Healthcare: A Question of Morals or Economics?
I’ve been doing a lot of reading of Allie’s recent posts on healthcare since she’s now in what looks like a very interesting class on public health policy.
In her first post, she responds to the question of whether or not health care is a right or a commodity and answers that it ought to be a right:
“It’s not a question of economics but a question of morals. The United States spends more of its GDP annually on helath care than any other developing [I assume she meant developed] country yet it is the only one that does not have universal health care. This indicates that the United States health providers and policy makers do not consider that health is a right for every single human being. Who says a single mother working two part time jobs and raising two children doesn’t have the right to access effective health care (preventative and treatment) but the soccer mom in the suburbs whose husband works in a firm that provides a family health plan does? What about illegal farmworkers that are subjected to the toughest conditions and toxins every day, do they deserve healthcare? Did you know that those who belong in the 20s age group has one of the highest rates of uninsured because they’ve just come out of college and do not have a steady job or cannot hold jobs that gaurentee health care.“
I think it’s a very problematic position to take.
- Statistically, we can argue back and forth for days about just how bad access to health care is. I can cite reasonable studies from the Cato Institute among other organizations which point out that the numbers of “uninsured” oftentimes cited are also composed of those who have rationally chosen to forego insurance (because they assess the risk to their health as not high enough to justify paying premiums) or who are between jobs and have insurance coverage for the mjajority of the year or who are Medicaid/Medicare eligible, or an NEJM study that the advent of insurance has kept it so that the actual out-of-pocket expenses per person as a percentage of income have not changed all that much. Of course, this doesn’t deny that there is an access problem. I’m not trying to pretend that everything’s fine and dandy, but just that most estimates of how bad the problem is are probably overstating the problem and hence I don’t think its a sufficient case to demand that healthcare ought to be a “right”.
- The United States has the finest healthcare system in the world. I’m not aware of any serious questioning of that. I think this is a testament not only to the dedication of the many doctors and scientists in the US, but also to the market system which efficiently allocates resources and talent to maximize productivity and efficiently matches patient’s desires with willing and able healthcare providers. Fundamentally then, its the concept of health care as a “commodity” which has enabled this. Who cares if the conception of something as a commodity is somewhat repulsive (I’ll freely admit that I find the idea of healthcare as a right has a much more “feel-good” feeling to it) if it gets the job done?
- If healthcare is a right, and not a commodity, then certain questions have to be answered — questions which have traditionally been answered by governments very poorly: Who gets the best doctors? Who gets the worse doctors? How much do doctors get paid? Should a person with more money be allowed to pay for better healthcare or extra services? Should we have privatized health spending at all? What qualifies as a healthcare consideration and what doesn’t (ie nose job vs reconstructive surgery, anti-schizophrenia drugs vs “i’m feeling depressed, can you give me meds?”)? Not everyone’s going to answer these questions in the same way, and not everyone is going to be happy with how other people answer this.
- The big question — WHO PAYS FOR IT!? If health care is a right that must be paid for, then are we not just trampling on someone else’s right to property to force them to pay for someone else? Or, if redistributive questions don’t bother you, what if there is a health procedure that I find morally objectionable (ie circumcision, abortion, birth control, or if I’m Tom Cruise — painkillers)? Should I be forced to put my money into something that I don’t want to sponsor? On a more traditional economics level, if people no longer have to pay their doctors, then what is to reward good doctors? What is to punish bad doctors? What is to keep patients from ordering too many tests or overly-expensive meds? I think most doctors would argue that the doctor-patient dialogue ought to be what determines healthcare choices, but at the point healthcare is a right which the government must provide, then we reach a point where that dialogue cannot ever (for reasons that I hope are patently clear) take first priority.
Just because there are problems of equity and just because most humane and rational individuals would agree that increasing access to health care is a good thing doesn’t mean that rational solutions can begin by deeming health care as a right as opposed to a commodity. In her second post, Allie does back off from the purely idealistic positioning to talk about practical issues, but from my (I’ll admit, limited) understanding, it seems to me that “health care as a right” is not the idea that one ought to begin with as it forces problems which lead to compromising quality.
I would even go so far to argue that most countries with universal health care systems are only able to maintain quality in the face of the fact that the United States and India and China maintain a mostly privatized, non-universal systems of health care and cheap research and development with the ability to reap large rewards and gains from innovation and good service.
This, however, shouldn’t be interpreted as a defense for the current state of healthcare in the United States. There are serious problems both with regards to equity and with efficiency/quality in the current system. This is solely an objection with starting from the position that “healthcare is a right”.
Are Movie Stars Worth It?
There’s no doubt that the big stars make a ton, something studied in a field called “superstar economics” (no joke) which was first termed by Sherman Rosen, a UChicago economist who argued that in a world that is incresingly dependent on technology, those who are mediocre workers are seeing their salaries go down while those who are exceptional and superb, in other words, superstars are seeing their salaries skyrocket, with the result being that superstars on a whole reduce the total revenue generated but dramatically make sure that a huge chunk of it goes to superstars. This New York Times article points out that in the music biz:
In a study about ticket prices for concerts, the Princeton economist Alan B. Krueger found that between 1983 and 2003 . . . the share of concert revenue taken by the top 5 percent of artists increased to 84 percent, from 62 percent.
But, if anything, just because superstars make a lot doesn’t mean its worth it to employ them — I mean, come on, is Brad Pitt really worth that asking price? Of course:
On average, movies that have big names starring in them make more money at the box office than movies that do not.
But is it really the stars’ presence that does this? First, there are tons of movies that have done remarkably well despite the lack of star power. Secondly, increasing revenue for films “due to stars” might only be increasing revenues due to increased distribution or the increased selling of merchandising rights (something pioneered by Star Wars — which, by the way, was a movie that did well despite the lack of super-star power).
Could it then be that stars don’t make movies big? But that stars just tend to pick movies that will be big? Well, what do the numbers say? The article cites several studies.
Arthur S. De Vany’s study found that, when controlling for budget size, G vs PG rating, the number of theaters the film opened in, whether it is a sequel, and other factors which may impact box office take-in, that
Looking across a sample of more than 2,000 movies exhibited between 1985 and 1996, they found that only seven actors and actresses — Tom Hanks, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jodie Foster, Jim Carrey, Barbra Streisand and Robin Williams — had a positive impact on the box office, mostly in the first few weeks of a film’s release. In the same study, two directors, Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone also pushed up a movie’s revenue. But Winona Ryder, Sharon Stone and Val Kilmer were associated with a smaller box-office revenue. No other star had any statistically significant impact at all.
Thus, turning the original causality relationship (that stars make a movie) on its head … or does it?
Anita Elberse, an associate professor at HBS, who used a fairly accurate prediction market for box-office success called Hollywood Exchange, and found that announcing a star’s acceptance of a role increased, on average, a movie’s theatrical revenue by $3 million. So, a small effect (and if you paid the star more than $3 million, then you have an overall loss — at least with regards to theatrical revenue) but ultimately it seems that a star accepting a role is signaling to the public that a given movie is good, thus guaranteeing that people come to the film, at least before news of whether or not it’s good or bad permeates.
So, if the returns to hiring stars are so low, why bother? Why hasn’t the wonder of capitalism and efficient markets figured this out? One suggestion by Jehoshua Eliashberg, a Wharton professor:
“Movie industry executives keep this perception that stardom is a formula for success, but they don’t measure it . . . They resist using analytical methods for all sorts of reasons, from being uncomfortable with numbers to the argument that this is a creative industry and not a business.”
Hmmm.. interesting indeed…
A Week Abroad
Did anyone miss me
Day 1-2: This was the first day of endless traveling. I woke up at around 5 so that I could get to the BART station by 6 AM. I then took a 1.5 hour ride into SFO, where I discovered that there was an enormous line at the international desk. Luckily, as my flight was relatively soon, a nice airport lady moved me up in line. I then discovered that American (the airline I was on most) was unable to convert my Air France ticket into a boarding pass. I became terrified. I don’t know any French. As Sophia, Eric, and my mom will attest to, I was rather nervous about it. The flight to O’Hare was relatively uneventful. The flight from O’Hare to Paris was also rather quiet. I tried to sleep, but as I’m unable to sleep on planes, it was just me, tossing and turning and bothering the crap out of the French guy sitting next to me. What annoyed me the most was that the in-flight entertainment audio was broken, so I really had nothing to do during the flight.
I finally landed in Paris in the morning. To my amazement, everyone spoke English there. I had about an hour or so to explore De Gaulle airport, and I tried to take it in as much as possible. Not only did everyone speak English, they were all very nice — much nicer than I was used to in the US. There was also, at least to what I could see, much fewer fat/obese people, and the female flight attendants were, for the most part, much nicer than the ones I had seen in America. Air France has probably become my favorite airline — there is better-than-JetBlue-entertainment in every seat (I watched Ice Age 2, The Inside Man, and V for Vendetta), they give a huge amount of food, and I get the feeling that flights typically aren’t crowded as I was in a largeplane which could not have been more than 10% full at take-off. The airport is not laid out very well, but then again, most of Europe probably isn’t — we taxi-d for like 20 minutes both ways, and after landing, not only did we taxi forever, but we also taxi-d to a spot where airport shuttles then took us to the gate.
Arriving at the airport in Mumbai, I was overwhelmed by a single feeling. Later, when we were doing staff reflections, I think Patrick put it best: “The minute I got to the airport, I decided I never wanted to come back” — and that was my feeling. The people are rude and unhelpful. It’s dirty. It’s crowded. It smells. It’s wet. It’s poor. It’s rank. Everyone there is trying to get your money and overcharge you. The only good thing was that I happened to notice a screen which told me that a flight from Kuala Lumpur had just landed. While I couldn’t be sure that it was Adrian — one of our conference co-directors, I decided to take the chance and just wait to see if he came out — luckily, he did, and we got on the cab to the Grand Hyatt in Mumbai.
The cab-ride itself was an experience. First off, like in several countries, the drivers are on the right-side and cars drive on the left-side. That was a bit odd for me, because I’d never actually been in a car like that. Secondly, the cabs are much smaller and less comfortable than Western cars. Thirdly, driving is insane. Sure, there are lines that demark lanes — but does anyone care? No. Nobody uses the lanes. To pass people, they pass on the right — which oftentimes means, running into the lane where the other side is coming right at you. The roads are also littered with auto-rickshaws, which are effectively motorized-bicycles connected to chairs that can seat 3 people and covered with a blanket — seriously. I wanted to bring a hummer just to run them all down on the road.
The hotel was rather impressive. 5-star deluxe really means 5-star deluxe. The rooms were well-furnished and very classy (3 phones which can each access 2 different phone lines, 1 phone is next to the toilet 
). But, service at the front desk was a bit worrisome. They somehow heard “Wu Ying Ping” when Adrian said his name was “Adrian Ow,” and in fact, to the front desk, I was basically Mr. Benjamin Singh for much of the week.
Day 3-4: Wednesday and Thursday (Indian time, not US time) was dedicated to us trying to get ready for the conference. We had emails to send, stuff to do, people to meet, etc. But, we at least put in the time to go to some nice restaurants in Mumbai. I was shocked almost immediately by the extreme poverty and simple dirtiness of the world that I was in. Poor, half-naked children would come up to our cabs, and beg us to purchase magazines from them. I also immediately noticed that this world was shockingly different from America — where for the most part, people are equal. Just because someone makes half the money I do, doesn’t mean we can’t sit with each other or talk to each other with respect. In India, the society is very stratified. There is definitely a clear distinction between classes — and I was treated as a superior for much of the week — it was somewhat unnerving. At restaurants, the waiters have a heart-attack if you try to serve yourself food — no, their waiters have to come in and do that. For the most part, the servants and watiers and AV guys that I dealt with at the hotel were completely unused to people kindly asking them to do things and referring to them by their names. When Adrian and Sid (one of the other conference co-directors) and I met with the hotel executive staff, we noticed that while there were 14 people facing us, there really were only 7 people, and their 7 lackeys. By the hotel staff, I was “Mr. Benjamin”, Adrian was “Mr. Adrian”, Sid was “Mr. Siddhartha”, and Eric — strangely — was “Mr. Eric Suh”. Go figure.
We also got to meet the team from IIM (Indian Institute of Management) Ahmedabad who had been helping us with preparations. They were a bunch of nerdy but very nice and very bright people.
On both days, I also made good use of the hotel’s wonderful jacuzzi and pool facilities, although I refused to steam in the sauna — the idea of being naked in a warm, stuffy, steamy room with strangers just does not appeal to me…
Oh, and Thursday night, the night before the conference, we crashed a Bollywood party — that was very amusing
Day 5-7: These were the days of the Harvard College Asian Business Forum. I was over-stressed. I got very little sleep. I was constantly being called or emailed. It was a difficult time.
But, meeting the speakers. Listening to them. Meeting the delegates, who for some reason kept looking at us starry-eyed even though I was probably the youngest guy there (we mostly invited econ grad students and MBA students, and since I was the youngest of the staff, that meant I was the youngest there), meeting with the media — it was very tough, but very rewarding. I will post pictures when I get them from the rest of the staff, but from the feedback I got from the hotel staff, the sponsors, the delegates, and the speakers — I know that we did a good job.
It was also around day 5 that things began to really click for me and the rest of the staff. On the first days, I was not very happy at all, I am sad to admit. I kept hoping that Sunday would just come so I could go home, but the fact that the people from IIM and the people on our staff were so nice and competent and were essentially “war buddies” after going through this made things really click, and not just between me and Eric or Adrian or Patrick or Sid — the guys that I knew — but also with Rika and Namrata, the other two members of our team who I barely knew going into this.
Day 6: we hit up a club in the Taj called Insomnia — very amusing stories, remind me to tell it some time.
Our delegates came mostly from East Asia — and they acted the part, constantly taking pictures of everything, of the two Mercedes-Benz’s (E-class and C-class) that were parked in our main conference hall (b/c Daimler-Chrysler was one of our sponsors), of themselves at the podium (they even had me and one of our VIPs move so they could finish their shot — I was completely speechless when it happened because I had no idea what to say, thankfully the Citigroup India guy had a good sense of humor), they took pictures with us, with the VIPs (and you could tell on their faces that they weren’t exactly thrilled at being just tourist attractions) and on one of the days, even the Indian delegates did it — Asian tourist behavior, I suppose, is universal.
Day 7-8: flight from Mumbai (where again I was assaulted by rudeness, poor service — very bad way to end a good week in India) to Zurich via Swiss Air (watched The Sentinel and Along Came Polly)– where again I was amazed by how clean and efficient European hotels are. I was a little unsure of myself, as I knew absolutely no German. The airport itself is covered with very high-class shopping, and a BMW booth which was larger and more elaborate than the Daimler-Chrysler setup we had. I met up with a friend of one of our VIPs there and we talked bout his life and his business and he offered to put me in contact with people if I wanted to — I guess this is networking?
From Zurich, I flew American Airlines to Dallas. This flight was atrocious. There was an Indian baby sitting three rows behind me who just kept wailing. It wasn’t even crying. It was wailing. (Yes, I just realized that I’ve been using the word “It” to describe him/her). Like the kind of wailing that lets you know its not real/sincere — how do I know it wasn’t sincere? It was able to stop wailing to scream “NO!” several times when its parents attempted to calm it down.
Then, on the flight from Dallas to SFO there was this annoying white kid who was intolerably loud, keeping me from my reading. I was close to coming up to those parents and telling them “If you don’t shut up your kid, I’ll shut him up for you” — thankfully, I was able to control my manly manly rage
And then, finally, home.
All in all, a very interesting week for me
Try Not to Miss Me
I will be going to India (on the most god-awful, convoluted flight schedule possible) tomorrow and will be there for about a week. Sadly (for all you readers more than for me, I’m sure), I won’t be gracing your RSS feed readers or subscription pages with my wonderfully composed prose.
Oh, whatever shall you do without me?
If you need interesting material to read or to procrastinate on, I’d recommend my google reader noteworthy feed 
.
Smallville: Season 6
Lex bad. Green Arrow starting a Justice League and stealing Lois away from Clark. Lana and Lex hot and steamy. Jimmy Olsen. Phantom Zone Kryptonians.
What more can a comic nerd watching Smallville want?
http://www.cwtv.com/cw-smallville.html
Now beginning its sixth season, this new interpretation of the enduring Superman mythology and its classic characters blends realism and adventure into an exciting action series. This season, Clark Kent (Tom Welling, “Cheaper By the Dozen”) and Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum, “Sorority Boys”) have become the sworn enemies that comic book aficionados have always known and loved.Seventeen years ago, a meteor shower burst from the heavens, raining destruction on the unsuspecting citizens of Smallville, Kansas. Clark’s transition from boyhood to manhood has been particularly difficult. He has struggled to come to grips with his emerging superpowers — and the effects of various forms of kryptonite — while battling the strange things that have plagued this idyllic Midwest hamlet since the meteor shower.
In last season’s finale, Brainiac (James Marsters, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Angel”) unleashed a deadly computer virus upon the world while Zod, an evil Kryptonian responsible for the destruction of that planet, took over Lex’s body. Lex was imbued with special abilities much like Clark’s. Lex confided in Lana (Kristin Kreuk, “Earthsea”) about his new powers, and the two grew closer. Clark realized the only way to stop Zod was to kill Lex with a crystalline dagger given to him by Jor-El. Finding he couldn’t murder his former friend, Clark instead impales Brainiac with it, inadvertently opening the portal to Zod. This explosion ultimately sends Clark to The Phantom Zone, leaving Lex/Zod to rule the world. Lois (Erica Durance, “The Butterfly Effect 2″) and Martha (Annette O’Toole, “Superman III”) were left unconscious on a LuthorCorp jet that was about to crash, while Lionel (John Glover, “Batman and Robin,” “Annie Hall”) and Chloe (Allison Mack, “My Horrible Year!”) were trapped in a limo surrounded by rioters.
This season Clark must battle his way out of the Phantom Zone. Thrown into this Kryptonian jail created by Jor-El, Clark finds himself without powers and surrounded by revenge-seeking criminals sent away by his father. Jor-El’s old assistant, a young woman named Raya (guest star Pascale Hutton), comes to his aid in the Phantom Zone and helps Clark escape. Unfortunately, there may have been others who escaped with him.
The guardians of Clark’s secret identity have always been his adoptive parents, Jonathan (John Schneider, “The Dukes of Hazzard”) and Martha Kent. However, last season, Jonathan died of a heart attack after discovering Lionel knew Clark’s secret. Clark feels responsible for his death and has a difficult time adjusting to the loss. Martha took over Jonathan’s Senate seat and hired Lois to be her chief-of-staff. This season, Martha continues to adjust to life without Jonathan, but is conflicted about her growing feelings for Lionel. Though Lionel has offered to help Clark, Martha is unsure of his motives.
Lana felt utterly betrayed by Clark last season and turned to Lex for comfort. Encouraged by Lex’s openness, she vowed to stand by him. This season, their relationship gets serious, widening the gap between Lana and Clark. While Lex loves Lana, he is still driven by his ambitions and continues down the path of evil. Though he promised to always tell Lana the truth, he realizes some things need to stay a secret in order to maintain his relationship with her.
Clark and Lex’s friendship has completely dissolved, and the two have become enemies, forcing Clark to work harder to protect his secret. On top of the fact that Lex stole Lana from him, Clark sees the dangerous path Lex is taking and vows to stop him. This season, best friends turn into bitter enemies battling the very forces of good and evil.
Additionally, there is a new billionaire in town with the arrival of DC Comics character Oliver Queen, aka Green Arrow (Justin Hartley, “Passions”). Although he has no superpowers, Oliver is a gifted archer who qualified for the U.S. Olympic team, but chose to put his skills to work as the “emerald archer.” He steals ill-gotten gains from the rich and gives to the poor. Oliver comes from Star City to Metropolis to aid in the recovery from Brainiac’s deadly virus. While in town, he meets and is charmed by Lois Lane, igniting suspicion and a little jealousy in Clark. Oliver discovers Clark’s abilities and asks Clark to join him in his new project – forming a league of superheroes.
Chloe is pleasantly surprised when former fling and aspiring photographer Jimmy Olsen (guest star Aaron Ashmore, “Veronica Mars”) joins the staff of The Daily Planet, and the two rekindle their relationship.
Reinterpreting the Superman mythology from its roots, “Smallville” was developed for television by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar (“Shanghai Noon,” “Spiderman 2″), based on the DC Comics characters. Gough and Millar serve as executive producers, along with Ken Horton, Mike Tollin, Brian Robbins and Joe Davola. The series is produced by Tollin/Robbins Productions, Millar/Gough Ink and Warner Bros. Television Production Inc. SUPERMAN was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Money Can’t Buy You Happiness (Sorta)
Yes, if you live in poverty, more money can bolster your happiness. “But once you’re safe and warm and fed, it makes surprisingly little difference,” says David Schkade, professor of management at the University of California at San Diego. “Once you get to the lower-middle class, then it takes a lot of income to make a difference. Income does matter, just not as much as people think.”
In fact, as one would expect, getting and staying rich kinda sucks:
Five professors [including Alan Kreuger, someone's work I find fascinating] analyzed data for 374 workers who were asked every 25 minutes during the workday about the intensity of various feelings. Those with higher incomes didn’t report being any happier, but they were more likely to say they were anxious or angry [all this published in June 30 article of Science]. The five professors also studied government data detailing how folks divvy up their waking hours. They found that people with higher incomes tend to spend more time working, commuting and engaging in obligatory nonwork activities, such as maintaining their homes. All of these are associated with lower happiness.
So what should you do?
a. Keep your commute short:
While we often adjust amazingly well to life’s hardships, commuting is an exception. “You can’t adapt to commuting, because it’s entirely unpredictable,” says Daniel Gilbert, author of “Stumbling on Happiness” and a psychology professor at Harvard University. “Driving in traffic is a different kind of hell every day.”
b. Its funny. I was talking about this with Eric the other day, about how some grad students don’t really fret about being poor because they have so little spare time that its not like they could use the extra money. Of course, that runs into the fundamental paradox that if you have poor, overworked people, it seems the best way to make them happy is to make them work more — so they care less about being poor. Anyways, the article recommends that you cut the time you work, even if it means taking less pay. Any economist worth his or her salt, however, will say that only applies to individuals who are not operating at the point that their budget constraint intersects their indifference curve for salary versus leisure.
c. Use your leisure time wisely.
Passive activities like watching television usually don’t make folks as happy as eating. A good meal, in turn, doesn’t rank quite as highly as active leisure activities, such as socializing with friends.
d. And this wasn’t in the article, but have more sex. From the abstract to an NBER study on “Money, Sex, and Happiness: An Empirical Study” (272 kb of fun):
This paper studies the links between income, sexual behavior and reported happiness. It uses recent data on a random sample of 16,000 adult Americans. The paper finds that sexual activity enters strongly positively in happiness equations. Greater income does not buy more sex, nor more sexual partners. The typical American has sexual intercourse 2-3 times a month. Married people have more sex than those who are single, divorced, widowed or separated. Sexual activity appears to have greater effects on the happiness of highly educated people than those with low levels of education. The happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is calculated to be 1 [I wonder how they calculated that]. Highly educated females tend to have fewer sexual partners. Homosexuality has no statistically significant effect on happiness. Our conclusions are based on pooled cross-section equations in which it is not possible to correct for the endogeneity of sexual activity. The statistical results should be treated cautiously.
Power Toys for Windows XP
I’ve used TweakUI in the past to modify system attributes and was searching for a copy to put on my new laptop and stumbled on the rest. I’ve installed a few:
- Cleartype Tuner – Ok if you don’t want to install any of the other stuff, seriously consider installing this. Your eyes will thank you to no end. It activates the Cleartype Technology that comes with Windows but is never activated which will improve the anti-aliasing of your text and allows you to customize just how you want the text to look. It cuts down on eyestrain incredibly and just plain makes text look better. I can’t really describe how, you have to see it for yourself.
- Synctoy – is something that they should’ve put in Windows to begin with, but it essentialy allows you to sync two folders or devices so that their files can be the same or that you can regularly push updates onto one or the other — or anything at all. Now I don’t have to manually keep my mp3 player in sync with my music folder
- Alt-Tab Replacement – I don’t often get Mac envy, but I seriously love Expose. This isn’t Expose, but it gives screenshots of the windows when you use the Alt-Tab shortcut to move between windows. It has a strange way of dealing with chat program windows, but other than that it makes it easier to navigate between say — Firefox windows
- TweakUI – Lets you modify almost anything that can be modified in Windows or Internet Explorer that you normally can’t touch. Want the Internet Explorer titlebar to say “Microsoft sucks”? You can do that. Want it to say “bow down to Ben”? You can do that too. (And other more interesting/important changes as well)
- Power Calculator – Not a very elegant tool, but it has basic symbolic manipulation and graphing calculator functionality. I don’t particularly like it (so I uninstalled it immediately) especially as you can get decent, hassle-free freeware graphing software like Graphmatica, or just use Mathematica or MATLAB to do stuff.
- Open Command Window Here – I like DOS. A lot. This gives me an easy way to get to the command prompt at a specific folder just by right-clicking. Hence, Ben is happy.
- Virtual Desktop Manager – It is a pretty basic virtual desktop manager which lets you operate multiple desktops at once. I don’t like how there’s no good hotkey to cycle between different desktops, nor is there a good way to transfer windows between desktops, so I uninstalled it and installed Virtual Dimension which does provide all the functions that I want (although no preview of all desktops feature) and is pretty simple to use. I have only found use for this when I’m doing research and need to manage bajillions of open windows, but if that sounds like something you want/need, I would recommend trying Virtual Dimension.
There are a bunch of other Power Toys like Image Resizer (which allows you to resize multiple images at once) and HTML slideshow (which lets you create HTML slideshows of photos quickly) and Webcam timershot (has your webcam take pictures every given interval and stores them somewhere) which I just haven’t found to be particularly relevant or useful, but you should feel free to give them a try.
Crisis on Google Earth
Technology can go beyond simply empowering individuals politically and intellectually, but it can also impact the ability of individuals to bypass traditional government bureaucracies. Years ago, if a natural disaster like a hurricane happened, the only recourse was the government. The government would have to get its act together to save people. But, what if the government completely botches the effort? What if a hurricane — lets call it Katrina — destroys an entire area and all the governments involved were too incompetent to properly handle the job? Well, a couple of years ago, you would’ve been screwed. You would have had to wait for the government to get its act together … and we all know how slow governments are at doing anything right
I’m sure that Hurricane Katrina, given the government’s abysmal failure in dealing with its aftermath, would have been much worse had it not been for the ability of the internet to leverage incredible amounts of support for the private-sector disaster relief effort and for bringing about government criticism which finally pushed the governments to do something. And, as Google’s official blog points out, technology such as Google Earth was employed by multiple agencies not only to better understand the broader picture of what the hurricane did, but also to help find stranded people.
War on SpyQuake
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
About a week ago, after a crazy rush of downloading of some utilities to see if they would improve my computer’s usefulness to me, I noticed that I started getting warnings of virus presence on my computer. This happens every now and then and as I have a fully upgraded version of Norton Antivirus, I felt I was reasonably safe, and responded simply by initiating a full system scan. I found a couple of infected files, wiped a couple of them off my computer, and quarantined a few which looked like I might need them.
With the exception of an antivirus warning popping up like two more times after that, I had no other cause for worry.
Then, after cooking up some ramen to supplement a meal that was just a tad too small, I returned to my computer screen and noticed that a bizarre warning was flashing on my computer screen — it was a little alert window emanating from an icon in my system tray telling me that it had detected spyware. When I right clicked on the window, it took me to an Internet Explorer window which told me about a program called “SpyQuake” which was an anti-spyware program.
At this point, I knew something was wrong:
- My programs never open windows in Internet Explorer unless something really weird happens, because I’ve set my default browser as my uber-customized Firefox.
- My spyware’s attempts to find the spyware resulted in the program being able to detect the spyware, but crashing everytime I told it to remove it
- Upon installing Ad-aware and having it run a scan, I noticed that the program shut itself off — a problem I encountered before when trying to save a friend’s computer when the computer deleted a utility that I had installed to correct the problem
On top of all of this, my Norton kept spitting out messages that it had detected some virus in a dll that I had never heard of and had no real physical trace for (everytime I searched the directory in question where the dll was supposed to be, there was no such file).
So, my computer was not in good shape, and every couple of seconds I kept getting more and more error messages. I was under attack — and losing the battle every step of the way. I had heard about Spyware which disguised itself as spyware detectors, and I was positive this was one of them — especially when I was unable to find any trace of the spyquake program in my task manager.
So, I called in the big guns — Google. A few minutes later, I had confirmed my suspicions, SpyQuake was a particularly malicious form of malware. Thankfully, I found a utility which would wipe it clean at a very useful website with a very amusing name: bleepingcomputer. I found a utility (RogueScanFix) which would help eliminate the problem and after booting the computer in Safe Mode and running another utility called Autoruns which identifies the processes that run when you start your computer (including all the dll’s being called, etc) I was able to track down not only the SpyQuake bug, but also the virus that had been plaguing me and put a stop to SpyQuake and safely delete the infected dll file which harbored the virus.
I then re-started the computer once more, did a full system scan for spyware and viruses (wiping out what was left of that rebel virus scum) and — well, my computer is as good as new — in fact, it seems to boot up a bit faster than it used to.
Long story short: REGULARLY scan your computer for viruses and spyware, REGULARLY install updates to your operating system, and be careful who you download from. If you do run into a problem, there is a world of information on BleepingComputer (as soon as GREs are over, I wil be reading a lot of their tutorials) and Microsoft’s Knowledge Base that you can use to save your computer’s sorry hide if it ever goes down.
and the winner is…
I know all of you must be in complete suspense as to who won the vicious showdown between battle-hardy veteran Ben and the hot-blooded prodigy Vrushali. To be sure, the game’s result was ultimately very surprising.
It started out as a simple match, but due to Yahoo’s default setting of a 5 minute wait-time for moves, the first game ended in a “forfeit” when I took a few minutes too long to make a decision about what to do.
Striking that from the record (as agreed upon by both contestants), Vrushali and I again went head-to-head. While Vrushali was systematic and tactical, I attempted to throw caution to the wind, only checking every now and then to make certain I had not made a tactical blunder, but ultimately jumping around the board, hoping to find some opening to attack.
That opening never came. Vrushali’s systematic approach got her to the edge first. While I attempted to do damage control by the fact that she had reached the edge of the board before I did, Vrushali solidified her position in the center of the board, making her immune to my attacks which concentrated on the perimeter. Her edge lead developed briskly, and in no time at all she had fortified her position on the edge and had already proceeded to “colonize” various other positions.
However, as I had a very large chip lead, I was not worried and slowly colonized positions on the edge here and there, again proceeding semi-haphazardly, hoping to find a strategic opening for me to gain an impregnable footing. That chip lead slowly shrank until I made a big blunder, giving her the ability to cut my holdings in half geometrically, and destroying my chip lead completely. I tried to make the most of it and capture the first corner — the one in the top-left, the one that I had won my previous match with. But, it was no avail. Vrushali out-thought me and out-planned me and quickly gained the first corner and a very solid strategic footing.
Following that, I became desperate. I tried to be more careful but everytime I thought that there was even a small possibility of gain, I acted — and each time, Vrushali pointed out with actions more than in words why I should act with greater caution. Soon, there was no evidence that I had ever had a chip lead. The only white chips of mine that were still on the board were the ones that Vrushali had completely surrounded.
Luckily, shortly after Vrushali captured her first corner, I had the foresight to wall off the corner, to again deprive of her any offensive capability. I had fought hard, and damn it — even if she won, I wasn’t going to let her use that victory. That, more than anything bought me time and breathing space, although not much, as there was a sequence of moves that Vrushali executed that left me without any possible move to do and, unlike chess, if one player has no possible move it is not a stalemate, it just means the other player gets to keep on moving.
Using that one walled off piece, I blunted most of Vrushali’s dodges, as she tried to reach the other three corners. However, we had used up so much of the board by the time she had finally gotten her last corner that I made the strategic realization, that the corners no longer mattered. Of the three corners left, one had no offensive value and the other two had very little. Seeing this, I changed my strategy from capturing the corners for their own sake, to capturing the greatest number of pieces. Coincidentally, this shift in strategy gave me the openings that I needed to capture the corners.
We were now down to the last 10 moves and we were getting closer to the last three corners. Vrushali’s former massive chip lead had now dwindled to near chip-parity at this point. I used a stalling technique to force her to make one wrong move, allowing me to guarantee the capture of two corners — or so I thought. Ultimately, Vrushali had another trick up her sleeve. Distracted with the thought that my capture of the corners was complete, I made a move to solidify my position, allowing her to capture one of the corners still with offensive value.
I cursed. I swore. I knew it — defeat was at my hands, and I even typed to Vrushali that it was over, that she would win. But, she was very hesitant, remembering my dominance at the end-game in our last match. I looked at the last remaining 6 positions, and I suddenly realized, that in one bold move, I could take a corner and set myself up for victory. I took a corner and, although I did not see it at the time, I forced Vrushali to choose between two possibilities, both of which would allow me to capture many of her pieces — this was all completely accidental and lucky on my part. With such a move, I quickly captured a huge portion of her pieces, winning the game 3 pieces before the game was over. The last 3 moves were trivial, as they resulted in the capture of one or two pieces, but yes… that is correct
the aged veteran Ben has triumphed yet again!
the final score: 38-26
the board at the final move
stay tuned tomorrow for the last bit of coverage — the post-game interview!
