What Makes a Successful Website?

So I've been giving this a little thought, and I've come up with some common themes between the uber-successful websites that abound in this digital age. Additions are welcome:

1. User-Driven Content: Time proclaimed "You" as the person of the year, and they had a good reason for doing it. Not only the social networking sites, but even giants like Google and Yahoo! allow you to customize your place in the internet. A must.
2. Functionality: If anyone could do it, they would. Instead, you have to have something going for your site that others do not (currently) have. This could be easy-to-create profiles, search capacities, freebies, information, or anything else useful to the user.
   
3. Style: If your website looks like 1995, you'll probably have about as many users as you did in 1995. Sleek designs which work on all browsers are needed to attract a modern eye, as well as to tell your audience that you are serious about what you do.
4. Speech Appeal: What I mean by "speech appeal" is that your site has to be good enough that people will physically talk about it to others, thus spreading the word offline as well as online.
   
5. Freshness: I'm as guilty of this as the next blogger, but if content is stale, then so is your traffic meter. Get something new in there and bring in new traffic because of it.
   

Grammar Rant

Maybe I've just been reading way too many unedited posts on the internet, but there are just some consistent grammatical errors which are driving me up the wall, and this is a good outlet. (Please note, non-native English writers are exempted from this tirade.)

• Spell out "you," "are," and "for." You've been writing complete English words since you were four or five, most likely. It's not as if it takes that much more time to spell these words out, either.
  
• The use of internet acronyms in semi-formal or formal writing is appalling. Drop the LOLs, ROFLs, BTWs, and OMGs if you're trying to sound even remotely professional.
  
• "It's" means "it is." "Its" is a possessive. Saying "It's car" translates to "It is car" which makes no sense at all.
• Learn to use "to" and "too." "Too" refers to something in excess and is used as a modifier. "To" is used with infinitives and prepositions: "to see," "go to the movies."
  
• Learn the difference between "prize" and "price." I see this one messed up more than you would think.
• "No" might sound a lot like "know," but they're very different words. Confusing these two will make you go from "respectable" to "dipwad" in record time.
  
• Paragraphs are your friend! You can be awarded the designation of using stream-of-consciousness writing only after you have proven that you know how to write in paragraph form expertly. Until then, you just seem like you have a broken "Enter" key on your keyboard.

Finally, proofread what you have written! If you're too lazy to read over, even once, what you just wrote, then you probably don't have much to say and shouldn't be hitting the submit button. (I use this rule myself, as well.)

Price Negotiability

Earlier in the summer, I learned a lesson about buying mattresses. Mattress prices are negotiable. This was not an obvious, advertised fact, but rather was learned through careful listening to the salesman (yes, that is politically correct - they were all men). I suggest trying to negotiate the price of whatever you're buying if your salesperson does any of the following:

• Tells you there is a sale when no sale signs are posted.
• Mentions a special discount for you.
  
• Offers to throw in something free.
• Offers to take off tax, fees, etc. when you mention they're high.
• ...and of course, offers to drop the price if you allude that it's out of your range.

By their very nature, you're more likely to find negotiation possible on high-margin goods, such as mattresses, cars, jewelry, and furniture. This is because the high margin allows for a reduction in price, while still preserving some profit (just not as much).

Question to the audience¹: What other products have you been able to negotiate a better price for?

¹Do I have readers? This is still an open question.

Insurance is a Product

One argument that I am starting to hear more frequently is beginning to irk me. Well, I suppose it's less of an argument than a point of view, really. The point of view that insurance is a social service, and therefore needs to be provided to everyone equally, is sadly mistaken. This most often crops up in conversations about health insurance and the inability of some people to get health insurance, but I also have heard this conversation in the realm of flood insurance as well.

Insurance companies are a business. They are not a charity or a social service organization. This means that they have an obligation to their owners to make profit, not to society in general to provide blanket coverage. Ideally, the premiums you pay would exactly (with interest built in) cover any payouts that you get from a policy, plus expenses and a set level of profit for the company. This principle is called the Equivalence Principle, and it is how young actuaries learn to set premiums. I don't actually set premiums in my work, so I can't tell you if this is used in practice (comments are welcome), but that's how it's taught, anyway.

That being said, someone with a higher probability of having a policy payout will have a higher premium. It's easier, and cheaper, to get health insurance for a 20-year-old than a 50-year-old because the 20-year-old has less risk of health problems. The opposite is true with automobile insurance, however.

Anyway, insurance is not a social service. It is a product, not a right.

As always, comments are welcome.

Wow it's been awhile

Yup. I pretty much abandoned this thing. I think I may try to fix that...we'll see how this goes.

First up - a design upgrade. More later!

Edit: Mad props to this post, which finally showed an easy way to add a "Digg This!" button to a Blogger site.

Experiments

This is only a test

A test of the wonderful capabilities of CSS. You have hovered over the words "this is only a test" which resulted in this little box popping up with the actual entry of this post. Please note that no javascript was used in the making of this post - it's simply CSS. Beautiful, no? I thought so, too, which is why I decided to share it with you, my loyal readers. Note: It doesn't seem to work in firefox. I'll have to work on that.

Conversational Keywords with a Mathematician

I believe that every field has some conversational keywords. By "conversational keywords" I mean words which although used innocently in the vernacular, trigger large cascades of memories in classes and homework along with a whole plethora of meanings, most of which your conversant did not intend to convey.

Being a mathematician, I would like to share with you some of our conversational keywords.

"What are the chances/odds that...": All mathematicians have had some probability, and I would venture to say that a large number have had one or more probability classes. Although our professors usually use the word "probability" instead of "chance," the phrase is still enough to invoke images of normal curves and chi-squared distributions and questions involving transformations of random variables. When a mathematician hears this phrase, he/she will actually be thinking about what the probability is, which immediately distracts from the remainder of the conversant's statement.

"Infinite Combinations": Both the words "infinity" and "combination" are highly mathematical words with specific definitions. However, in most conversational cases, this phrase is an oxymoron. Example: "Coldstone Creamery has an infinite combination of flavors." False. Since I know Coldstone Creamery has a finite number of flavors, the combinations of those flavors must also be finite. There are many similar situations in which this phrase arises.

"Chaos": Chaos theory, otherwise known as nonlinear dynamics, is a new and specialized branch of mathematics. Chaos does not mean disorder, which is usually how it is used in the vernacular. Chaos does have order, it is simply that the order is not predictible n steps down the road. If you want to know more, ask in the comments.

(This one is just me.) "Random": There is no such thing as random. Every "random" event you have ever known is actually chaotic, and is only "random" because you cannot predict the outcome.

"Trivial": In mathematics, trivial means the easy way out. It's the solution that is dumb. For example, in a system of n equations with n variables, all of which equal zero, the trivial solution is that every variable equals zero. Not exciting. In the vernacular, trivial usually means something inconsequential, which is not the same as in mathematics. Trivial solutions may have consequences, but they are always easy to find.

"Googol (or Google)": This is 10¹⁰⁰ . It is not a search engine. Deal with it.

Comment on your own field's conversational keywords. I'd be interested to hear some words that set others heads spinning.

Single by Chance or Single by Choice

This post goes out to all my single guy readers out there. Girls, you can keep reading too if you want, but I make no promises as to whether or not this will offend you because it's addressed to the guys.

OK, men, I'll bet most of you have had the strange opportunity of meeting some girl who seems smart, attractive, mentally stable, and generally good-smelling and find out (lo and behold) she's single. At this point, before progressing any further, you need to answer this simple question: Is she single by chance or single by choice.

When I say "single by chance" I mean that she is single and really not supposed to be. This is analogous to the case of market arbitrage, where something is priced below (or above) what it should be, and so you complete an appropriate transaction and make some quick cash. These girls may be coming out of the "rebound" period after a break-up, may have just entered the dating scene, or may have been hiding (it happens, believe me). These are green lights - good signs that you want to see and big, blinking "ALL CLEAR" notices allowing you to proceed in for the capture (aka asking out for a date).

The "single by choice" girls, on the other hand, are red lights with big flashing warning signs telling you to steer clear (at least for dating) of this chick. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these girls - except that they don't want anything to do with boys at the moment, and therefore will not be pleased at your attempts to date them. Perhaps these girls have an ideological fortress barring men, like the ultimate "no boys allowed" sign. Maybe they simply have very, very, very high (read: quirky) standards which will not allow them to date anyone but their future husbands, who they then latch on to with the fury of a hawk catching its dinner. Whatever the case, these girls don't want to be bothered, and therefore you can be assured will not be making out with you anytime soon, despite your best efforts.

So how might you go about differentiating between the two? Let's run through some sample conversations.

Boy: How about we go out for coffee sometime?
Single by chance girl: Sure.
Single by choice girl: Sure, but I'm going to bring along 15 of my closest girlfriends with us.

Boy: I'm really starting to like you.
Single by chance girl: I feel the same way.
Single by choice girl: Errr...Thanks...But I don't date.

Boy: (leans in close for a goodnight kiss after a great evening)
Single by chance girl: (kisses him, then says goodnight and scampers away smiling)
Single by choice girl: (slams the door so fast the pressure knocks the boy down)

Boy: How would you feel if I started calling you my girlfriend?
Single by chance girl: I would like that very much.
Single by choice girl: The parametics would have a hard time scraping you off the floor.

Feel free to add your own similar conversations (either imagined or experienced) in the comments. Thanks for reading.

Web Programming

Of late, I have discovered the joy and curse of web programming. In very few other fields is the disparity between amateurs and pros so vast, yet so easily traversed. Now, I'm not very good yet, but I can tell how much I have improved.

I have created two sites so far. One is a browser-based MMORPG named Economies of Scale which still needs much debugging. It is business-themed and is located at http://guardian996.awardspace.com. If you go there, make sure to join the forum, and also note that (for now) the game is not "running." It is a tick-based games, and I haven't set up the necessary requirements to make the ticks advance, although that will be coming soon.

The other site I've made, which is fully functional (to my knowledge) is called Chaotic Outbursts and is located at http://chaoticoutbursts.awardspace.com. Here you may submit an outburst (scroll to the bottom to do so) and you will also have an outburst selected for you at [pseudo-]random. There is also a voting mechanism and top ten list, so vote if you see something you like. That site simply needs more traffic to get it underway.

Another site which I would like to pass along, although I have not made, is http://www.myshost.com/. If you join the forums there and make 75 posts, you will be able to get a free domain name. I will be attempting to get a few for the sites I now have. WARNING: Do not go to that site unless you have a good pop-up blocker. Don't go to this site. It had many pop-ups and trojans and messed up my computer for a week. IE still has some problems...but then again it always had its problems, so I'm on Firefox now.

For my faithful readers, I ask some favors:

1. Visit my sites and let me know what you think of them in the comments here.
2. Leave ideas for future sites you wish existed.
3. If you know of any interesting web-development sites, post them here.

Minimum Wage vs. Human Capital

So while I was out running today, I had an idea. Suppose that there is a difference between the wage clearing rate and the current minimum wage. What if that difference could be captured and invested in human capital?

Let me back up here a minute. Human capital is the stuff that makes you more valuable as a person (think economically, not in terms of virtue). Education, training, and experience are all good examples of this.

What if there were to be some sort of massive government scholarship fund with this difference which could be used to invest in human capital for workers who meet certain requirements?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that there are 2 million workers earning minimum wage. Let's suppose that the wage clearing rate is w. With full time workers, 40 hours / week x 50 working weeks / year = 2000 working hours / year. Therefore (2,000,000)(2,000)(5.15 - w) would be placed into this fund each year. Even if this difference were 50 cents, that would still be $2 billion placed into this fund. At $40,000 / worker, this could improve 50,000 workers, or 2.5% of those working at minimum wage. In general, for each cent of difference between 5.15 and w, you would improve .05% of the workforce, which is quite significant for a penny.

When workers would leave this class (minimum wage class) of work, they would lower that supply of workers which would, in turn, raise the clearing wage price. Eventually, in the limit, this would actually raise the clearing wage (w) to the minimum wage ($5.15 in my scenario above).

Problems with this scenario would include:

Where would the money come from?
Probably a tax on the corporations paying the workers minimum wage. They're already losing the money via the minimum wage itself, so I'm not sure exactly what their objection to this would be. Most likely, they would prefer to train their own workers, and take the training costs as a tax deduction. Perhaps this could work as well.

Who would train the workers?
By providing a scholarship-esque program, this could utilize the currently existing capital improvement facilities (colleges, universities, trade schools, community colleges, etc.) for education. The burden shouldn't be too heavy on them (at 50 cents difference, that only makes for an additional 50,000 students nationwide).

Other odd results?
Well, I would suggest having some sort of wage-to-scholarship amount scale, or else you'll have people intentionally trying to work at minimum wage for the scholarship benefits. Intead, perhaps workers could receive scholarship amounts based on how much they earn, decreasing as their pay got farther from minimum wage. Someone working at a wage above (5.15 - w) + 5.15, for example, would receive no assistance.

This was some random idea I had, so please feel free to comment, especially with economic ideas. Remember, anyone can post on this blog.

New Wallpaper

PSA (Public Service Announcement): via Fark I found an awesome new wallpaper that I thought I would share with my faithful readers. It's a satellite image of Earth, which is updated every 5 minutes for the light and every 3 hours for the clouds. The night image can be set to a variety of different (although static and without the clouds) images, which look very cool. You can find the wallpaper here.

Construction Ahead

After visiting a few other blogspot blogs, I'm going to start playing with the coding of the template until its something a little more to my liking. If something looks really funny, just comment somewhere and I'll try to do something about it, since I most likely messed it up in the first place.

A Blow to Racism

Read This First

From dictionary.com:

rac·ism ( P ) (rszm) n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Universities are being forced to eliminate their racist scholarships. The difference is, this time the racism was against whites.

There is no denying that these scholarship and fellowships were racist. The second definition from dictionary.com clears that up rather nicely. These awards clearly discriminated on the basis of race.

Now don't get me wrong here - an individual private scholarship should be open to whoever the donor wishes it to be open to. If I get enough money together and form a scholarship for 90 year old female Polish accordian players, that's my business and I no one should be able to stop me from doing that. Sure that scholarship would be racist (as well as sexist, age-ist, and nationalist), but that's my right to decide that. However, it sounds like these scholarships were more public, school-sponsored ones that donors simply gave to a pool of money and the school awarded it.

I also find this quote from the article entertaining:

Advocates of focused scholarships programs such as Theodore Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., challenge the notion that programs for minority students hurt whites.

``How is it that they conclude that the great evil in this country is discrimination against white people?'' Shaw asked. ``Can I put that question any more pointedly? I struggle to find the words to do it because it's so stunning.''

Who said anything about a great evil? Why is discrimination against white people any different from discrimination against any other group of people? Why is anti-discrimination news stunning? Hasn't the NAACP been working for that for decades now? But I digress.

Public scholarships should be based on two qualifications: need and merit. Some public scholarships focus on one, and some focus on both, but those two characteristics should encompass it all. What does it matter to a college or university that the applicant is a minority student or not? Does this somehow change the need of the student, or their academic accomplishments? I think not.

Colleges and universities need to turn a blind eye to race in their decisions, both for admissions and scholarship awards.

Christmas Shopping

Today I had the unfortunate experience of going Christmas shopping. I procrastinate and do my shopping close to the 25th, a fact I usually blame on school becoming hectic right about the time my family is passing around their lists. Thus I must wait until school goes to recess for the semester to actually commence shopping. This being said, Christmas shopping is like my own personal circle of the Inferno, where I am continually punished by demonic store employees referring me to opposite ends of the store to find the elusive widget I seek.

As I seem to do in all walks of my life, I even began to sort the Christmas shoppers in to various groups (mathspeak: equivalence relations). I began to see various types of shoppers such as the Warrior, the Dawdler, the Hesitant, the Impatient, and the Epic. Gracious readers, please take advantage of your ability to comment anonymously and add to this list as you see fit.

The Warrior
The Warrior is perhaps the easiest of all Christmas shoppers to identify. As the name suggests, this shopper is on a quest, and every opposition to their aim is a battle to them. Neither snow, nor rain, nor normal flow of traffic shall impede their search for the polka-dot sweater their Great Aunt Brenda requested. These are the shoppers that make their way through the crowds with all the grace of a rhinoceros, but with much more noise. They will use their carts as weapons, bruising your shins and banging your elbows. Warriors are best left alone, as battles with them usually result in raised tempers, perhaps a shout or two, and a much less enjoyable shopping experience afterwards.

The Dawdler
The Dawdler has already completed 99% of their Christmas shopping. The one and only gift they have left to get, therefore, causes them such little stress that they feel free to take their sweet time moving about the aisles of the store. If you have ever had the misfortune of getting behind a Dawdler in one of those increasingly narrow store aisles that makes passing impossible, then you, too, have felt the frustration of going slower than a drunken slug. Ironically, I seem to see more Dawdlers as it draws closer to Christmas, and thus those more like me, who procrastinate, find their slow, relaxed pace of life enraging.

Another interesting facet of the Dawdler is that they are normally found in pairs. These two friends find nothing wrong with plodding along in a slow manner in order to enjoy their companion's conversation. Should you ever be stuck behind two Dawdlers, resist the temptation to become a Warrior and be glad that you're moving at all, because you could be dealing with...

The Hesitant
The Hesitant cannot make up their mind. In spite of the fact that they have already picked up the same candle and the one next to it 47 times, they still are unable to choose between the cream candle that smells like strawberries and the strawberry candle that smells like cream. Somehow, by some act of Satan, the Hesitant always manages to wind up directly in front of the item you need (and have already chosen to buy). There you are, hunched over your cart in an attempt to use everything you know about body language, languishing, because within 5 feet is the perfect gift for your mom, but yet it is still blocked by this dolt of a shopper who needs to start researching Christmas gifts in March in order to pick them out in a timely manner.

The Hesitant can take many forms, I must say. I think I have even been the Hesitant at times. The Hesitant may be a grandparent confused by the newest video game systems, or perhaps a parent trying to pick out the right CD for their teenager, or maybe a boy unaccustomed to an X-chromosome-only area, such as Hallmark, searching for some gift for a girlfriend (that would be when I'm the Hesitant). The Hesitant usually means well, but nevertheless clogs aisles in ways that the Dawdler could only fantasize about.

Also, should you ever have the fortune to see it, a Warrior encountering a Hesitant is a comical affair. Given an very effective Hesitant with a large shopping cart, the Warrior may do a small dance around the Hesitant, resembling a bee dancing to indicate the position of the nearest flowers. Yet, the Warrior is helpless against the brick wall of indecision that the Hesitant builds, and is forced, like the rest of us, to wait their choice.

The Impatient
"I can't believe we have to wait 10 minutes in line on the 23rd of December. Why don't they have more registers open? Doesn't anybody work here?" Ever heard those words, or something like them? Yup, you guessed it, that's the Impatient.

The Impatient gets easily frustrated when something is out of order. They feel that open complaints will magically bring more employees to the registers or out on the floor to help them find the perfect gift. When the Impatient finally does corner an employee, if anything goes wrong they make sure to voice their displeasure with body and voice, rolling their eyes and raising their arms because the Office Max store had run out of the super-sale keyboard they had advertised since last Tuesday.

These people get to me sometimes, I have to admit. It's Christmas season. You have to understand that things are going to be slow, or at least slower than in July when you Impatients last ventured into the mall. Complaining about your circumstances will not bring help to you, and more likely, it will probably drive help away because employees are frustrated at dealing with Impatients and Warriors all day long.

The Epic
The Epic is the Christmas shopper most like me. The Epic is determined to do as much shopping in one shot as possible. In my case, it's all of it. It doesn't matter if it's going to take three hours or ten hours, the shopping must be completed! Unlike the Impatient and the Warrior, the Epic understands that the going will be slow and steady, and so it is more of a survival test than a battle for the Epic. The Epic carefully plots the most efficient route, keeping in mind possible detours, alternate stores, and places of nourishment. Yes, armed with a list, a cell phone, and a full tank of gas, the Epic sets out and shall not return until the task is completed! Other Christmas shoppers may annoy the Epic, but never to the point of losing sight of the goal. And the goal will be reached, no matter what the cost. The Ring must be de---I mean the presents must be purchased!

So there you have it: my renditions of the Christmas shoppers. Please feel free to add whatever comments you wish to contribute to this discussion. Thanks for reading!

The Dividend Growth Model

First, scroll down and read the previous post.

OK, now that we're all on the same page here, I'd like to write a few things about a stock pricing model known as the Dividend Growth Model, or DGM.

Since I know that non Math-Finance-Economics people read this, I'll take this slowly. What is a stock pricing model? Well, stock pricing models attempt to take financial data about a company and come up with a fair value for their stock price. The DGM basically says the following: "The value of a share of stock XYZ is equal to the present value of its future dividends."

Present value (PV) is money adjusted for interest and inflation. For example, if interest rates are 10%, $110 one year from now is worth only $100 today. This is because you could put $100 in a 10% account today and get $110 in one year. Cute, huh?

I think that the DGM is a bunch of bunk. Why? OK, let's look at the reasons here.

The model says that the value is equal to the PV of all future dividends. That means to infinity. How many of you actually buy anything with the idea that it's going to last to infinity? That isn't realistic in the slightest. Most investors are buying for a shorter horizon than that. Realisitically, you're probably buying stocks for retirement, which should happen in less than 50 years, unless I have much younger readers than I thought I would.

A defender of the DGM would probably explain the model like this: Let's say you buy a share of stock and hold it for one year, during which time you recieve 4 quarterly dividends. Even though you sell it at the end of a year, the price you would get for the stock when you sold it would still be equal to the PV of all future dividends.

Again, I claim that is bunk. It's circular logic. You have to assume that the model works in order for the model to work. Otherwise, the price at the end of the year (or time n for that matter) could be a function of interest rates, consumer confidence, Survivor ratings, womens' skirt lengths in Milan, and a bunch of other factors. Iff (if and only if) you assume that the price at time n exactly equals the PV of all future dividends does the DGM work.

What really frustrates me is that this model is frequently used. Although convenient and easy to calculate (the formula boils down to D1/(k-g), where D1 is the dividend at time 1, k is the required rate of return, and g is the growth rate of dividends), the assumptions of the model are flawed to me, and so I can't really justify its use.

So why is it used? It sounds plausable. I mean it might make sense to think that the value of a stock is worth all its future dividends. It also tends to spit out semi-correct answers (aka prices close to the market price) if you guess around with k and g. In fact, there are reams of literature about how to determine k and g such that they come close to the market price. Most work pretty well, actually, if you use them. Still, I can't really justify the assumptions of the model, and so it seems like a stab in the dark as to whether or not it is correct or not. If you stab enough times in enough dark places, you'll eventually hit something (let's hope not someone).

There are other models which appear to have more solid foundations, so don't worry about the stock market crashing when I hit the publish button to my lower left.

I think that the DGM can be fixed, but I am unsure of how to do that. This may turn into a thesis topic for me, since I had to work with this model extensively this semester. So for all of you out there who I told that my thesis idea was too technical to explain, you now see why. Imagine how much you'd now hate me if I had spent an entire dinner explaining this to you, rather than letting you read it at your leisure. You're welcome.

Overall, the DGM is a flawed model in my eyes and I can't really see why it is used. Maybe I just need to spend a little more time in professors' offices arguing this with them and then I'll understand. Until then, I'm just an insolent multi-disciplinary student who pokes holes in age-old models and doesn't take assumptions lightly.

I'm Back

Woo, it's been a long time since I've written. Wow. I've added a Google AdSense banner to the top of the page. Since I am a fan of all things Google, I've been waiting to try out AdSense for awhile, but never figured that I could try it out on a Blogger site, since Blogger is owned by Google. However, the opportunity has come, and I'll let you all know how it works.

I also have yet to figure out why my little profile sidebar has mysteriously dropped to the bottom right of the page. Weird.

This has been a crazy semester, but hopefully I'll have more frequent updates now that it's almost over. Keep on reading.

Eminent Domain

News Story on the Ruling

The Supreme Court is on crack. That is the only explanation I have for what they have just ruled. If you're too lazy to read the article, allow me to summarize. Eminent domain is the constitutional right of the government to seize your property for public works. They have always had this right, so that if Farmer Bob doesn't feel like moving so that the new hospital can be built, he can be paid off and evicted legally. Although a bit unsettling, this little legal ability is really quite necessary to maintain government order, and I've never really had a problem with it. However, now the Supreme Court has ruled that economic development projects fall under this public use category of eminent domain.

In case you missed it in the article, local governments have this power. Now I don't know how it works in your county, but in my county the local government shows some signs of being less than honest. I can see Wal-Mart having a large influence over the commissioners' decision to let them build that new Supercenter on Farmer Bob's land, even though he doesn't want to sell.

There have been some repercussions to this decision already. This developer is trying to use the new ruling to seize Justice Souter's land , and states are fighting back as well.

This decision is a strong blow against private property in the United States. Speaking in financial terms, the risk of owning property, especially on what would otherwise be prime retail development land, has increased greatly. Corporations which are able to sway the opinions of local government officials could have nearly free reign on where to build, regardless of who owns the land.

One interesting outcome of this ruling would be if a corporation tried to seize another corporation's land. Imagine this scenario: Think of a the poorer side of a city, where an aging Wal-mart shopping center is filled with vacancies, but Wal-mart sees no reason to get rid of this shopping center because its mortgage is paid off and the rent is still somewhat profitable. Now imagine Target takes a look at that shopping center and manages to convince the local city council that they would make a better tenant (economically for the city) than Wal-mart has. Boom! Target seizes Wal-mart's land under the new eminent domain ruling! We could have a whole rush of firms competing for others' lands! That would be mildly amusing.

Still, the entire concept of a private business (or a public one) being able to take away someone's private land is disturbing. If that doesn't unsettle you a little, please comment and explain to me why, exactly. Until then, I'll be trying to convince a private LAN Gaming corporation to take over my neighbor's land.

Daylight Savings? What's my interest rate?

So the Indiana Legislature has voted to pass Daylight Savings Time into law. After years of holding out, Indiana will join the other 48 states in changing their clocks twice a year.

First off, let me explain how I understand DST works, and if I'm mistaken, someone please comment and correct me. Note that these calculations assume that Indiana joins Eastern time (like Michigan above us). I will need two variables, let's call them RT (real time - aka unadjusted for DST aka the time that makes sense to Indianans) and DST. In the Spring, we add one hour to RT to get DST (RT + 1 = DST), and DST is the time displayed. This means that when the clock says 8:00PM, it is really 8:00PM - 1 = 7:00PM. Therefore, the sun is still up later. Also, in the morning, when the clock reads 6:00AM, the real time is 6:00AM - 1 = 5:00AM, and so the sun is a 5AM sun, not a 6AM sun. The bottom line is that during the Summer, the sun will rise and set one hour later than RT.

I have heard DST proponents claim that DST results in more daylight. I will now mathematically disprove this claim. First, let us take a typical day where the time of sunlight is a constant C. The way we compute C is to subtract sunset from sunrise. Algebraically, C = Sunset - Sunrise. Now we can display sunset and sunrise in either RT or DST. I'll do both cases.

Case 1: RT
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise)

Case 2: DST
C = DST(sunset) - DST(sunrise)
C = (RT + 1)(sunset) - (RT+ 1)(sunrise)
C = RT(sunset) + 1 - RT(sunrise) - 1
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise) + 1 - 1
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise)

Notes: Please excuse my lack of ability to appropriately write subscripts. Treat (sunset) and (sunrise) as subscripts, please. Also, in case 2, the 1s do not have subscripts because one hour at sunrise is assumed to be the same as one hour at sunset.

Behold, the cases yield the same amount of daylight. Therefore it is mathematically impossible that DST gives you more sunlight.

But I can hear the DSTers saying now "But you have more time in the evening with sunlight." Very well, I agree to that. I have already said that the sun rises and sets one hour later. But now I have a question for the DSTers - if more sun in the evening was the goal, then why stop at just one hour? Wouldn't it make more sense to set sunrise at RT noon so that by the time most people were getting off work, it would hit the 11:00AM (RT) sun? That would provide a lot of sun in the evening, much more so than just one little hour.

I've also heard that DST is results in an economic benefit. This I cannot understand. Perhaps there is some small psychological correlation between consumption and sunlight, but it has yet to be included in any of the macroeconomic models that I have studied. Even if there was a correlation, I would say it is due to confounding factors (like maybe that more people sleep at night so there's less consumption then). I've also heard that DST saves energy. This cannot be the case because any energy you would save from air conditioning (in the morning) or lighting (in the evening) would be offset by opposite air conditioning/lighting in the evening/morning (respectively). I also have yet to see proof of either increased consumption or energy savings in any statistical format. Surely there are similar enough towns between Indiana and Ohio, two states very geographically close, that a statistical analysis of energy use and consumption could be formed for testing of these claims. The lack of proof concerns me.

Then there is the argument that Indiana's oddball time zone takes away from business here. I cannot see the point in that either. Time zone changes are not hard to adjust to - some industries do it all the time. Businesses in tropical nations do not observe DST (for scientific reasons, it is of no benefit for them to do so) yet they do not claim a lack of business because US companies change their local time once or twice a year. How much business is lost on the single frustration of "I don't know what time it is in Indiana?" Better yet, why would Indiana companies want to do business with a firm that is either too lazy or ignorant to use Google for 10 seconds to find out what time it is in Indiana? This I do not understand. If you do, please explain it to me.

In short, I fail to see what daylight is saved with DST. And where is this missing (because savings delays consumption) daylight stored? What interest rate am I getting on my sunlight? Can I redeem it during my retirement years for an extra-early game of golf or shuffleboard some day? I feel that time is one of those elements which is not supposed to be changed, but rather should progress in a straightforward, consistent manner in order to facilitate daily life. But then again, I am just a silly Indiana boy.

Hello World

Welcome friends. You are here because you're curious, nosy, compusively check profiles on various places, or all of the above. This is my blog and I'm going to give this a whirl. No promises on how often the updates will come, but if I have loyal fans, I promise they will in fact come.

This will probably be more of a soapbox than a diary, so don't look for my social life here. Sorry, but you'll actually have to talk with me to get that out of me.

Let's set some ground rules here:

1) I've turned comments on so that anyone can say something (I think...this whole thing is still a bit new to me). If you leave a comment, you must leave your name (or some other way that I know who you are). I'm brave enough to put my thoughts and feelings out here, and I won't have much patience for commenters who will not return the favor.

2) This is my blog. I say what I want. If you don't like it, please comment in a constructive manner. Feel free to engage in mildly spirited intellectual discussions over my thoughts and ideas.

3) I reserve the right to delete comments and/or posts whenever I see fit.

So as my first order of business, I would like everyone who reads this to post a comment of some sort, letting me know who you are, what you think, and if you'll keep reading.