I work for a major corporation and have been hearing lately that the management of our company and many other companies is “moving away from pay raises in preference to variable pay options.”
What this means is, it’s better for the bottom line of the company if you don’t get raises, but they give you better bonuses. See, raises are something that once you get, the company always has to pay you at least that much. But bonuses can be more directly tied to company performance.
Sounds good, no? Who can complain about a better bottom line? Who wants to “price themselves out of the market”? That’s bad. It’s bad because a poorly paid job is better than no job.
This is true I suppose.
But the language and the sentiment are somehow completely fucked up. I read today that one of the main reasons to get away from pay raises is because pay raises lead to “uncompetitive fixed costs”. This all started when the employees working for the company went from “personnel” to “human resources” to “human capital”. It’s so damn inconvenient to have to put up with this bioaccumulating capital. And for some reason it needs to make more money! First it was “the cost of living” then it wanted to “buy a house” or “have a family”….sheesh! Don’t the human capital units realize that the company is not a charity ???
Ah, the old days. I remember being under the impression that “pay raises” served two purposes: to help keep pace with the cost of living in an area and to provide a lifestyle for the employees. I’ve met people who actually, after graduating from college with a doctorate want to do the unthinkable and “get married”, “buy a home” and “have children”. Those things usually require more money than you were making back in graduate school (unless your kids like dog food from the can). And pay raises allowed these young professionals to “plan” life rather than live by the vicissitudes of the ever-fluctuating market forces.
But this is the 21st Century! A brave new world. Where employees…uh I mean “human capital” units vie for a toehold on the American dream by hoping that their work in “product delivery” or “accounts receivable” will vault the company into the stratosphere of profitability so they can get a nice bonus of maybe 10% in a really really really good year.
Meanwhile the CEO of the same company toils away for a nearly $1 million base pay but occasionally is able to scrape in a 500% bonus. It must be hard for him or her to plan their lives when they can only count on making $900,000 base pay and have to rely on the whims of the board of directors as to whether they will be able to clear an addition $5 million dollars in bonus.
So, see, it hits all of us. The lowest levels to the highest. In this tough economy we all have to give just a little so we don’t cause our company to have to get rid of us because of our exhorbitantly “uncompetitive fixed costs”.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
“Calculate Your Wedding Emissions”
Oh dear god in heaven, I think my brain is melting. PortOvert.com has an on-line wedding “carbon” calculator for the environmentally conscientious bride and groom.
I like the idea of reducing our “carbon footprint”, but most weddings are not conducted with anything like “moderation” in mind. That’s why the average wedding has 164 guests and there are usually at least 3 women who will pay good money to buy a dress that not only will not be worn again but indeed, because they are hideous bridesmaid dresses can NEVER see the light of day again for fear of ridicule.
I wonder, however, in the case of the wedding carbon calculator, if they take into account the amount of CO2 that used to be removed from the atmosphere by wheat and sugarcane plants that are now sequestered into the ginormous cake only to be recycled by the various omnivores who will replenish the earth with nutritive waste a couple days later.
Now my wedding was probably not as carbon neutral as I’d like, but it did include people dressed as PIRATES, so I guess it all evens out in the end. I think you are quite aware of the negative correlation between the relative number of pirates and global warming .
Hey we did OUR part! More Pirate Weddings = Better Environment!
I like the idea of reducing our “carbon footprint”, but most weddings are not conducted with anything like “moderation” in mind. That’s why the average wedding has 164 guests and there are usually at least 3 women who will pay good money to buy a dress that not only will not be worn again but indeed, because they are hideous bridesmaid dresses can NEVER see the light of day again for fear of ridicule.
I wonder, however, in the case of the wedding carbon calculator, if they take into account the amount of CO2 that used to be removed from the atmosphere by wheat and sugarcane plants that are now sequestered into the ginormous cake only to be recycled by the various omnivores who will replenish the earth with nutritive waste a couple days later.
Now my wedding was probably not as carbon neutral as I’d like, but it did include people dressed as PIRATES, so I guess it all evens out in the end. I think you are quite aware of the negative correlation between the relative number of pirates and global warming .
Hey we did OUR part! More Pirate Weddings = Better Environment!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Pascal’s Climate Wager/Sophie’s Climate Choice
OK, it sounds like the overwhelming verdict is in that global climate change is coming and likely the result of human activity (Source).
But if you listen to the “right” you get the impression that we really don’t know much of anything. Who knows? It could be that the climate will not heat up! It could be that the cause of this alleged heating is NOT human activity! It could all just be coincidence!
Sure, maybe, who knows? The data indicates that we are pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the temperature is rising. Cause and effect? Well, no scientist can ever say with that this or that particular correlation implies causation.
It is the immutable wall of deduction. We assume that there is a statistical link. Only problem is, we don’t have any other planets we’ve done this to in order to compare results. If only we’d screwed up some other planet before we started working on this one!
This is the Pascal’s Wager Portion:
Pascal’s Wager is a theological wager that says, in effect, if you can’t prove God’s existence you can only make a choice based on potential outcomes. If you believe in God and there is a God, you hit the jackpot! If there is no God, when you die it’s no big deal because you’ll just cease to exist. Didn’t cost you too much during your earthly life (especially if you didn’t value reason, the ability to question and explore everything, or being free of fear).
But if you didn’t believe in God when you die and you find you were wrong you are in a world o’ hurt. Eternal torment at worst. Eternal punishment for, what, maybe 70 brief years of “free thought”. Hardly worth it, really.
So the Wager says it makes more sense to choose to believe in God because the outcomes are likely a win or a draw.
Climate Worries are a lot like that, imho. If you believe we can and should change our habits to affect a better climate if you find you are wrong, you simply end up living pretty much as we do today or maybe, if there was nothing we could do from the beginning, cooking on the planet but you got better gas mileage. IF, however you are right, then the planet is saved and humanity will go on! Our generation will be the next greatest generation!
On the other hand if you choose to disbelieve in “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and you opt to keep driving your giant SUV and pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere so you can pilot the Hummer (by yourself) through the suburban jungle, then if you find you were wrong we all cook. And in the end we will all know that YOU and your stupid gas-guzzler were largely responsible for our pain. Good job, asshole.
The reasonable thing is to work, and work hard, for an environmentally sustainable future that, at the very least will improve our impact on the planet and won’t make it worse! And who wants to pay more for gasoline?
Now here’s where Sophie’s Climate Choice comes in:
In the book Sophie’s Choice the eponymous character is forced at one point to make a choice between the lives of her two children.
Our choice for the most environmentally friendly power sources are coming up fast. Suppose we go all “Ed Begley Jr” on the environment and get an electric car. Well, that electricity has to come from somewhere and right now it’s coming from the coal-fired power plants by and large. Those things dump so much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as an alarming number of other nasties. We put scrubbers on the plants to keep down SOx which produces acid rain, so that’s good, but you can’t really keep from making CO2, it’s gonna get out on a largescale basis.
What about nuclear? Well, yeah, that’s overall cleaner. No combustion byproducts and on a daily basis, a nuke plant spews out less radioactive material than a coal fired powerplant! (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html). You’d be surprised what is in coal. It isn’t just fun carbon and hydrogen and a little oxygen. It has just about any metal you can imagine, including thorium, lead, uranium, mercury! It’s a veritable Periodic Table.
But then again, when a coal-fired powerplant burns to the ground in Salem, MA it doesn’t completely contaminate the entirety of New England. And you can live in Salem again within the next couple days.
This is a “risk choice” we need to make. Right now solar, wind and hydro power are still bit players, but have a lot of potential. They will require a lot more additional capacity to get us over the hump. And remember, we’ve taken Pascal’s Climate Wager and decided to DO something and time is running out! So our primary choice is nuclear at this point. At least it can buy us time to develop more eco-friendly, low-risk means.
Ugh. Which do you choose? The centralized, steady poisoning of our environment through a coal fired power plant? Or a ticking nuclear disaster that might or might not destroy vast swaths of land?
Man, this responsibility stuff is starting to suck! I’m gonna trade in my Yaris and get me a Hummer. Then I’ll log into Rapture Ready and “mark time” until the end! Or at least until alternatives are more well funded and start their exponential growth in development.
But if you listen to the “right” you get the impression that we really don’t know much of anything. Who knows? It could be that the climate will not heat up! It could be that the cause of this alleged heating is NOT human activity! It could all just be coincidence!
Sure, maybe, who knows? The data indicates that we are pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the temperature is rising. Cause and effect? Well, no scientist can ever say with that this or that particular correlation implies causation.
It is the immutable wall of deduction. We assume that there is a statistical link. Only problem is, we don’t have any other planets we’ve done this to in order to compare results. If only we’d screwed up some other planet before we started working on this one!
This is the Pascal’s Wager Portion:
Pascal’s Wager is a theological wager that says, in effect, if you can’t prove God’s existence you can only make a choice based on potential outcomes. If you believe in God and there is a God, you hit the jackpot! If there is no God, when you die it’s no big deal because you’ll just cease to exist. Didn’t cost you too much during your earthly life (especially if you didn’t value reason, the ability to question and explore everything, or being free of fear).
But if you didn’t believe in God when you die and you find you were wrong you are in a world o’ hurt. Eternal torment at worst. Eternal punishment for, what, maybe 70 brief years of “free thought”. Hardly worth it, really.
So the Wager says it makes more sense to choose to believe in God because the outcomes are likely a win or a draw.
Climate Worries are a lot like that, imho. If you believe we can and should change our habits to affect a better climate if you find you are wrong, you simply end up living pretty much as we do today or maybe, if there was nothing we could do from the beginning, cooking on the planet but you got better gas mileage. IF, however you are right, then the planet is saved and humanity will go on! Our generation will be the next greatest generation!
On the other hand if you choose to disbelieve in “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and you opt to keep driving your giant SUV and pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere so you can pilot the Hummer (by yourself) through the suburban jungle, then if you find you were wrong we all cook. And in the end we will all know that YOU and your stupid gas-guzzler were largely responsible for our pain. Good job, asshole.
The reasonable thing is to work, and work hard, for an environmentally sustainable future that, at the very least will improve our impact on the planet and won’t make it worse! And who wants to pay more for gasoline?
Now here’s where Sophie’s Climate Choice comes in:
In the book Sophie’s Choice the eponymous character is forced at one point to make a choice between the lives of her two children.
Our choice for the most environmentally friendly power sources are coming up fast. Suppose we go all “Ed Begley Jr” on the environment and get an electric car. Well, that electricity has to come from somewhere and right now it’s coming from the coal-fired power plants by and large. Those things dump so much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as an alarming number of other nasties. We put scrubbers on the plants to keep down SOx which produces acid rain, so that’s good, but you can’t really keep from making CO2, it’s gonna get out on a largescale basis.
What about nuclear? Well, yeah, that’s overall cleaner. No combustion byproducts and on a daily basis, a nuke plant spews out less radioactive material than a coal fired powerplant! (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html). You’d be surprised what is in coal. It isn’t just fun carbon and hydrogen and a little oxygen. It has just about any metal you can imagine, including thorium, lead, uranium, mercury! It’s a veritable Periodic Table.
But then again, when a coal-fired powerplant burns to the ground in Salem, MA it doesn’t completely contaminate the entirety of New England. And you can live in Salem again within the next couple days.
This is a “risk choice” we need to make. Right now solar, wind and hydro power are still bit players, but have a lot of potential. They will require a lot more additional capacity to get us over the hump. And remember, we’ve taken Pascal’s Climate Wager and decided to DO something and time is running out! So our primary choice is nuclear at this point. At least it can buy us time to develop more eco-friendly, low-risk means.
Ugh. Which do you choose? The centralized, steady poisoning of our environment through a coal fired power plant? Or a ticking nuclear disaster that might or might not destroy vast swaths of land?
Man, this responsibility stuff is starting to suck! I’m gonna trade in my Yaris and get me a Hummer. Then I’ll log into Rapture Ready and “mark time” until the end! Or at least until alternatives are more well funded and start their exponential growth in development.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Cruel Intentions
Interesting article about a new brain scanning technique that allows scientists to determine a persons “intent”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scientists were able to predict a person’s actions with 70% accuracy. Not too shabby considering we don’t really know where “intent” comes from. It sounds largely empirical. Match activity to ultimate actions. This will require a bit more work before it becomes as powerful as it might be.
Clearly a great case of “correlation” linked to “causation”, only in this case the causation can be diverted. I might wish to slug my arch nemesis “Dr. DoB” in the hallway after he is particulary snotty to me, but I won’t. Is there a secondary “intention” that kicks in?
“What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly?” (A Scanner Darkly)
Of course the standard fears of “Minority Report” movie-style dystopias are already popping up. Blah blah blah. It’s a technology, it will be abused, it will be used for the worst possible ends imaginable. We know that. We’re heading for disaster.
BUT, that being said, what I find fascinating is it helps us take one step closer to determining the source of “free will” and “intention”. I have often had heated debates with my philosopher friend, Dr. G., over this very topic. I don’t claim to understand where he thinks “thoughts come from”, he is a theist after a fashion and supports the idea of the non-physical as real, so thoughts and “will” for him can and do have an underlying non-physical component which is what he calls the soul.
But I’m a materialist and I don’t buy that. I am under the impression that my thoughts and my personality are the result of complex electrochemical interactions in my brain. But I still don’t know where my “will to do something” comes from.
Dr. G. suggests that by my metric if we knew all of the predicate physics and chemistry my brain was exposed to, then we could predict with 100% accuracy what the next thought would be that I would have. But yet I “feel” like I have free will and can choose to think about certain things, which feeds into Dr. G’s smug assertion that I do, indeed, have a non-physical “soul”. Ha. Or are my thoughts fully pre-determined? Are they randomly generated from some “seed” thought?
But it does make me wonder. Where does intention come from? Will this scanning technique lead to a deeper understanding of “free will”?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scientists were able to predict a person’s actions with 70% accuracy. Not too shabby considering we don’t really know where “intent” comes from. It sounds largely empirical. Match activity to ultimate actions. This will require a bit more work before it becomes as powerful as it might be.
Clearly a great case of “correlation” linked to “causation”, only in this case the causation can be diverted. I might wish to slug my arch nemesis “Dr. DoB” in the hallway after he is particulary snotty to me, but I won’t. Is there a secondary “intention” that kicks in?
“What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly?” (A Scanner Darkly)
Of course the standard fears of “Minority Report” movie-style dystopias are already popping up. Blah blah blah. It’s a technology, it will be abused, it will be used for the worst possible ends imaginable. We know that. We’re heading for disaster.
BUT, that being said, what I find fascinating is it helps us take one step closer to determining the source of “free will” and “intention”. I have often had heated debates with my philosopher friend, Dr. G., over this very topic. I don’t claim to understand where he thinks “thoughts come from”, he is a theist after a fashion and supports the idea of the non-physical as real, so thoughts and “will” for him can and do have an underlying non-physical component which is what he calls the soul.
But I’m a materialist and I don’t buy that. I am under the impression that my thoughts and my personality are the result of complex electrochemical interactions in my brain. But I still don’t know where my “will to do something” comes from.
Dr. G. suggests that by my metric if we knew all of the predicate physics and chemistry my brain was exposed to, then we could predict with 100% accuracy what the next thought would be that I would have. But yet I “feel” like I have free will and can choose to think about certain things, which feeds into Dr. G’s smug assertion that I do, indeed, have a non-physical “soul”. Ha. Or are my thoughts fully pre-determined? Are they randomly generated from some “seed” thought?
But it does make me wonder. Where does intention come from? Will this scanning technique lead to a deeper understanding of “free will”?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Game is ON!
Ohmy gosh! Ohmygosh! My ultra-favorite fundy ex-tv star, Kiiiiiirk Cameron and his super fun-buddy Ray "Comfort" Comfort have a game out!
Design vs Evolution
http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374
Oh I can't wait to play it! Although, I will likely play it as poorly as I play all other games and ultimately prove evolution, but we'll have to wait!
Here's what the website says along with my [parenthetical] comments!
--------------------------------------------------
“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” is unique in that the playing-pieces are small rubber brains [because you can hit a rubber brain with a hammer and it still functions the same afterwards...as opposed to a real brain!], and each team plays for “brain” cards [that's ironic]. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains [Like some sorta ZOMBIE], and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think [irony meter pegging] . . . and that’s exactly what it does. It is evangelistic, educational, entertaining [pick any two!] and comes with a free copy of the award-winning DVD “The Science of Evolution.”
-----------------------------------------
Oh Santa, pleases bring me one this summer!
Design vs Evolution
http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374
Oh I can't wait to play it! Although, I will likely play it as poorly as I play all other games and ultimately prove evolution, but we'll have to wait!
Here's what the website says along with my [parenthetical] comments!
--------------------------------------------------
“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” is unique in that the playing-pieces are small rubber brains [because you can hit a rubber brain with a hammer and it still functions the same afterwards...as opposed to a real brain!], and each team plays for “brain” cards [that's ironic]. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains [Like some sorta ZOMBIE], and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think [irony meter pegging] . . . and that’s exactly what it does. It is evangelistic, educational, entertaining [pick any two!] and comes with a free copy of the award-winning DVD “The Science of Evolution.”
-----------------------------------------
Oh Santa, pleases bring me one this summer!
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A Story with EVERYTHING
Only occasionally does a news story cross the wires that has every conceivable element important to a good story. But one just did.
The following story has:
1. Love
2. Deception
3. Kidnapping
4. Disguises
5. Chicks
6. ASTRONAUTS
CNN.com has a story about a female astronaut who is alleged to have attempted to kidnap or otherwise intimidate another female astronaut who was involved in a volatile astronaut-based love triangle!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/astronaut.arrested/index.html
In this story astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak is being charged with assaulting and attempting to kidnap a rival female astronaut rival for the affections of a third astronaut. Can the story be even BETTER?
You betcha!
Astronaut Lisa Marie allegedly hopped in her car and drove from Houston, TX to Orlando, FL while wearing a NASA-style diaper so she could make better time (it’s the diaper that astronauts wear on missions! It’s super absorbent). In Orlando she allegedly donned a disguise (including a tan trench coat, because astronauts in trench coats are just cool) and pepper-sprayed her victim. The victim made a get-away and reported it to the authorities.
When the police found her, Astronaut Lisa had a bag with the following things in it:
1. A new steel mallet
2. A folding knife with a 4-inch blade
3. Three to 4 feet of rubber tubing
4. Large plastic garbage bags
5. About $600 in cash
But supposedly she only wanted to “scare” the other woman into talking with her. I think she had just about all she needed to do that! And that doesn’t include the stuff found in Astronaut Lisa Marie’s car! That included more diapers and some latex gloves. Man, astronauts are wicked!
Upon being granted bail Astronaut Lisa Marie was fitted with a GPS-device. Which leads to my favorite part in the whole story, this item:
“Col. Steve Lindsey, Nowak's superior and commander of her space shuttle mission last July, testified Nowak had no reason to have any contact with Shipman and said the GPS device would not hamper Nowak's work.”
Of course that doesn’t count in the fact that she’s an ASTRONAUT! GPS devices are probably less useful once you are above the elevation of the GPS satellites! Can you effectively triangulate the location of a fleeing suspect in SPAAAAACE???
NOTE: Don’t anyone steal this, because I’m working on my first novel now!
"On the run from the law, knowing only the Law of Love, Astronaut Lisa Nowak makes a daring escape from the surly bonds of gravity but can't escape the stronger bonds on her heart..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)