport (which requires refrigeration over plane, truck, then at the hospital / facility), then deliver to patients.

Many big diseases have gone down:

Cost of drugs: has gone down, which is a strong example of how economic development and increased standard of living can reduce cost of drugs, which is how they become available:

HIV/AIDS: since it has no vaccine yet, we need to focus on available treatment, and especially on prevention.  One thing that surprised me is the comment / claim that (male circumcision can reduce AIDS during sex with a partner by 60%) (this surprised me because in the developing world, we don’t have this issue, and circumcision is controversial and sometimes even compared to female genital mutilation).  And there are treatments such as retrovirus.  And alleged progress towards a vaccine.

Malaria: worldwide in 1900, eradicated from US / Canada and Europe in 1970, today in 2009 there is a plan to continue this progress:
  

Here’s a summary:

The US is the biggest contributor, but Europe is also big.

At 40 min, addressing some arguments about global health aid:

Corruption? accountability, auditing, measuring

Does aid discourage developing countries from developing?  Some countries like Brazil and Thailand used to be receivers of aid but are now givers of aid.  Tanzania doubled its health budget since 1990.

Improving health causes overpopulation, and thus actually makes global problems worse?  This one Bill and Melinda worried about a lot, which is why they started with a focus on family planning health issues.  But they referenced a TED talk from Hans Rosling:

  
Formerly poor countries like India in 1960 used to have Poor Health Large Families, and the worry was that giving them aid would just encourage them have larger families, and increase their need for aid.  But according to the data, between 1960 and 2007, the countries actually went up-left rather than just straight up.  Allegedly, because women choose to have smaller families, when they are to choose, and there’s a higher chance of their children surviving into adult years.
This is important, since small families means more resources (time, effort, money, education, health, freedom, etc) to focus on fewer children.  When people have smaller families: it’s easier to feed the kids, to protect their health, to have better nutrition, to send them to school and college or graduate college, to earn more income, to lead more productive lives, to lead less stressful lives, to keep the family life healthier and happier and less stressful and more civil, to better focus and enable the family (both children and parents) to continue to develop grow…  And the economy and standard of living in the country improves and life by every single measure gets better.
One unstated philosophy ethics premise I really liked in this presentation, is how they talked about deaths per year.  Not deaths per year per population.  This is important, and it’s definitely the right way to present it.  If the population triples, and the deaths triples, then the deaths still tripled.

Infant mortality and death of mother during childbirth: One are they said there has not been much progress until very recently.  4 million babies still die within the first 30 days, and 0.5 million mothers that die in childbirth – which of course can affect the entire family.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/28 (Wednesday, October 28, 2009) :: Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

Quote: You know, it’s such a peculiar thing – our idea of mankind in general. We all have a sort of vague, glowing picture when we say that, something solemn, big and important. But actually all we know of it is the people we meet in our lifetime. Look at them. Do you know any you’d feel big and solemn about? There’s nothing but housewives haggling at pushcarts, drooling brats who write dirty words on the sidewalks, and drunken debutantes. Or their spiritual equivalent. As a matter of fact, one can feel some respect for people when they suffer. They have a certain dignity. But have you ever looked at them when they’re enjoying themselves? That’s when you see the truth. Look at those who spend the money they’ve slaved for – at amusement parks and side shows. Look at those who’re rich and have the whole world open to them. Observe what they pick out for enjoyment. Watch them in the smarter speak-easies. That’s your mankind in general. I don’t want to touch it. — Dominique Francon, the Fountainhead, Page 143

Disclaimer: I’d say the same thing here as I would about Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.  If you get caught up in some unimportant detail.  Like asking “are Ayn Rand’s political philosophy ideas too extreme?”, or “is theism and biblical dogma rationally defensible?”.  Like asking “is there something inherently low-class about an amusement park or a housewife?”, or “is it inherently bad to have a sexual fantasy outside of a legal marriage agreement?”.  Or even “isn’t this just negativity based on non-realistic overly idealistic expectations?”.  Then I think you’d be missing the point, or at least getting side-tracked on what I might argue is a bunch of almost-unrelated tangents.  With that in mind, I’d encourage you to read the quote again.

Disclaimer #2: I’m not against people having “well-balanced lives” or multiple interests, or enjoying more than one type of thing.  Maybe a person can be genuine and still enjoy both things that are “solemn, big and important” and things that are (shallow or inane or fleeting or comic relief or just senseless fun), or even a mix (such as a bad joke that tries to encourage thought about an underlying message or topic).  But I love the quote, and I think it can encourage a person to evaluate topics like: how you live your life, what you really care about, what things you focus on, how you spend your time and resources, what is genuine…  How rare is true passion? (What do people really enjoy and value?)

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/23 (Friday, October 23, 2009) :: Personal, Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

*** text from the magazine print ad, 1982:

Can a Computer Make You Cry?

Right now, no one knows. This is partly because many would consider the very idea frivolous. But it’s also because whoever successfully answers this question must first have answered several others.

Why do we cry? Why do we laugh, or love, or smile? What are the touchstones of our emotions?

Until now, the people who asked such questions tended not to be the same people who ran software companies. Instead, they were writers, filmmakers, painters, musicians. They were, in the traditional sense, artists.

We’re about to change that tradition. The name of our company is Electronic Arts.

Software worthy of the minds that use it.

We are a new association of electronic artists united by a common goal—to fulfill the enormous potential of the personal computer.

In the short term, this means transcending its present use as a facilitator of unimaginative tasks and a medium for blasting aliens. In the long term, however, we can expect a great deal more.

These are wondrous machines we have created, and in them can be seen a bit of their makers. It is as if we had invested them with the image of our minds. And through them, we are learning more and more about ourselves.

We learn, for instance, that we are more entertained by the involvement of our imaginations than by passive viewing and listening. We learn that we are better taught by experiences than by memorization. And we learn that the traditional distinctions—the ones that are made between art and entertainment and education—don’t always apply.

Towards a language of dreams.

In short, we are finding that the computer can be more than just a processor of data.

It is a communications medium: an interactive tool that can bring people’s thoughts and feelings closer together, perhaps closer than ever before. And while fifty years from now, its creation may seem no more important than the advent of motion pictures or television, there is a chance it will mean something more.

Something along the lines of a universal language of ideas and emotions. Something like a smile.

The first publications of Electronic Arts are now available. We suspect you’ll be hearing a lot about them. Some of them are games like you’ve never seen before, that get more out of your computer than other games ever have. Others are harder to categorize—and we like that.

Watch us.

We’re providing a special environment for talented, independent software artists. It’s a supportive environment, in which big ideas are given room to grow. And some of America’s most respected software artists are beginning to take notice.

We think our current work reflects this very special commitment. And though we are few in number today and apart from the mainstream of the mass software marketplace, we are confident that both time and vision are on our side.

Join us. We see farther.

…

*** text from the picture caption:

Software artists?

"I’m not so sure there are any software artists yet," says Bill Budge. "We’ve got to earn that title." Pictured here are a few people who have come as close to earning it as anyone we know.

That’s Mr. Budge himself, creator of Pinball Construction Set, at the upper right. To his left are Anne Westfall and Jon Freeman who, along with their colleagues at Free Fall Associates, created Archon and Murder on the Zinderneuf.

Left of them is Dan Bunten of Ozark Softscape, the firm that wrote M.U.L.E. To Dan’s left are Mike Abbot (top) and Matt Alexander (bottom), authors of Hard Hat Mack. In the center is John Field, creator of Axis Assassin and The Last Gladiator. David Maynard, lower right, is the man responsible for Worms?

When you see what they’ve accomplished, we think you’ll agree with us that they can call themselves whatever they want.

…

*** Notes:

In 1982, the newly formed company EA (Electronic Arts) released this magazine print ad.  This was referenced in the movie “Into the Night with Jason Rohrer and Chris Crawford”.

I copied it from here ( http://chrishecker.com/Can_a_Computer_Make_You_Cry%3F )

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/12 (Monday, October 12, 2009) :: Personal, Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

Is it possible, I wonder, to study a bird so closely, to observe and catalogue its peculiarities in such minute detail, that it becomes invisible? Is it possible that while fastidiously calibrating the span of its wings or the length of its tarsus, we somehow lose sight of its poetry? That in our pedestrian descriptions of a marbled or vermiculated plumage we forfeit a glimpse of living canvases, cascades of carefully toned browns and golds that would shame Kandinsky, misty explosions of color to rival Monet? I believe that we do. I believe that in approaching our subject with the sensibilities of statisticians and dissectionists, we distance ourselves increasingly from the marvelous and spell-binding planet of imagination whose gravity drew us to our studies in the first place.

This is not to say that we should cease to establish facts and to verify our information, but merely to suggest that unless those facts can be imbued with the flash of poetic insight then they remain dull gems; semi-precious stones scarcely worth the collecting.

When we stare into the catatonic black bead of a Parakeet’s eye we must teach ourselves to glimpse the cold, alien madness that Max Ernst perceived when he chose to robe his naked brides in confections of scarlet feather and the transplanted monstrous heads of exotic birds.  When some ocean-going Kite or Tern is captured in the sharp blue gaze of our Zeiss lenses, we must be able to see the stop motion flight of sepia gulls through the early kinetic photographs of Muybridge, beating white wings tracing a slow oscilloscope line through space and time.

Looking at a hawk, we see the minute differences in width of the shaft lines on the underfeathers where the Egyptians once saw Horus and the burning eye of holy vengeance incarnate.  Until we transform our mere sightings into genuine visions; until our ear is mature enough to order a symphony from the shrill pandemonium of the aviary; until then we may have a hobby, but we shall not have a passion.

– from Watchmen by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, John Higgins

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/07/21 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009) :: Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

Since this blog has long lost any particular focus, just thought I’d throw this post out there, since sometimes I watch a video and take some notes during it.

“The boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections.  Your prosperity can expand America’s prosperity.  Your health and security can contribute to the world’s health and security.  And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.”

This is a very important basic economic concept.  The simple idea is that in a healthy civil free modern world, trade should be based on a non-zero-sum game (win-win, mutual benefit for both sides).  To some extent, there is not a fixed limited amount of resources.  Exploiting others (such as getting someone else to fall behind) is not the only way to get ahead.  It is less productive for some to get ahead at the expensive of others; it is more productive for everyone to get ahead.

My general personal thought is that this can be achieved by reducing global population growth of humans, and increasing work done by automation such as robots and computers .  If we can increase the robot/computer to human ratio, then long-term, robots and computers will do so much work that we will be free to just enjoy life or work on advancing other things further.  For example, we can end violence and disease, cure aging, pursue interests, explore the universe, and increase the quality of life per individual for all individuals.

Here are some other quotes from the speech:

“The true sign of success, is not whether we are a source of perpetual aid that helps people scrape by.  It’s whether we are the partners in building the capacity for transformational change.“

“Democracy, opportunity, health, and the peaceful resolution of conflict.”

“We all have many identities of tribe and ethnicity of religion and nationality.  But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe or worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century.  Africa’s diversity should be a source of strength – not a cause for division.  We are all God’s children, we all share common aspirations, to live in peace and security, to access education and opportunity, to love our families and our communities and our faith, that is our common humanity”

I watched it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/11/obama-in-ghana-africa-not_n_229984.html

But obviously from the logo, it’s an msnbc.com video

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/07/12 (Sunday, July 12, 2009) :: Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

A few suspiciously similar arguments:

1) You should get insurance, because there is a tiny chance that you will win (ie, something bad happens and you cash in)

2) You should get Lasik, because the risk of complications is very low

3) You should invest in stocks (or mutual funds), because the risk of loss is low

4) You shouldn’t play the lottery, because there is such a tiny chance that you will win

5) You shouldn’t worry about getting struck by lightning, dying in a car/plane crash, etc, because the odds are small

6) You shouldn’t do something dangerous or unhealthy, because there is a risk that it will damage your body / health

Maybe the right answer just depends on the details.  How much cost and how much risk and how much do you win (or lose) if the low-odds thing happens.  Is there an objective way to determine the right action in a situation that involves an event with a low probability rate of occurrence?

But beyond that, I think these scenarios give us an example where we can ask the (philosophy) question about whether everything can have a an objective answer “right” vs. “wrong” ("correct” vs. “incorrect”).  This isn’t just an issue of how to best manage your odds to win a game.  This is a real life ethics and value issue.  Is it “good” to get insurance, or “irresponsible” not to?  If someone doesn’t get insurance, and then he/she faces a crisis, is it his/her own fault / problem?  Is it society’s responsibility, or the government’s responsibility to help?

Of course real life scenarios for this are not simple like boolean logic.  There are many variables.  In some situations there’s an obvious better answer, but many situations are more complicated.

However, in the interest of at least giving some opinion on the issue…  I personally tend to think that it is not psychologically pleasing to pay something for nothing.  I think it’s easy to be in the gray area of (risk vs. reward), and this makes it very difficult for me to justify something (such as getting insurance) when it’s not required or heavily subsidized.  But following that attitude is really bad for the few people who do get screwed over by bad luck.  I tend to have sympathy for a person who gets screwed by extreme bad luck.

So although I might still rant about something being required, having it required makes the choice easier, and having it subsidized makes you feel like you’re not getting ripped off (I guess even if the subsidy actually came from your own taxes or salary).  For example, a lot of companies give big discounts / subsidies for individual/family health insurance, and some insurances are legally required (renter’s, home owner’s, vehicle).

Finally, it is still the details that matter.  Having some sort of system to protect against really bad luck (natural disaster, theft, disease) for things like (health or house / vehicle) seems like a good idea.  But the specific details matter.

Ideally, it is for a society that is developed enough that it is low cost, not easy to abuse, and protects everyone from extreme bad luck scenarios.  In the very long-term, if the human standard of living for everyone is high enough, then there would be enough resources for insurance (against really costly / damaging bad lack) to be universal (even as universal an “human right”, or at least something that the human society is wealthy enough to easily afford for everyone).  But in today’s world, I think it’s more complicated since the cost is not entirely free / negligible.  In today’s world, I think it’s a good idea to have some insurance system(s) for protection against some form(s) of extreme bad luck; the details have some complexity.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/07/06 (Monday, July 6, 2009) :: Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

Obviously it’s for a female not a male, though I had a roommate say he thought about getting a “Hello Kitty” credit card just to see if he’d get any entertaining reactions (like, “you stole this?” or “uh, that’s not a very masculine card”).  My comments here are more of a philosophical question about cost and real-value vs. subjective-value vs. fake-value.

My first thought was: is this just an excuse to charge extra for nothing?  My worry was that you may pay extra money just for snob-appeal (ie, you pay extra for something that is not actually worth more, just so you can tell yourself “oh I paid extra so it must be worth more!”).  In other words, you almost never get what you paid for.  Usually you get less or more.

But I think it actually depends on the particular case.  There are many cases where I would very strongly argue there is overpriced junk, like a $10,000 dress or a $10,000 iPod with some log and worthless stones/metal on it.

But in this particular case, a $700 laptop is not obscene.  It’s not so expensive that it’s obvious whether the value is real vs. fake, so it might be more in the category of subjective.  In fact, maybe Apple computers are just as overpriced (or even more in some cases – hello Macbook Air?).  But let’s check the details.

HP makes it really easy to do the comparison, because you can configure an equivalent (Mini 1000 XP series) netbook.  The same specs for a (HP Mini 1000 XP edition series) is $375 vs. $700 for the pretty one (yes I’m also assuming that we actually like how it looks).

I think percent-wise, it looks bad since you could almost buy 2 of them (well, if you get the $20 cheaper Linux version).  But as an actual dollar amount, is $325 too much?  $10,000 is too much. $20 or $50 or even $100 sounds reasonable.  But $325, I think it’s kind of on the border of subjective-value vs. fake-value.  But if someone (yes, probably a female) really likes it, then…  I think you’d have to like the way it looks a lot for it to be worth the extra $325.  But it’s at least not over-the-top or ridiculous / obscene.

Maybe good for a gift?  (Well, that would be a whole-nother issue to consider!)

I think the matching mouse is extra:

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/06/03 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009) :: Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »

I’ve considered doing a separate blog that focuses more on “subjective” things, or philosophy / opinions / politics etc.  But for now, I thought why not just throw out a “Philosophy and Opinions” tag.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/06/03 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009) :: Blogging, Philosophy and Opinions :: No Comments »