Rotundus.com

Al Jazeera English Blacked Out Across Most Of U.S.

That they compared the Egyptian government disconnecting the country's internet to Al Jazeera not being carried by most US cable and satellite companies is a bit of a stretch consider, as the article notes, that the network can be streamed online. One interesting claim: "The network ... now has more bureaus in Latin America than CNN and the BBC". If you've got Netflix access I'd also reccomend the documentary Control Room examining the network.

Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

It seems that there may be exploitable patterns in scratch and win tickets, to allow lots of near-misses. Reminded me of a documentary I watched a long time ago dealing with a bunch of people trying to buy every single ticket in a lottery, after the jackpot climbed high enough to make that potentially profitable.

Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Was Worse?

"Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations."

Bribing kids to eat their greens really does work

"At one- and three-month follow-up, the intervention children's increased liking of their target vegetable was sustained regardless of the specific condition they'd been in. However, in terms of increased consumption (when given the opportunity to eat their target vegetable, knowing no reward would be forthcoming), only the sticker and verbal praise children showed sustained increases."

I mentioned before that I'm a little skeptical about the Egyptian situation - i.e. the current regime might suck, but is change likely to be change for the better? I thought that the recent Iranian revolts seemed to have more of an organization - a plan - behind them and a feasible alternative to the current ruling party whereas Egypt seemed to be more or less a make-it-up-as-you-go-along affair. Now, based on conversations with a few Iranians and Egyptians I'm wondering if I might have failed to recall the Iranian situation correctly.

I was chatting with one of my Egyptian friends about this a few days ago, and asking whether or not it might be OK for Mubarak to stay in power until the elections in the fall or whether this would just be enough time to reconsolidate and rig a new set of elections. His answer - and one that I've more or less come to agree with - is that following the secret police acting undercover as pro-Mubarak protestors to attack the protesters that that isn't a viable course of action.

Now what? In the caption to photo #17 of the Big Picture's Egyptian photo-essay it notes that "The military is generally respected by the protesters; police officers, however, are reviled". Considering that Mubarak's route to power involved him as Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Air Force, I'm wondering how dissimilar the military retaking control would be.

Another thing I've recently come across are some estimates of the Egyptian economy that were published in the Wall Street Journal:

• The underground economy is estimated to be the country's largest employment sector - 9.6 million vs. 5.9 million for the public service and 6.8 million for the official private sector.
• 92% of Egyptians are estimated to lack normal legal title to their homes.
• The estimated value of the underground economy and property is $248 billion, 30x the values of the companies on the Cairo Stock Exchange, and 55x greater than the value of all post-Napoleonic foreign investment.

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" is a rather well-known statement by Pierre Trudeau back in the 1960s. That statement came back to mind today upon reading a story in the Calgary Herald entitled Judge bans sex for man with low IQ.

It's a British case, but it quickly brought to mind some of the Canadian associations with the eugenics movement that most Canadians now probably want to forget. However, the story does make clear that that this is a homosexual relationship that the judge appears to have banned (and one which appears to have involved only a single partner). The judge's reason:

... the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have intercourse with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

The article goes on to note that:

It is the latest controversial case to come before Britain's Court of Protection. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life-or-death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves - such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception.

Thus is does appear that behaviours typically associated with the eugenics movement (forced abortions, enforced contraception) may at times be coerced - although in this specific case we're talking about a slightly different angle.

It also made me wonder how consistent this is with the attitudes that most Western governments have towards teenage sexuality. If the argument goes that kids are going to end up doing it even if they're restricted, then why should the judge expect that a ban of this sort be effective - i.e. why won't this guy just do it anyways? Similarly, if he's unable to consent, why not apply the same logic to kids?

I'm was a little amused to read of an event that recently occurred at a conference on energy security and sustainability at Texas A&M:

The 300 conference participants were blind-sided with an up-close and personal experience about dependability and reliance on energy—energy in the form of electricity and lighting. Just as the concluding luncheon for the forum was set to begin, College Station fell victim to the statewide “rolling blackout” prompted by the unusually cold weather and resulting high demand for energy. The result was an unintended candle-light luncheon.

Speaking with the help of a hastily rigged small lectern light, the luncheon speaker, Texas Railroad Commission Chair Elizabeth Ames Jones, recounted the history of oil in the Lone Star State and praised its ‘vibrant and healthy energy industry.”

She called the Railroad Commission “purely and truly Texas’ ‘energy agency’,” noting that it has regulatory responsibilities for energy resources from “the ground and below.” She underscored the state’s role in energy production for the nation—leading it in oil and gas and even ranking as the fifth-largest producer of coal.

“I have a plan for our country—I call it the “Texas Plan”—and it’s to continue to rely on fossil fuels.” She made it clear that the backbone of the plan is natural gas. She said the state has reserves of 827 trillion cubic feet of gas—equivalent to all the proven resources of Iran.

In issuing her challenge to find and produce more oil and gas, she recounted several storied names of famed producers and asked: “Who will be the next George Mitchell?”—citing the Texas A&M graduate and benefactor who has long been recognized as one of the nation’s most successful oilmen.

Ironically, the lights came back almost immediately after Jones concluded her remarks.

Another thing that many people might find ironic is that despite its oil and gas reputation Texas manages to dominate in terms of wind power installations. It's actually a region that I'm paying attention to as the relatively high levels of wind power have some strange effects.