Driving in DC #6

One of the things I have not talked about enough on this blog is the insane highway intersections common throughout DC.

Washington, DC doesn't believe in merge lanes.  They also don't believe in giving adequate warning when an existing lane is going away.  The 14th Street Bridge is a prime example of that:

I think with that picture alone, a lot of people are groaning collectively.  We've all been bitten by this, and probably more than once.

For those who may not know, the 14th street bridge is a major artery into DC:

There are only a few bridges across the Potomac into DC, and the 14th street gets you into central DC pretty quickly.  The problem is, the right-most lane of the 14th Street Bridge peels off to L'Enfant Plaza and 12th street, and hardly anybody ever takes that exit.  It may have been a nice idea during the planning stages of the city -- to have this beautiful Promenade with shops and offices and a pretty view of the Washington Channel.  But it didn't work out that way, and we're left with this enormous 2-lane exit to Nowheresville.

Neophytes to DC get nailed all the time.  In the above picture, the right-most lane forces you off the highway (with no "EXIT ONLY" warning or anything) and the second-to-right lane gives you the option of taking the exit or not.  It's way, way more capacity than that exit needs.  Or deserves.

Every morning, you can count on 1 in 3 cars making a crazy, desperate maneuver to not get unceremoniously dumped onto L'Enfant Plaza and the promenade.  And, perhaps once per week, you get a traffic-snarling accident here when someone's daring maneuver fails to account for the car in their blind spot.

Oh, the joys.

Kollej keeps gettin' expensiver

A while ago, I posted about the insane rise of tuition over the years -- it's been about twice the rate of inflation since 1995.

While it's not "new" news, this post is an update to point out college tuition is still rapidly on the rise.  Public schools went up 7.9% (to $7,605), and private nonprofit schools showed remarkable restraint in only raising tuition by 4.5% -- leaving their annual tuition at a healthy $27,000.

This, at a time when the average family income has been flat over the past ten years:

I admit the above chart only goes until 2007, but as I've blogged before, the median household income in 2009 was still only $52,029.

Here's my rant: how on earth do the colleges and universities get away with charging such exorbitant rates for college?  The unfortunate answer is that it's being (largely) funded by Uncle Sam.  The dollar amount of Pell Grants alone have gone up by about 50% over the past 3 years, in addition to other federal aid.  

A vicious (or victorious, if you're of the college employed ilk) cycle is set up: the federal government (and other generous institutions) make efforts to provide grants and aid.  This makes more money available in the system.  The universities see this, and ratchet up tuition accordingly.  And banks, which loan a lot of money for efforts like this, get a windfall from the process.

Way back in April of 2009, President Obama called out universities and colleges, asking them to curb the rising costs of tuition.  If I were him, I would have called out a few prominent bankers and university presidents and publicly excoriated them for their largess.  

"The banks and lenders who have reaped a windfall from these subsidies have mobilized an army of lobbyists to try to keep things the way they are," Mr. Obama said.  "They are gearing up for battle.  So am I."

Sadly, I never heard the outcome of this.  At least, I didn't hear of a positive outcome, and the recent news that kicked off this post makes me think it wasn't successful.

Here's what really gets my goat: 

• As of July 2010, Harvard's endowment was valued at $27.6 billion and returning 11.0%.  
• Even if it was CONSERVATIVELY invested at 5%, that represents a return of $1.38 billion per year. 
• Spread this equally over the 6,700 undergraduates and the 14,500 graduate and professional students, and you get $65,000 to spend per student.

Harvard currently charges $50,724 for a year of tuition.  By this calculation, tuition should be free at Harvard.

This is freaking ridiculous.

The Illusion of Control

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the Singularity -- when machines might wrest intellectual power from us humans and take us into even more uncharted waters.  (Incidentally, that post got me my first internet quote.  Thanks, Rob!)  But it seems, in some cases, those wily engineers have already taken power from us.

This post will provide a few examples of cases where you thought you had control of something, but you usually don't.  If you enjoy living in ignorant bliss, you may not want to read much further.

Case #1: Crosswalk activation buttons.  You know those signs, right?  Push for Walk Signal.

Don't bother.  According to the regional NYTimes article linked above, over 2,500 out of 3,250 of the buttons don't work.  They're placebos.  Their best purpose in life is to give you something to do while you wait for the computer-actuated signal to turn colors.  The complex, carefully calibrated system is far too important to interrupt its busy schedule to make a special exception for you to cross the street.  This is not a new development, either:

By the late 1980's, most of the buttons had been deactivated, their steel exteriors masking the lie within. But city officials say they do not remember ever publishing an obituary, and the white and black signs stayed up, many of them looking as new and official as ever.

Case #2: Office thermostats.  Those gray boxes with a dial or two on the wall?  Their main purpose is to prevent you from calling the thermostat technician.

They don't do squat.  Trust me, the energy saved by your pointy-haired boss in regulating the temperature to some optimum level is worth far more than your temporary, puny discomfort.  And think about it: your average HVAC company has to deal with not just you, not just your neighbor, but probably 10 or 20 different office buildings, all in the same situation.  What would you do?

Does he feel bad? "I did what my employer told me to do," Mr. Dawson says. The complainers in the cubicles wore him out. "You just get tired of dealing with them and you screw in a cheap thermostat. Guess what? They quit calling you."

Case #3: Elevator Door Close buttons.  This one shocked me.

That "close door" button on elevators? It won't work unless you're a fireman or an elevator operator with special access to the system. The rest of the time, in deference to various building codes, it's deactivated, according to engineers at Otis Elevator.

All those buttons are doing are giving you something to pass the time while a computer whirrs happily in the background, waiting for some specified timer to expire.

Kids, don't try this at home.

Yucca Mountain Spotted Fever #3

One last follow-up to this whole Yucca Mountain / NRC / ASLB thing ...

I never did get a response back directly from Senator Inhofe, which isn't surprising.  A senator unlikely to respond to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who emails him or her, even if s/he does have a large staff.  I (naively?) hope they have better things to do, even if my e-mail was particularly well crafted.

But all is not lost: the NRC did take a vote, and the votes have become public.  In an effort to just get on with it, I'm just going to point you to this site, which has all the gory details, and continues to track the issue a lot closer than I will:

Nuclear Townhall

This whole issue would be more amusing if there weren't tens of billions of dollars at stake.

Yucca Mountain Spotted Fever #2

Back in February, I posted about the shenanigans that are taking place around the Yucca Mountain issue.  To summarize, the Department of Energy basically threw up its hands and said, "Forget it.  Burying spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain is becoming too much of a hassle, and we're going to go back to the drawing board."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which has been dutifully processing and reviewing the DOE's Yucca Mountain request for the past 3 years, didn't want to get directly involved with this matter.  So the NRC asked the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (or ASLB, a particularly brainy division of the NRC) to look at the DOE's decision in detail and give a recommendation back to the NRC.  Makes sense, right?  "Here, go take a look at this thorny issue and tell us what you find."

In June 2010, the ASLB issued a statement (PDF), waving the "baloney" flag vigorously.  That pdf is one of the most brilliantly written pieces of governmental language I've ever read, and it truly gives me hope in the future governance of our country.  Seriously.  It's clear, direct, thorough, and actually readable -- if a bit long after page 16 or so.  It states:

For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Congress directed both that DOE file the Application (as DOE concedes) and that the NRC consider the Application and issue a final, merits-based decision approving or disapproving the construction authorization application. Unless Congress directs otherwise, DOE may not single-handedly derail the legislated decision-making process by withdrawing the Application. DOE’s motion must therefore be denied.

There are some other really juicy quotes in there.

Did Congress, which so carefully preserved ultimate control over the multi-stage process that it crafted, intend—without ever saying so—that DOE could unilaterally withdraw the Application and prevent the NRC from considering it? We think not.

So the ASLB came back to the NRC and said, "No Way."  Per the law, if Yucca Mountain is to be truly axed, it must be done by Congress.

And here's where it gets really interesting.

The NRC never officially took action on the ASLB's report.  And the NRC unilaterally decided to stop processing the Yucca Mountain application last week.

Why, oh why, would the NRC do this?  Its own brainy division told it that it couldn't stop the review, even if DOE wanted to.  One strong possibility is the lingering connection between the Chairman of the NRC, Gregory Jaczko, and Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader from Nevada who has tried to stop Yucca Mountain from being operated in Nevada at all costs.  Before becoming chairman of the NRC, Jaczko was Harry Reid's appropriations director.

Huh.

So, earlier this week, Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma again restored my respect and hope in those who govern this country.  In a letter to each of the NRC Commissioners, he politely and directly asked two questions:

1. Have you voted on the ASLB's recommendation?  If so, when?
2. If not, when do you plan on voting?

This is brilliant in its simplicity: hold governmental organizations accountable.  I wish there was more of this.  I sent a letter to Senator Inhofe, congratulating him, and asking if he'd received any response from the commissioners.  No word yet, but I'll be happy to pass it along if I hear anything.

Fire, Sheep, and Fox

About a week ago, a new tool was released to the internet, called Firesheep.  To me, there's just something funny about the name.  Sheep are inherently cool, and fire implies something serious.  The juxtaposition is funny.

But the implications are serious. Firesheep allows a user to EASILY sniff traffic over an open WiFi network, and steal cookies -- basically, your login authentication for Facebook, Google, Amazon, Flickr, CNET, the New York Times, Twitter, yahoo, and a ton of other websites that don't use secure protocols like https or SSL.  A well-written demonstration of using this can be found here -- just plop yourself down at the nearest Starbucks and send polite warning messages to the 20+ Facebook and Amazon accounts you can access. Watch their response.

There's a big reason I put EASILY in the above paragraph in CAPITAL LETTERS.  Other tools for doing this (known as sidejacking) have been around for years (it was first demo'd at a BlackHat presentation in August of 2007), but none have never been as user-friendly and intuitive as Firesheep.  This is a plug-in for Firefox (hence the "fire" in firesheep), and someone's account can be accessed within about 10 seconds and a double mouse click.  It's that simple.  To quote an oft-used Apple idiom, It Just Works.

Many tech folks are dismissing this as yet another tool to exploit something we've already known.  And maybe they're right.  But I believe they're underestimating the value of making things user friendly.  The gold standard of this is Apple:

• They were not the first to invent the Personal Computer -- the window-based interface just made it easy to use.
• They were certainly not the first to invent the mp3 player -- they just made it easy to use, in a cool form factor.  
• They were not the first to invent the smart phone -- they just made it easy to use.

See a trend here?  I think Firesheep could develop the same way.  And although it may not appeal to everyday, innocent users of The Internets like you and me, I bet it has an incredibly strong appeal to pimply-faced technologically inclined teenagers.  And all it takes is some enterprising youth to camp out in a Beverly Hills Starbucks and wait for an unsuspecting celebrity to log in.  Instant tabloid news story, similar to the episode when Paris Hilton's smartphone got hacked over Bluetooth.

In a worst-case scenario, this would spook 95% of Facebook users, who run screaming from the site and dump their accounts before Facebook implements a solution.  Panics have happened on Wall Street many times; we're probably due for one on the Internet soon, too.

How to protect yourself against this?

• There's already a counter program out there called FireShepherd, but it's kind of brute-force and not very user friendly.  Or network friendly.  But it's better than nothin'.
• Make sure your gmail is set to always use https.

Just be aware of what's out there.  There's a whole lot of Not Privacy on the internet.

When your only tool's a hammer ...

... all the world looks like a nail.

The above quote is attributed to Abraham Maslow, and it rings true time and time again.  In this particular case, I think it applies to The Federal Reserve.

News flash for those who have been living under a rock: housing prices have NOT been rising indefinitely (as many investment products were designed to take advantage of), and when this pyramid scheme began to unravel (I love mixed metaphors), a ton of things happened very rapidly.  Credit markets dried up; countless business plans that were based on aggressive growth failed; countless more projects dried up or did not get funded in the first place, and unemployment shot up above 10%.  The Fed pulled the biggest lever it could, and dropped its lending interest rates like a rock:

Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Interest-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD

Look again.  The interest rate has been almost ZERO since January 2009.  Twenty months and counting.  Historically, it's usually around 5%, but was as high as 20% in March 1980.  Banks and other major financial institutions can borrow money for free.

This is a slightly indirect way of pumping money into the economy.  Allowing borrowers (big banks, in this case) to borrow money on the cheap is an attempt to loosen things up a bit in the financial markets, and hopefully stimulate new projects, new industries, and new jobs.

But it just hasn't been enough.  And here's the point of this post: the Fed is considering new ways of pumping more money into the economy.  They've got their hammer, and they're lookin' for nails.

What has been the result of the absurdly low interest rate over the past 20 months?

1. It has probably stemmed the loss of jobs in this country.  Sorry, I don't have a definitely source to cite for that; it's just my opinion.
2. It has not turned the economy around.  (See current unemployment rate.)
3. Large companies, given the opportunity to borrow large amounts of money basically for free, have been investing in themselves and buying back their own stock.

Let me underscore that "buying back their own stock" point: there has been $258 billion dollars in stock buyback this year, compared to $52 billion at this time last year.  And they're getting the money to do it from Uncle Sam.

Imagine the corporate boardroom discussions, happening all around the US:

Chief Financial Officer: "Hey, we can get a loan from XYZ financial institution for $2 billion at 0.1% interest per year.  That's the lowest cost of money, ever."
Chief Executive Officer: "Sounds like a good deal.  I want each of my division leaders to examine what they could do with an extra $500 million this year."

---THE NEXT WEEK---

Chief Financial Officer: "Boss, all of the divisions say they can start some projects, but can only estimate a return of 3-4% in the next year on our investment."
Chief Executive Officer: "What??!?  3-4% return on investment?  That's a miserable deal for our stockholders!  I expect our stock price alone will go up 10% this year!  Why would I invest in R&D at a 3-4% return when I can invest it in myself and make at least 10%?  The stockholders will be happier, too."

Hopefully I've made the point pretty clear by now.  The Fed has a hammer: the interest rate it sets when loaning Fed money to banks.  It's a really big hammer.  It can be very effective when the economy is chugging along.  But when it's sputtering, it's not a very effective hammer.

The road to recovery is not paved by giving money to corporations so they can buy their own stocks back.  That doesn't create new jobs, and it really only helps those people who already own vast amounts of stock.  It doesn't put bread on anyone's table that isn't already covered in filet mignon.  Instead, I think the Fed needs to find new ways to *directly* create new jobs, or provide better incentives that will push industry to create new jobs.  If the Fed can't do it, then stand back and let another government organization stimulate the economy.  This kind of "new thinking" isn't the message we've been getting from the Fed.

I'm worried about the "quantitative easing" measures that are bandied about now -- another fancy way of pumping money into the system.  They don't address the problem at hand, and they have a cost that we'll have to pay off (specifically, my generation) in the future.  And it didn't really work for Japan when they tried it before, but they're trying it again anyhow.

A hammer is a very poor choice of tool for a screw.  And the economy looks screwy to me.

The Singularity

There's a concept among futurists and science fiction folks known as The Singularity.  While there is no formal definition, it goes something like this:

Mankind's progress and rate of learning so far has been limited by the ability of our brains to process, assemble, and assimilate information.  There may come a time in the future when we build a robot or a software computer program that is, effectively, smarter than we are.  At that point, the pace and progress of learning is no longer bound by our brains.

That moment is known as the singularity.  After that moment, it becomes impossible for us to predict the future, because it grows faster than we can comprehend.  Vernor Vinge wrote about this in a 1993 article, but it was really first coined in an article from way back in 1965: "Speculations Concerning the First Ultimate Machine."  Since then, many books and articles have been written about it.  Business Week even had a blurb on it back in 1999, as they were making predictions for the 21st century.

I tell you all this as background, for it appears we're one step closer to this point: Carnegie Mellon has devised a computer that can read, and learn from, the internet.  Called NELL, for Never Ending Language Learner, it can browse and parse the internet, and form "beliefs" based on what's out there.

I freely grant that the internet is not the Paragon of Truth, and based on volume, NELL is more likely to emerge as a whiny teenager with a penchant for anarchy than it is to become a wise oracle.  But still: it can learn and process, and it can browse and internalize a whole lot more of the internet than you or I can.  With a few more years and a few more terabytes of memory, we could be in for a heck of a ride.