Tag: nyt

Neo-Prohibitionism

Somehow these sorts of observations never come up when, constant as the North Star, MADD is yet again pushing to get the limit down to 0.002  for anyone deigning to utilize a public sidewalk or somesuch:

Detective Spellman, who was given a blood test five and a half hours after the crash, had a blood alcohol level of 0.21 percent, according to the law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to be identified discussing material related to a continuing investigation.

FIVE HOURS! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. How was he able to reach his fucking car!?! But, by all means, let’s have the policy set to jail the soccer mom who had an utterly harmless glass of wine with her dinner.

I have no a priori sympathy for drunk driving/drunk drivers. Far from it. But it is beyond me why we can’t talk about the actual, observed BAC in accidents (and, for that matter, in drivers pulled over for substantive violations and not just the ever-popular “suspicion” canard) vs. where we are setting the standard. Just like with arguments over speed limits, no rationality is allowed in that debate, ever. In fact, it’s the anti-rational arguments that are ceaselessly rewarded and turned into the law of the land. We must solely THINK OF THE CHILDREN! and accept our marching orders; debate ended. Just why is that, and what sort of country does that governance structure create? I’d say California is currently a fairly obvious indication. Just how many Jordin’s Laws can we have before we get back to calling them “Sensible Limitations on Repeat Offenders Act of 2010"  (SLO-ROAd!) and such? Just after we’ve regained our collective sanity, I’d say.

10 categories of warnings now pile up quietly in a single, unified Action Center and don’t interrupt you at all.

David Pogue on Windows 7 new non-nagging security “alert” system. What could possible go wrong with that approach, David?

Let me offer a modest proposal: If Congress fails to pass comprehensive health reform this year, its members should surrender health insurance in proportion with the American population that is uninsured.

Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times columnist, and (clearly) Lemkin fan.

Drop a Dime

Absolutely fascinating Freakonomics…in which a little scamp of an aspiring economist runs right through the old saw about losing the penny like BJ McKay going through billboards. Turns out losing the penny alone doesn’t really help overall efficiency that much if we assume:

1. Some combination of coins must reach every integer value in [0,99].

2. Probability of a transaction resulting in value v is uniform from [0,99].

You could split some obvious hairs about (2), but (1) seems to me to be the real sticking point on getting rid of the penny: people see it as just another chance for everything to go up in price; everyone assumes they’ll always come out behind on any rounding scheme. And, let’s face it: everyone probably would.

So, what was the most efficient system? Prepare to be Obamazed:

The penny, 3-cent piece, 11-cent piece, 37-cent piece, and (1,3,11,38) are tied at 4.10 coins per transaction.

Now who could possibly argue with that arrangement? I DEMAND it be implemented. But, forseeing the loser, stick-in-the-mud attidudes that he’d receive once he announced that all payments to Death Panels are henceforth mandated to be rendered in 38-cent coins, the little scamp sorted down to some more reasonable options (among others):

(1,4,15,40) is the first “reasonable looking” combination, with 4.14 coins per transaction.
(1,3,10,35) also does well, with 4.16 coins per transaction.

[or, restricting ourselves to multiples of 5]

(1,5,15,35) at 4.50 coins.
(1,5,10,30) at 4.60 coins.

Fantastic. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the “lose the penny!” nature of conventional wisdom, what would you assume is the least worthwhile coin?

Why, it’s the dime, of course.

…losing the dime entirely only costs us ~0.8 coins per transaction in efficiency; it does the least good of the existing coins.

So: a two pronged attack is in order. We couple a bill that removes dimes from circulation whilst putting the serene visage of Reagan or Lord Jesus on the obverse…

Gourmette

Condé Nast plans to shutter long-timer Gourmet, along with some other titles:

In addition to Gourmet, Condé Nast plans to announce it will also close Cookie, Modern Bride and Elegant Bride. Cookie is a relatively new introduction, started in 2005, while the bridal magazines were seen as offshoots of the bigger Brides magazine, which Condé Nast also owns.

Left standing: Unwieldy Bride, Modern Brownie, and Angry Spinster Fortnightly.

Two Little Caveats

NYT readers seem to understand the problems with American healthcare in ways that NYT writers never seem to:

The Swiss system for universal coverage is certainly intriguing, but there are two little caveats that will make it unappealing to our legislature: the insurance companies are to some extent nonprofit, and the drug prices are regulated. The Swiss system directly attacks what is wrong with the American health care system: profit.

The Shahab of Iran

Why, why, why is context never supplied? Oh, right, because it might ruin a perfectly good (and preferred) story. In this case, the NeoCon paymasters of your MSM want you to be terrified of Iran. Likewise, the ever-powerful Israeli lobby. Thus, you are instructed to assume the world is near its end because Iran has tested the terrifying Shahab-3 missile.

But what is it, exactly? It’s a medium-range ballistic missile with a payload capacity of around 700 kg (1,500 lb). It has an operational range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi), meaning it can deliver 1,500lb of whatever about 1,300 miles away. Now, it’s true that payload capacity likely includes highly sophisticated warheads like the those found in a Trident II MIRV. But nobody on this Earth thinks Iran’s nuclear program is anywhere near that level of sophistication. Hell, the United States worries that it’s not near (or soon will lose) that level of sophistication any more. Instead, Iran is (most likely) busily developing Fat Man. It weighed 10,000 pounds and required a modified B-29 for delivery. Even assuming they can halve the weight of a similar design, you’re still at 5x what they can lift off the ground. To continue the rather apt WWII theme, the Shahab-3 is really more consistent with the B-17; it had a range of about 800 mi with a bomb-load of 4,500 lb (2,000 kg). Oh, wait, that’s still almost 4x the payload capacity of this missile. How about a well-regarded, frequently ship-based fighter/bomber of the same era? Well, at 2000lb we’re at least getting close.

It’s also worth noting that the damage potential from a North Korean high-explosive carrying missile of similar capabilities is considered so minor that:

As a result, Washington and Seoul have not placed the highest priority on North Korean short-range missiles in their negotiating strategies

Ultimately, we’re talking about a relatively low-payload, unguided missile. Even if they could rain them down like arrows on Tel Aviv, the damage would be scattered and relatively minor. Think: SCUDs. Or, to close the loop: V2s.

But: more to the point. What, exactly, is the New York Times providing here? Internet, TV, and radio can give us quick-hitting, context-free “OMG Iran is going to kill us all!!!!!!!” stories much more quickly (and probably more cheaply) than can the NYT or any other dead-tree news source. Why in the world do they spend time and resources aping that? To be first? Please. For print media to survive, it needs to be better than this; if any paper-source were churning out indispensable, immediate context and analysis the day after the news initially broke, with long-form analysis a day or two later, don’t you think they’d be just slightly more relevant? And infinitely better for our National Discourse? Instead, they provide us this. More of the same. Truly, a national treasure…