Thursday, September 25, 2008
Washington Mutual, that I have some stock in, is going under. AIG just started cracking, Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, new home sales are the lowest in 17 years, home values are still falling, oil is still way to expensive and going up, gasoline shortages, Fannie and Freddie were just bailed out, job loss is rising, loans are increasingly difficult to get (especially for those with fair to decent credit), and to top it off, the market for mortgage backed securities and interbank loans disappeared last week.
This last one prompted the Federal Government to freak out and launch this 700 billion dollar bail out plan and this started to make me think. I mean, doesn't the government have a ton of safe guards in place to keep the economy from tanking already? What about the lessons learned from the Great Depression like a limit on how much the market can lose in one day or the FDIC or Fannie and Freddie? All of these things are supposed to keep our financial system from tanking. Fannie and Freddie guarantee a trillion dollars in mortgages, the FDIC insures the assets held by banks that collectively have a total of 13.4 trillion in assets. Now, on top of all this, the government is so freaked out that it is proposing more, 700 billion more, to stop the economy from crashing by essentially privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to prop up the economy. To put 700 billion in perspective, the total amount of credit card debt held by Americans is about 850 billion. The total cost of the Iraq war from 2003 - 2008 was been about 700 billion dollars.
That has to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside concerning the state of our economy. Personally, I think I'm starting to see the writing on the wall. For the last year, I've noticed that the optimists are now starting to talk about "tough" times ahead and the cynics have changed their tones from "tough" times to economic Armageddon.
We shall see...as for me, I'm going to try to eliminate as much debt as possible and put my finances in order to prepare for whatever is coming.
Monday, August 11, 2008
So, here is a cool image that shows the size comparisons of Mars, Ganymede, Mercury, and The Moon. Now, in case you are wondering (and I know you are), "What is Ganymede?" Ganymede is the largest moon in our solar system and it orbits Jupiter. Everything is bigger at Jupiter. Ganymede is actually bigger than the planet Mercury and almost as big as Mars! And if you also happened to be wondering, the only other moon larger than Mercury is Saturn's moon Titan.
Mars' diameter is 4222 miles
Ganymede's diameter is 3270 miles
Mercury's diameter is 3033 miles
The Moon's diameter is 2160 miles
Now, the official name of The Moon really is The Moon. Weird right? I mean all the other moons in the solar system have names like Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Ariel, etc. But our moon is just called The Moon. Wow...really? So that leaves us with no other option than to refer to ancient mythologies for names for the Moon. The Romans called it Luna and the Greeks called it Selene.
Since there's so much talk about the Moon, here's an image to the right of the side you never get to see *yawn* Yeah, our side is much more interesting.
Anyway, Selene sounds too girly, unless you're into the whole "mother" earth thing. I prefer to call it Luna (or Lua in Portuguese). Besides, most of the planets are named after Roman gods anyways.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
How big is it? Well, let's put it this way, if you took the combined mass of all the known asteroids Ceres' mass makes up more than 1/3 of that total.
That's big enough to take on a spherical shape apparently. If you want to know the exact size, it's 578 miles in diameter.
The picture on the left is from Hubble and is the best picture we have of Ceres. However, in 2007 a spacecraft was launched to visit Ceres by 2015. The spacecraft is called Dawn and will pass by Vesta first, which could be the second largest asteroid in the solar system with an irregular diameter that averages around 500 miles.
Ceres is icy like Jupiter's moons Callisto and Europa, but Vesta is all rock.
On the right is a picture comparing Ceres size to Earth.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
For all of you out there that are in Texas District 18, vote for John Faulk so we can oust career liberal politician Sheila Jackson Lee. She is part of the reason Congress' approval rating is 9%.
If you're not in Texas District 18, then find out which district you are in. In fact, find out who all of your Federal and State representatives are and which district you are in. One great place to do this is to go to www.congress.org and enter your zip code. You may have to enter your complete address to narrow it down enough. This site also lets you send letters and emails to your representatives.
Another great site for finding your district is www.nationalatlas.gov
Sunday, July 27, 2008
So if you're an oil company:
A lease must be obtained to explore for oil and gas using geophysical technologies such as reflection and refraction seismic, magnetic surveys, geologic surveys, etc. Once a location is deemed as having potential, a permit must be obtained, if not already included in the exploration lease, to do exploratory drilling. Drilling can cost millions, so you don't want to drill a dry hole. If oil is found, then you can obtain another permit to build a production facility to pump out the oil.
Now, the United States has already seen extensive onshore exploration and the big easy oil fields have already been found. The millions of acres of leases Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats talk about are for small pockets of possible oil that dot the landscape. This is risky because your chances of drilling lots of dry wells looking for the oil is high. Spending all that money is not attractive to oil businesses big or small, especially with no guarantee of a good return. Offshore is a different story. Much of it remains unexplored as the government currently will not give permits or leases for anyone to explore for oil and gas offshore since the ban, not to mention drilling. There are some big finds offshore that were found back in the heyday of oil exploration, but technology did not allow for deep water drilling.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
This image is incredible and baffles scientists as they have no idea what could be causing this hurricane-like storm on Saturn's north pole to look like a hexagon.
"This is a very strange feature, lying in a precise geometric fashion with six nearly equally straight sides," said Kevin Baines, atmospheric expert and member of Cassini's visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "We've never seen anything like this on any other planet. Indeed, Saturn's thick atmosphere, where circularly-shaped waves and convective cells dominate, is perhaps the last place you'd expect to see such a six-sided geometric figure, yet there it is."
The hexagon is nearly 15,000 miles (25,000 kilometers) across. Nearly four Earths could fit inside it. The thermal imagery shows the hexagon extends about 60 miles (100 kilometers) down into the clouds.
Another interesting mystery our universe continues to surprise us with.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the basis of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is that the scientific community is not as objective as it should be on hot button issues. The Theory of Evolution is used as an example of how science has been transformed into a battlefield for a war between theists and atheists. Pride, politics, preconceptions, and political correctness have all turned the scientific community into a "hostile and subjective" environment for theories that go against mainstream thinking.
Even though this may be true to a certain extent, I believe that those that view science as attacking religion and vice versa are missing the larger point, "Truth goes beyond established facts." All our scientific knowledge is only a small piece of the complete "truth" of the universe, despite the fact that many scientists and atheists consider the scientific method the end all of epistemological methods. There are many other places where knowledge and truth can be found, such as in philosophy or the arts, and do I dare say it, the one true religion.
Finally, as far as ID goes, it fails as a scientific theory largely because people view it as another attempt by creationists to teach religion in our schools (as implied in the movie). It also fails as a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, another curiosity of science that limits its ability to think outside the box and constrains it to truth in "observable reality" (which is only as good as the instruments we use). If it cannot be observed then it does not exist according to science and that is why science will never discover all truth.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Now, by ridiculous, I mean absurd and meaningless.
The other day I was ticketed on Highway 59, driving out of Houston toward Beltway 8. I was going 79 MPH in a 60 MPH zone. Now, at first glance that may seem like excessive speed and maybe it was a little too fast, but the posted speed limit of 60 MPH is absolutely maddening!
First of all, this freeway is HUGE. 5 lanes wide, brand new as far as freeways go, and originally designed for higher speeds than 60 MPH (65 - 70 MPH). Since my ticket I've noticed that many speed traps are setup regularly on this stretch of highway. Every time I pass them now, I'm going, as well as everyone else, 70 MPH. I've discovered that the police will not bother with you if you are going only 70 MPH, even though it is 10 over the limit. I see many motorists that were pulled over like I was and I can't help but sympathize with them.
Now, the conclusion I have on this is that the cops understand that the posted speed limit is ridiculous. The freeway was designed for higher speeds and they know it too. That is why they will not bother with you until you've passed a threshold (I believe it is close to 73+ MPH).
Now, after receiving this ticket I did some research online to find out why the speed limit was set so low on this wide, straight, pristine freeway and I discovered that an environmental group was behind it (TCEQ - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). Bottom-line, TCEQ pushed for the speed limit on all freeways in the Houston - Galveston area with 65 or 70 MPH speed limits to be changed to 60 and 65 MPH respectively, to "protect the environment" from American's evil SUVs and gasoline engines. In 2002, they convinced the Texas Department of Transportation to do this and didn't stop there, they pushed again to cap all speed limits in the area at 55 MPH.
Well, as you can imagine, there was such a backlash that the TCEQ relented and went back to their 5 MPH reduction scheme. Shortly thereafter, in 2003, the Texas Legislature prospectively banned environmental speed limits. Unfortunately for people like me, the wording of the bill allows environmental speed limits already in place to remain indefinitely; no new miles of roadway may be subjected to environmental speed limits, however.
In case you thinking, "Hey, lower speed limits are important for the environment," think about this:
Isn't that worth reducing the speed limit and inconveniencing everyone?
Initial studies found that lower speed limits could bring the areas roughly 1.5% closer to compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. However, follow up studies found that the actual reduction is far less:
With both of these facts combined, it is possible that the speed limit reductions only provide a thousandth of the total emissions reductions necessary for Clean Air Act compliance.
- The emissions modeling software initially used, MOBILE 5a, overestimated the emissions contribution of speed limit reductions. Rerunning the models with the next generation software, MOBILE 6, produced dramatically lower emissions reductions.
- Speed checks in the Dallas area performed 1 year after implementation of speed limit reductions show that actual speed reductions are only about 1.6 mph, a fraction of the anticipated 10% (5.5 mph) speed reduction.
Now, in case you are thinking, "Hey, lower speed limits are better for safety anyways, remember the National Speed Limit of 55? So let's keep them low!" Consider this:
It was believed that, based on a drop in fatalities the first year the limit was imposed, the 55 mph limit increased highway safety. Other studies were more mixed on this point, and a Cato Institute report showed that the safety record actually worsened in the first few months of the 55 mph speed limit, suggesting that the fatality drop was a short-lived anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978. After the oil crisis abated, the 55 mph speed limit was retained mainly due to the possible safety aspect.Furthermore, in 1986 The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a study claiming that the total fuel savings during the national speed limit was no more than 1% overall.
Other studies have shown that motorists generally pick reasonable speeds for conditions. For example, the 75 mph (120 km/h) speed limit in the U.S. State of South Dakota has good compliance: the average speed is less than or equal to the posted limit almost a decade after it was increased. When speed limits are set artificially low, tailgating, weaving and speed variance (the problem of some cars traveling significantly faster than others) make roads less safe.
Whew! Okay, I know this has been a long rant, but are you starting to get the point? I believe that a vast majority of the drivers on the road drive at a speed that they honestly believe is safe and comfortable depending on traffic, weather, and other driving conditions. Most people are smart and considerate in this regard. It is difficult for me to honestly believe that cops that pull people over for going 70 or 75 MPH on this stretch of the road because the "speed limit" is 60 MPH are making the roads safer. It seems to me that they are simply conducting revenue enforcement for the city. You want to ticket the really unsafe drivers? Ticket the ones that are tailgating, swerving and cutting, not using their blinkers, etc. Those are the truly unsafe drivers, not those going 75 MPH when everyone is going 70 in an absurd, artificially low, 60 MPH zone.
Now don't get me wrong, if the speed limit were say 70 MPH on this stretch of road (as I think it should be, or at least 65), and someone speeds by going 90, then yes, that is unsafe. The road was not designed for that speed and more than likely, neither was their car and the speed variance is too great.
Anyway, I'm done with my rant now.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
There is no evidence that God exists, period. Now, some say that creation itself is irrefutable evidence that God exists, but this does not satisfy science or atheists. They claim that it is just an illusion, that seeing design in the universe is a falsehood, just a pattern recognition function of the human brain.
Personally, I couldn’t disagree more and see this argument as a futile attempt to deny the possibility of God’s existence. However, the fact remains, there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
What about the testimony of 95% of the world you say? Well, that’s just a classic example of argumentum ad populum (If many believe so, it is so). Like saying the earth is flat because everybody believes it to be.
Again, I think it’s a mistake to immediately discredit the testimony of so many especially when there is no evidence to the contrary. I believe that people may have their own personal revelation that God exists, but God is not going to give them empirical evidence to scientifically prove his existence to the world. That is not how the plan of salvation works. It's all about faith and acting on that faith, if it weren’t so, then the whole point of mortality vanishes. The meaning of life is destroyed and you are left with the hope of an atheist that science or technology will save us. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn’t it?
Again, there is no empirical evidence that God exists. This holds true if you only believe in the Bible, or if you believe in both the bible and Book of Mormon. God has not revealed empirical evidence of the Exodus, or
Now, there may be scattered pieces of evidence found through archaeology, but one cannot connect the many dots objectively to prove God’s existence or the absolute veracity of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It is just too easy to interpret the evidence differently. This may change in the future as the Millennium approaches, but who knows.
Bottom-line, as with all things spiritual, it is all about faith. Even if you have had a fantastic personal revelation or vision, you will not be able to convince anybody else demanding proof. Only through faith can one come to know the truth byway of the Holy Ghost.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
This is the line that I draw and it is my opinion that official church doctrine is:
1) a much smaller encompassing "circle" when compared to the gospel as a whole, which is in turn a smaller encompassing "circle" when compared to the complete truth (revealed and unrevealed).
2) any statement published by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and ratified by the body of the church
3) any statement published by the First Presidency and ratified by the body of the church
4) any statement published by both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then ratified by the body of the church
5) any statement made by the living prophet to the body of the church when "moved" upon by the Holy Ghost (he is not constantly "moved" upon by the Holy Ghost even though he has the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost), which is then ratified by the body of the church
6) Canonized scripture (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP, Declarations)
7) the only measure by which members of the church will be judged on at the last day
For example, I would accept the Proclamation to the World as "official" doctrine. I believe the Gospel Principles handbook closely mirrors the official doctrine of the church, but is not in itself official doctrine. Besides not meeting the criteria I set forth, they occasionally make changes here and there to bring it closer to what is official.
Another example is Jesus the Christ. It is not official doctrine because it failed the ratification by the body of the church test when presented for canonization.
It is also my belief that many people "stumble" when they stray outside this defined scope of official doctrine and begin to include journal of discourses, anything a prophet said during his entire life, opinions and speculation of prophets and other church leaders, something an Elder somewhere in Albania once said, or the Book of Lehi (you can google it these days). Those opposed to the church love to include all of this as "official" doctrine of the church and use it to tell members what they REALLY believe in. There are truths to be found, in my opinion, in some of these sources, but it is not official doctrine, merely opinion and speculation which everyone is entitled, including church leaders. Refer to Alma 40:20 if you think prophets cannot have their own opinions.
So where do you think the line is drawn?
Friday, May 30, 2008
It's amazing how atheists love to jump behind the scientific method as the only acceptable epistemological method of learning truths. They jump into this "box" largely to protect their beliefs from attacks from "other" sources of truth such as feelings, philosophy, the arts, and revelation. To them, the scientific method is the "end all" of ways to discover truth. In my opinion, that's awfully convenient for their belief system and horribly restrictive to just observed reality. The scientific method is only as good as our instruments, thus, there remains many unseen truths yet to be discovered, some of which can be discovered through other methods and subjects as aforementioned.
One of the greatest pitfalls for atheists when dealing with Christianity, is that traditional Christianity is fantastically confusing and irrational. Below is an excerpt from an atheist regarding how unreasonable Christianity sounds to him:
"Please explain a three-in-one creator deity that created humans from mudpies and ribcages, then a talking snake in a magic garden told them not to eat an apple but they did eat an apple so that's why there are natural disasters and cancer and childhood deaths and rape and murder, and then the three-in-one deity sent a third of himself down to earth to impregnate a woman with another third of himself, then that third of himself sacrificed himself to another third of himself to spare us all from the wrath of the collective whole. Until you do, I do not have to consider your stance to be rational."
Now, the above statement would be difficult for the average Christian to explain in a rational way, in fact, impossible. The above demonstrates exactly how perverted the original Christian teachings of Jesus Christ have become. The bible has many missing pieces from lost books and letters to translation errors to intentionally removed pieces. If this were not the case, there would not be this confusion concerning Christianity, the biblical accounts would make perfect sense, instead they lead to this confusion which really is impossible to explain in a rational and logical way without divine intervention and interpretation.