The Age of Technology

I was browsing through the New York Times today and found a very interesting article about a recurring theme of Excel coding errors.  This may not seem important, but these errors tend to be on major projects and research that affect the whole country.  Here is the article.

A few examples of these errors are as follows:  "In this age of information, math errors can lead to disaster. NASA’s Mars Orbiter crashed because engineers forgot to convert to metric measurements; JPMorgan Chase’s 'London Whale' venture went bad in part because modelers divided by a sum instead of an average."

These are significant errors that lead to disaster and losses of millions of dollars.  Yes, technology has certainly improved many different areas, but we must be cognizant of the possibility of errors.  For example, there was a study done by two economists at Harvard.  This research was determining if there was a correlation between debt and economic growth.  The conclusion of this study was that once debt reaches 90% of the GDP, economic growth slows significantly.

This study came out a few weeks before the Greek crisis, which seemed to follow suit with the study.  As a result, almost everyone took the 90% threshold as fact, not theory.  News stations were referencing the 90% rule when advocating government spending cuts.  These cuts would lower debt, but also get rid of benefits for the unemployed.  And why was the reason this idea arose?  The Harvard study.

When researchers at U Mass looked over the data, they found an Excel coding error.  When corrected, there was absolutely no correlation between 90% of the GDP in debt and economic growth slowing.  What is to be learned?  In an age of technology, people are relying too heavily on electronic devices and programs that may have mistakes.  The 90% fiasco was a huge deal and could have seriously affected millions of Americans even though it wasn't a proven theory. Americans jump to conclusions when they hear an idea.  This can lead to problems.  Technology is beneficial, but we cannot rely too much on it.

Do you think Americans rely too heavily on technology?  Why or why not?  And what can we do to prevent these errors and misconceptions?  Please leave comments below.

You're a Winner! Or are you?

I was watching the news today when the lottery pickings came on so I wanted to follow up on my earlier post.  This post talks about how the lottery is a tax on people that are bad at math, but so are slot machines.  Here is a website that explains how slot machines work and some good strategies to use for slot players.

So to simplify things, slot machines are rigged.  The casino controls how much each player wins per spin and have it set up in a recurring cycle so they are profitable after programing the machine once.  However, they cannot give the player no chance of winning because then no one would use the machine.  As a result, they entice players by giving them a profitable return so they feel like they have a chance, only to let them go another 10 turns without making money.  Then they'll win again, but will not win enough money to offset the amount they lost previously.  This tactic works very well because it toys with the mind and makes a player think they can win.

But once again, why would anyone play?  I would say that more people are aware of the lottery odds than the odds of winning at slots, but most people still know it's a ripoff.  Some do it for entertainment, some to pass time, but anyone that thinks that they will make money off slot machines is kidding themselves.  The casino generally rigs it so they have a 6.58% profit margin, which is pretty damn good for a machine that sits in a casino day in and day out. 

Why do you think people play slot machines if the odds are against them?  And do you think it is unfair for casinos to prey on unintelligent bettors?  Why or why not?  Please comment below.

The Truth Behind Student Loans

As I was working on my Junior Theme, I came across an article explaining how high student loans are getting.  My Junior Theme topic is consumer debt, and one of my sections focuses on how student loans are a big catalyst to in increase in consumer debt.  I always knew the cost of college was very expensive; however, I did not realize how much people go into debt, evidenced by this article.

Amazingly enough, "the total loans outstanding exceed $1-trillion now, which is far greater than either credit-card or car-loan debt".  This number really pops out to me because millions upon millions of people use their credit cards every day to make purchases.  Furthermore, credit cards get the majority of attention when people talk about sectors that cause the most debt.  But to think that the cost of education is so steep that the majority of student must go into debt is sickening.

"Students finish college with an average debt of more than $25,000.  Some students owe more than $100,000".  $25,000 is a lot of money for someone coming directly out of college, especially when they are not guaranteed a job with good income.  Additionally, that loan is going to have an interest rate, making that $25,000 much higher.

It is understandable that colleges want money for providing an education, but really?  Does it have to be $40,000 a year?  Yes, many colleges offer scholarships and/or financial aid, but those discounts only account for part of the tuition.  There is also room and board, books, food etc., which can really add up.

Do we really want college students to experience this rate of indebtedness?  Colleges are not setting a good example of how to lead a successful life.  They are teaching students that debt is normal and it is nothing to worry about.  Then the students receive a bill saying how much interest they have to pay and then they truly understand how much of a scam debt is.  It is normal to incur debt when buying a house or making a big investment, but not when it isn't necessary.

How do you think colleges should approach putting their students in debt?  And do you think debt is a fundamental problem in this country? Why or why not?   Feel free to comment below.

"Same Love"

This morning,  I did my normal routine of waking up, eating breakfast, and going to the bus.  Every morning on the bus, I plug in my headphones and listen to music.   However, for some reason, today more than other days, I focused on the lyrics of the song.  One song that particularly struck me was "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, featuring Miranda Lambert.  Here are the lyrics of the song.

In this song, Macklemore focuses on how gay people are not treated equally to straight people: "Gay is synonymous with the lesser".  It's hard to argue that gays are treated equally to straights, especially when culture accepts this reality.  Macklemore recognizes this acceptance of culture as well: "'Man that's gay' gets dropped on the daily, we've become so to what we're saying".  I have to admit that I used to occasionally use the word "gay" in a derogatory way until I began to realize how offensive it really was.  As a result, many people are afraid to admit that they are gay for the fear that they may be ostracized.

I, like Macklemore, am not gay, but I also have a gay member in my nuclear family and I realize the severity of inequality.  The United States Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal"; however, are gay people really treated as equals?  Currently, I would argue they are not treated equally.  Gays are in a similar boat as African-Americans were when they were fighting for their equality during the Civil Rights Movement.

The Civil Rights Movement resulted in the Civil Rights Act, which was a step in the right direction, even though it did not solve the social problems.  Macklemore sings, "And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all, but it's a damn good place to start".  After gays can legally marry, they will be legally equal, but then the next step would be social acceptance.  "No law's gonna change us, we have to change us".  It's going to take a public acceptance in order for gays to feel equal, allowing gays to come out of the closet.  A lot of work needs to be done in order for gays to feel equal, but many states that have legalized gay marriage have made a good start.

Why do you think gays are treated unfairly?  What do people have against gays?  Please comment below.

Selection Sunday

As I write this post, I am sitting in front of my TV, watching the endless series of Bracketology shows.  For those of you that are not familiar with bracketology, it is a show that discusses all of the matchups in the NCAA Basketball tournament.

Over the past few decades, bracketology has been increasingly popular and is becoming part of the American culture.  In fact, 60% of people say that they will be filling out a bracket this year, whether they know anything about college basketball or not.  Actually, I have some relatives that pick winners based on the name of the school or the colors of their logo.  For sports fans, March Madness is one of the best times of the year, with games every week and incredible underdogs to root for.

So why do Americans love filling out brackets and watching March Madness?  Do Americans love underdogs?  Is it a social talking point?  I believe it is part of American culture.  Americans LOVE to win.  Consequently, when there is an opportunity to have the best bracket, they jump on the opportunity.  I mean, who wouldn't want to have the most accurate bracket in the US and win up to $1 million.  Competitiveness is in the blood of Americans and there is no changing it.  I myself am a sports fanatic but also am extremely competitive so filling out a bracket is a perfect way for me to combine two of my characteristics.  So go print out a bracket, and write down whoever you want, because chances are your neighbor is doing it too.

Why do you think everyone obsesses about March Madness brackets?  And will you be filling out a bracket this year?  Feel free to leave comments below.

Routine DNA Testing- Constitutional or Not?

Last week in Biology class, we discussed that following an arrest, DNA samples are collected from the suspect and stored in databases.  While initially I thought this may be an effective method to identify criminals, I began to question whether it was constitutional.  Then I read an article that addressed this topic in greater depth and the article referenced the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King [12-207].

In some states, DNA is taken from every person that is taken into police custody, whether they are guilty of a crime or not.  This means that anyone who gets arrested, not necessarily charged with a crime, has to give their DNA, an integral part of their identification.

Although, according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "lots of murders, lots of rapes can be solved using this new technology", it also pushes the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure without probable cause.  However, the police are taking the DNA of people that may be completely innocent.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked sarcastically, "I'll bet if you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you'd get more convictions, too."  Scalia clearly believes that routine DNA testing is wrong because it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Without any evidence of a criminal conviction, the government can take DNA from citizens that are arrested.  Therefore, I believe that it is unconstitutional to DNA test suspects following an arrest because it violates the Fourth Amendment.  I would not want my DNA sitting in a government database for them to test and monitor without my permission, especially if I was not convicted of a crime.  On the other hand, there is the possibility that criminals could be detected, preventing more crimes.  Is it worth taking the DNA of the innocent with the hope of stopping the guilty?

Would you want the government to have your DNA in their database? And do you think DNA testing after arrests violates the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.

The Sequester

This past Friday, the US government passed the deadline for the sequester, automatically initiating budget cuts.  However, some of these cuts make absolutely no sense.  One automatic cut is regarding the distribution of vaccines.  This article explains why this cut is absurd.

First of all, this cut does not make sense in terms of disease prevention.  Without giving certain vaccinations to large quantities of people, there is a higher chance of the reemergence of diseases that  have been non-existant for years such as polio.

Additionally, vaccines are used in order to save money: "Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective preventative strategies in health care, saving billions of dollars a year".  Why would the government cut something that saves money?!?!?!  Some of the sequester cuts are understandable but seriously. Yes, cuts had to be made, but don't make cuts in a sector that will lead to more debt.  Also, the government claims they care significantly about healthcare, but are depriving people from receiving vaccines.  

If the government truly cared about the health of the people, they would cut from a different sector.   Yes, it's upsetting that they are giving less money for vaccines, but that isn't what is frustrating.  What is frustrating is that the government spends money on many unneeded projects, but when they do decide to cut spending, they are making the debt worse.  How does it make any logical sense to cut something that will put you in more debt than if you didn't cut it at all?  IT DOESN'T

Do you think the government is doing the right thing by cutting spending on vaccinations?  And do you think the government spends uncontrollably on unnecessary projects? Please leave comments below.