Archive for July, 2009

The World Bank’s “Computer Bus”

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

I have just seen a reportage from rural India about a World Bank project. (Yeap, I am going to be critical.)
The WB has financed (or co financed, it was not specified in the coverage) five mobile computer labs. That is basically five buses that were rebuilt to become “computer labs on wheels”.
Each of these buses visits couple of Indian villages per day, so that even the children of poor peasants get some exposure to computers. The “bus teacher” when interviewed proudly claimed, that event basics of programming are being taught.

Now my question is: What the hell do children of poor peasants need programming for? I would say education about methods in agriculture, biology or something like that would be way more useful for them. You wouldn’t need five cool buses with the WB logo for that though…

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Taxman – The Beatles got it right

Monday, July 20th, 2009

According to some, The Beatles were the first real “boy band”. I am sorry but could a “boy band” come up with lyrics like this? European and recently also American leaders should sometimes listen to good old Beatles.

Taxman(1966)

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.

(If you drive a car car), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit sit), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold cold), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk walk), I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.

‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Ah Ah! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Ah Ah! Mister Heath!),
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeeeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).

To learn more about taxation in the EU see this Eurostat press release.

Posted in Culture, Econ | 1 Comment »

EU ban on light bulbs, 1984-like decision

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

dsc_0268The Government (EU Comission) has again shown that it holds itself superiorly intelligent to ordinary citizen. It has chosen what kinds of light bulbs will starting 2012 European household use. I, unlike the EU Commission, believe that everyone who is mentally sane should be free to choose how she/he spends her/his money.

EC (European Commission) is hiding behind ecology. The “old” light bulbs simply consume too much energy, so replacing them should cut your energy bill as well as CO2 emissions. There is a lot of critique on the internet claiming that: the “new” light bulbs are in fact less efficient (they are supposedly more difficult to produce), are toxic (contain mercury), cause health problems (headaches, irritate people with certain skin conditions) etc.

Aside of all the above mentioned critique there is one fundamental flaw in the EC decision. With a FUNCTIONING Cap and Trade system on CO2 emissions, the price of electricity will already include the damage done by the CO2 emissions. The price of electricity will rise, such that you will be buying a right to pollute. To put it in fancy words: The externality will be internalized. What is the point of banning the “old” light bulbs? There is no, aside of lust to rule and order!

My conclusion: If the voters agree, that cuting CO2 emissions is a priority. The EC should put a functioning Cap and Trade system in place instead of annoying everyones lifes by banning completely sound products.

FURTHER clarification for Non Econs and eco fanatics: The money generated by the Cap and Trade system can be (should be) used to undo the ecologic damage caused by the electricity production. Using inefficient light bulbs means having a big electricity bill and contributing a lot to the pool of money Government collects via the Cap and Trade system, and thus contributing a lot to undoing the ecologic damage. The net effect on the nature is zero, plus you have chosen lightning that suits best your needs.
(This paragraph is somewhat oversiplyfying, if you’re interested in greater details look for instance at Piguvian tax.)

Posted in Econ | No Comments »

Probability of getting killed by a lightning strike.

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

drawing-1Last week, I was caught by a nasty thunderstorm while mountain biking in the woods. I think I did everything (there is not much) I could, to avoid being killed by a lightning strike. I’ve immediately jumped off the bike, crouched down and began to pray…

I’ve spent about twenty minutes like that, afraid, cold, and in a heavy rain. There were five cases in which I have heard the thunder within one second after seeing the lightning. Sound travels at the speed of 343 meters (1 125 feet) per second. This means, five lightning strikes did hit within 343 meters (1 125 feet) of me. (In )

Let us assume: if lightning hits within five meters (15 feet) of me, I’m dead.( mountaineersbooks.org)

Now I want to compute, what was the probability that I will survive.

To recapitulate: We have five lightning strikes with a five meter deadly radius, to hit 343 meters or closer to me. I’ll assume that lightning can hit anywhere in the concerned area and with the same probability.

The whole area (green in the picture) – “343 meters or closer to me”, is a circle with a 343 meters radius, with me standing in the center.

Deadly zone (red in the picture) – If a lightning strike hits 5 meters or closer to me, I have a problem. This gives us the “Deadly zone”, circle with a five meters radius.

Probability of not getting killed is [1-(deadly zone)/(whole 343 meters area)]^5=[1-(78,5)/( 369417)]^5=

[0,9997875030]^5=0,99893793=99,893 % probability of survival.

So I guess, lightning storm is not as dangerous as one would think. Before I did this little exercise, if you’ve asked me what the probability of my survival was. I would have underestimated it significantly.

That’s what humans do, underestimate highly probable events (getting killed by a lightning) and overestimate highly improbable events (win in a lottery – deep down everyone hopes). I just wonder what is the evolutionary purpose of this misperception of probability (reality)

Appendix:

Probability of getting killed under different deadly radiusesBecause I was not able to find really reliable estimate of how big is the “Deadly zone” around a lightning strike I have computed the probability of survival for three different scenarios.

  • Deadly zone with a five meters (15 feet) radius.
  • Deadly zone with a ten meters (30 feet) radius.
  • Deadly zone with a fifteen meters (45 feet) radius.
  • In the first case (5 meters, 15 feet), The probability of survival after 255 lightning strikes hit in your proximity is 94,7%.
  • In the second case (10 meters, 30 feet), The probability of survival after 255 lightning strikes hit in your proximity is 80,5%.
  • In the third case (15 meters, 45 feet), The probability of survival after 255 lightning strikes hit in your proximity is 61,3%.

The last case is when you experience 85 lightning strikes of each of these kinds. That is 85 strikes with the 5 meter deadly radius, 85 strikes with the 10 meter deadly radius, 85 strikes with the 15 meter deadly radius. Probability of your survival will then be 77,6 %.

For more details see enclosed Excel file. probability-of-survival-lightning strike

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »