Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “centaur”

A Fail Full of Win

centaur 0
So I just spent the last 24 hours, give or take, doing a 24 Hour Comics Day, an attempt to do a 24 page comic from blank to finished page in 24 hours. I, my buddy Nate, and his buddy Jon started work at 10 on Saturday and worked towards 10 on Sunday (well, actually, Jon started at 6 and worked towards 6 because he keeps different hours). Fueled entirely by pizza, diet cola, and a variety of healthy and unhealthy snacks in a continuing rotation, each of us attempted to produce our own brand new comic book, with no prior effort spent on plot, script or drawings other than thinking.

Our results: FAIL. But it was a good failure. As far as final product went, we didn't have much to show: each of us produced around two finished pages. I was just shy of finishing my second page when I quit at 9:30am, Jon finished 2 when he quit at 5, and Nathan had finished two pages and two half pages when he quit around 8:30. But the byproducts were far more impressive.

I produced a complete story, 26 complete pages of storyboards, and two pages of script for the trickiest dialogue sequences. Jon also produced a complete story, 24 pages of storyboards, and about 5 pages of script. Nathan had a complete story, but during the completion of the pages he became increasingly ruthless about his story and became convinced that he could restructure it better to tell a better story - so he perhaps learned more about his process than any of us.

What I learned about my process is that I'm getting better about taking story ideas, extracting a theme, structuring the plot around the theme, and condensing them to the right size; but I'm still inspired to tell stories much larger than my target lengths. And beyond that, I need to practice drawing: practice faces, practice bodies, practice hands, practice animals, practice everything. I was constantly looking online and in my extensive library for reference models to help me draw things that I should have learned and internalized by now. Admittedly, for the past two years I've been focused on writing, not drawing, but art is made by those who make it, not those who make excuses.

Since we're not done, we've agreed to finish the comics over the next 24 days and then have a party to share the finished comics with our friends. Technically these won't then be 24 hour comics; they're more "Comics inspired by the 24 hour comic day experience." But they will be OUR comics, they'll be finished, and we'll all have one more creative work under our belts.

Ad tractus!
-the Centaur

New Year’s Resolutions 2009

centaur 1
Traditionally I do my New Year's Resolutions and yearly planning while visiting my family between Christmas and New Years, holed up in a Panera Bread in Haywood Mall in my hometown of Greenville, South Carolina. That's slipped to January in the past few years now that I live 2500 miles away and time in my hometown is pressed - but, now that the tornado has abated, I have come up with a decent set of resolutions. Here goes:
  • Review your resolutions monthly.
    It's easy to fall off the wagon. My first resolution is to review my New Year's Resolutions on the first of each month to see if I'm on track
  • Eat two before you buy one.
    I have a huge library of books, comic books, DVDs and music, and the only thing I stay on top of is the music. So this year, I plan to read two books before I buy a new one, and so on with my DVDs and comics. Since I'm an avid book collector and like to stay current with comics, I have added the following subresolutions:
  • Read two books before you buy one, excluding vacations or conferences.
  • Read two comics before you buy one, excluding three new comics a week.
  • Watch two DVDs before you buy one - and don't let anyone loan you anything.
  • Work out at the gym at least twice a week, at least three weeks a month.
    I already do this. I just don't want to quit, or fall off the wagon when Sandi's out of town.
  • Go to a martial arts class at least twice a week, at least three weeks a month.
    I was spotty about this last year, but this year: so far, so good. And for the record, I miss Taido.
  • Review your GTD folder at least once a week, three weeks a month.
    Or it isn't doing you any good.
  • Publish at least one Fanu Fiku page a month.
    I have a big backlog of pages. That should get me through June if I do it.
  • Spend at least two hours writing at least twice a week.
    I already do this; I just don't want to fall off the wagon
  • Spend at least two hours doing generative research at least once a week.
    I don't do this, and need to. I spend much more than two hours a week reading technical materials - maybe five to seven hours a week. So it's time to give back.
  • Send a short story to a magazine at least once a month.
    Or what am I writing for?
  • Spend at least one hour a week practicing a foreign language.
    Nihongo wa tottemo muzukashii desu, but that's no excuse.
  • Spend at least one hour a week practicing your poi.
    Or you're going to look really silly, setting yourself on fire at Burning Man.
  • Each week, contact a friend you haven't talked to in a while.
    Some of my friends call me "the Submarine" - I surface, send a packet, then disappear.
  • Write a blog entry once a week.
    Starting with this one.
  • Read a novel once a month.
    The "fun" resolution.
So now it's out there: nowhere near as interesting as Jim Davies' New Year Resolutions, but more useful for the challenges I personally face. At the end of the year, I'll go back and review this and see how I did.

Fanu Fiku is Back Up

centaur 0
I mentioned earlier that Fanu Fiku and Dresan.Net were down and that I was recreating them. Well, Fanu Fiku is back up, though posting new comics won't resume on it until February. Dresan.Net will take a little longer to recreate ... please stay tuned.

Maybe your computer just needs a hug

centaur 0
A while back I mentioned an article Ashwin Ram, Manish Mehta and I wrote on Emotional Memory and Adaptive Personalities:
"Emotional Memory and Adaptive Personalities" reports work on emotional agents supervised by my old professor Ashwin Ram at the Cognitive Computing Lab. He's been working on emotional robotics for over a decade, and it was in his lab that I developed my conviction that emotions serve a functional role in agents, and that to develop an emotional agent you should not start with trying to fake the desired behavior, but instead by analyzing psychological models of emotion and then using those findings to design models for agent control that will produce that behavior "naturally". This paper explains that approach and provides two examples of it in practice: the first was work done by myself on agents that learn from emotional events, and the second was work by Manish Mehta on making the personalities of more agents stay stable even after learning.
Thanks to the good graces of the search engine that starts with a G, I've discussed the article in a bit more depth on their blog in a post titled Maybe your computer just needs a hug.

Please go check it out!
-the Centaur

Blood Rock at 80,000 Words…

centaur 0
Blood Rock is at 80,000 words, and is complete through chapter 26 (though I have written parts of chapters 27-57, including a huge chunk at the end right around the climax). It's getting closer ... I expect the first draft to come in somewhere around 90,000 to 95,000 words.

-the Centaur

Google Knows Everything … about Windows XP SP3

centaur 0
Well, turns out my Windows XP SP3 problem wasn't really a Windows XP SP3 problem at all, other than it happens to Windows XP Service Pack 3 when installed on Hewlett Packard AMD-based computers that were factory installed with an Intel-based image of Windows XP. A key Intel power management DLL isn't present, but it is referenced by the system configuration, and when Windows XP Service Pack 3 installs, it sees that the file should be there (according to the system config) but isn't (according to what it can see on the hard drive) so it installs it. And on the next boot ... boom, Windows gets stuck in an endless cycle of reboots every time it tries loading the Intel driver on an AMD processor.

The simple solution? Boot in safe mode and delete the offending file. There are other solutions, which I found at this blog by a Microsoft expert, which I found via this eWeek article, which I found via a Google search for [ windows xp sp3 problems ]. Now, I had tried Google searches the previous night at umptynothing in the morning, but when I sat down with my I-wuv-my-Mac laptop in front of the dead computer, logged on to the home wireless network, and banged out that new query fresh, it worked, first link, first time.

So it's true: Google Knows Everything.

-the Centaur

P.S. The previous article is my own personal opinion and does not reflect the opinions of my employers at the Search Engine That Starts With a G. Or, hell, maybe it does, but I was using that phrase even back when I worked for the Search Engine Company That Started With an E.

Have I mentioned I hate Windows XP Service Pack 3?

centaur 0
No? Ok. So mentioned: I hate Windows XP Service Pack 3, and the Automatic Update it rode in on.

In more detail, I just upgraded the hard drive on my wife's computer. It took quite a bit of doing - the original two methods I used to copy the old HD to the new HD failed, even my beloved PartitionMagic, because Windows XP would not learn to boot from the new hard drive. It's not that I haven't done this trick a half dozen times before with laptops, including my most recent Windows XP laptop, and after immense effort I could never find out what was wrong or fix it. However, eventually I found a cheap but effective program called Disk Copy and Clean by Avanquest that did the trick, and got the drive copied last night, Windows XP booting, took the old drive out, and closed up the case.

Then like an idiot I installed all the software updates that were pending.

One of those was apparently Windows XP Service Pack 3, whose main feature is locking the computer in an endless cycle of reboots. You can boot to safe mode, which means this problem is just enough different from the other similar problems I've been able to find online that I doubt any of those fixes will work. I'll try, of course, but in the end ... isn't it nice I have yesterday's hard drive, pre-Windows-XP-SP3?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I wuv my Mac and its crappy user interface(1), because it just works.

-the Centaur
(1) No, that isn't sarcasm ... Windows has a better user interface, nyahh nyahh nyahh, all you Mac lovers --- and I switched anyway, because (a) I love the Unix command line and (b) my computer has to work. Shockingly, the Mac actually functioning reliably most of the time beats the many ways in which common user interface operations are faster and easier to use on Windows. You may feel like snarking that the Mac UI would be easier if I'd used it longer, and I'll just snark back that I've been using Macs since roughly 1990, and I've had no problems moving between the various editions of UNIX, Linux and Windows over the same time frame while the Mac has always felt like the odd man out. Ultimately, the gloss, great graphic design, and sheer reliability of the Mac OS X family outweighed any number of minor interface quirks.

Fanu Fiku and Dresan.Net…

centaur 0
...are in the process of being recreated. Unfortunately, TopHostingSolutions has been unresponsive to my attempts to reach them, so I have switched these sites to GoDaddy, which hosts other sites run by me and my wife. Expect to see these back up in the next few days.

-the Centaur

Not enough hours in the day…

centaur 1
...to do all the things that need to be done.

I'm not sure what that phrase means, "not enough hours in the day". I say it from time to time, but what would we do with more hours in the day? If each day was thirty-six hours, wouldn't we just work longer, play longer, expect to get twelve hours of work done instead of eight? It seems like what we really want is a secret stash of hours in the day, twelve free hours we could stick in anywhere we needed.

I'd use my stash just after midnight, in those hours leading up to two where I seem to get so much done, then get on a roll that lasts to the wee hours in the morning. If I yield to that impulse, I don't go to bed until near dawn - wouldn't it be nice to work hours and hours till you're tired, and still go to bed at midnight?

Or maybe I'd just stick them in the morning, a couple extra hours in the lull of the snooze button between eight and eight-oh-seven in the morning. But some days I have to get up earlier or later, so maybe it would be better to slip the extra hours in right on cue when you hit snooze, so when you wake up seven minutes later, you're refreshed and ready for the day.

Or perhaps in midafternoon, right when food coma hits, and you need to recharge. For me, if I push on through I get a second wind, which lasts till seven or eight o'clock at night; wouldn't it be nice to get the second wind, put in all those extra hours, and still leave by five?

Time travel. Must start working on time travel.
-the Centaur

Another battle won…

centaur 2

... I have just completed ~75,000 words for National Novel Writing Month 2008, which puts me over the top of my self-imposed target for November: 50,000 words more than I started with.

I had those extra 25,000 words to start with because I had planned to do two Nanowrimos back to back, thinking I could finish Blood Rock in October and start a new novel in November. Foolish mortal, who do you think you are, Asimov?

Blood Rock is the sequel to Frost Moon, last year's Nanowrimo entry. I have already started work on the sequels, Liquid Fire and Hex Code. I have ideas for many more in this series, but I plan to keep doing them only as long as they're fun.

Like its predecessor, I expect Blood Rock to top out at just under 90,000 words, so hopefully I will be able to finish the first draft in mid-December. Here's gunning for it!

-the Centaur

This isn’t going to go away

centaur 0

I bumped into a couple African Americans in a Safeway line the other day.  All three of us were looking at a magazine cover with Barack Obama's family on the cover.   As the line moved and I turned forward, one of the men behind me said, "Wow, it still hasn't hit me," and the other said, "Yeah, I know, I can't believe it either".  I couldn't help but smile.

Then the first man said "Yeah, and the big thing is, it isn't the big story---" And his friend jumped in and said, "No, Proposition 8 is. And when that fails in the courts, they're going to look at it, and say, California, which is so liberal, didn't pass it twice ... so maybe that will make 'them' think twice."

I was dumbfounded, and had bought my pound cake and mouthwash and walked out of the store before I could think of an adequate comeback: "Did getting turned away from one or two schoolhouses make the civil rights movement stop?  No.  And this isn't going to go away either."


-the Centaur


You’re Smarter Than That

centaur 0

The election season has been difficult for all of us, but especially for conservatives that bring a rational rather than partisan approach to the table. I was speaking to a good friend tonight who's quite frustrated about how things turned out, and he mentioned how irritated he was at a demand by the ACLU that Obama close Guantanamo Bay "with the stroke of a pen".

We talked about it for a while, with things getting quite heated, but from my perspective it was clear that our differences about how to treat the enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay were the result of real substantive disagreement on issues that were not simple, as opposed to the frothing cariactures of the right that I have often heard from those on the left.

However, there was one little quip that bugged me. When I said I voted for Obama because "McCain's choice of Palin demonstrated his values to me", my friend told me that I was "smarter than that" and that I should realize that the choice of a VP is always a bone thrown to a minority member of the party.

Well, that is one theory, but it isn't the whole story. In my recent memory, at least two Presidents have picked running mates designed to enhance their experience (Bush+Cheney, Obama+Biden), one picked them to appeal to their fan base (Bush+Quayle) and at least three picked running mates that reflected part of their values.

Yes, Palin was more conservative than McCain, and Gore was more liberal than Clinton, but both McCain and Clinton spoke louder than words by selecting someone that reflected key positions that they held: Palin is a sterling, if even heroic defender of the pro-life cause, and we all know how Gore turned out as a proponent of environmentalism.

I think the best example though is Reagan's selection of ex-CIA director Bush: to me, that was a clear reflection of the values Reagan expressed after his service on the Rockefeller Commission's review of U.S. intelligence agencies in 1975, something that arguably later reflected some of Reagan's actions in office. A VP may be designed to appeal to a group of voters, but the choice of a VP still reflects the P's values. The candidates can say a lot, but who they pick for that slot says a lot to me about what they care about and what they're likely to do.

If McCain had selected Condoleeza Rice, I would have voted for him without a second thought --- but the slice of the party McCain was reaching out to was not centrists worried about national security (and pleased to have the chance to vote for a black man or a woman or both). The slice of the party McCain picked was the religious conservative wing, a group whose influence I feel is corrupting on the entire body politic. I would feel about the same if Obama had picked an actual Communist, a group that had a similar corrupting influence on an earlier era.

And, admittedly, it's only because McCain and Obama were such a toss-up up on issues that mattered to me that could I afford to let the decision rest on the choice of the VP. When the case was more clear - as in Bush vs Dukakis - I sucked it up and voted for Bush, even though I didn't approve of Quayle.

But the candidates were very close. I did a lot of research on this campaign. I read the bios of both candidates. I researched their tax policies, the economic effects, their foreign policy stances, their decisions. I followed up on information provided by partisan friends on the left and on the right, and read sources as diverse as the National Review Online and the New Yorker. I went through the positions of both candidates with a blue pen ticking off what I did and didn't like, and they came damn near close to even. So I didn't make this decision blind, or just on the basis of Palin.

But she sure didn't help. Left or right, you're never going to win me over appealing purely to your base.

-the Centaur

Sacrifice and Responsibility

centaur 0

I voted for Barack Obama; despite my long-standing desire to see John McCain become president, I didn't agree with his choice of Sarah Palin as she does not reflect my values. But I don't agree with Obama on everything either, of course, and there has been a fair amount of back and forth on The Edge mailing lists on what's good and bad about Obama's views.

But sometimes it isn't the politician's proposals that are scary; it is what the people who are allied with them believe. Recently I came across this commentary by someone more sympathetic to Obama's views than I am:

Obama raises a long-neglected concept: sacrifice

At some point, higher taxes are inevitable to bring the deficit back in line, and Obama’s plan to limit the increases to the rich aren’t likely to be enough. That is the sort of sacrifice we must make to resolve the crisis. The economy is too precarious to endure tax increases to stabilize our finances right now, and some of the ambitious programs outlined on the campaign trail will have to be sacrificed to fiscal prudence.

We must make sacrifices at the personal level, too, by reducing our use of credit and curtailing our spending, building our savings so that we are better prepared. This is a crisis spawned, in large part, by our own delusion. We wanted to believe in ever-rising stocks, in a shop-till-the-terrorists-are-defeated foreign policy and homes that were worth whatever our mortgage broker told us.

For eight years, our government borrowed to pay for wars, tax cuts and prescription drugs, while we borrowed to pay for HDTVs, iPhones and Xboxes. Buy now, pay later wasn’t just a sales pitch, it was fiscal policy. Later is now. To fix our economy we first must change our views of debt and savings.

That will take sacrifice, the one word from the president-elect’s speech that we must hear before all others. Sacrifice, after all, is the prefix for change.

Now, let me not exaggerate: what Loren Steffy is saying here is not crazy and much of it is very sensible. Even in this snippet, there are many points to agree with that have already been discussed on the Edge mailing list:
  • taxes can't be raised right now because it will damage the economy
  • taxes should be raised when the economy is more healthy so we can balance the budget
  • consumers and the government should learn to pay their own way and not skate on credit

But the attitude of "sacrifice is required" is what I find disturbing - because deep down I don't think he isn't proposing that he make a sacrifice. I seriously doubt he sees himself as one of "the rich" whom he wants to tax, or that he has an HDTV that he paid for on credit. Instead he's proposing that others make sacrifices he thinks they ought to to make the economy more healthy. As one commenter to the article said:

I agree that in tough times success often requires sacrifices. But the great concern is who will be selected to make those sacrifices, and if it isn't voluntary, is "sacrifice" really the right word? If it is only the wealthy and companies who are volunteered, then that indicates another round of partisan politics. But if ALL Americans are asked to put some skin in the game, then it will be a chance for bonding, healing, and real change.

This is why I think the language of responsibility is so more important than the language of sacrifice. Most of the issues that Steffy raises in the article have been raised by my friends in The Edge. But if both the language of "sacrifice" and the language of "responsibility" led to similar policy recommendations, why should it matter?

The problem is that sacrifice is easy in a political context, because the people who propose sacrifice rarely have to do it. One of my friends was talking about the BART expansion in glowing concerns about the jobs it will create. But who will pay for this? On another occasion I heard my friend talk about the glories of public transportation, and I know they don't have a great deal of income. So in the long run they'll gain more from being able to more quickly get to work than they'll lose in the (very modestly) increased taxes. So it's very easy to justify a sacrifice ... if you don't have any skin in the game. (Full disclosure: I voted for the BART expansion too).

Responsibility, on the other hand, never stops. I had to look at many different propositions on the ballot; none of them will raise California's taxes more than I can pay. From that perspective, I could easily say "we need to sacrifice in taxes to pay for these needed services". But I couldn't look at it that way: I had to look at the graph of the debt load of all the propositions on the ballot, and choose: which of these things can we actually afford? Yes on disaster relief, and, (based on my experiences in Japan, London, and Washington D.C.), yes on more extensive public transportation, which costs money but is AFAIK ultimately an economic lubricant. But no on everything else. Looking at the bond load over the next thirty years, I decided California couldn't afford all of it ... even if I personally was willing to make the "sacrifice".

That's why I prefer the language of responsibility over the language of sacrifice. Sacrifice is easy to make ... it's something you can do to someone else, after all. Responsibility is something you have to take on yourself.

-the Centaur

(1) The Edge is a private group of friends, not to be confused with the Edge Foundation, even though just about everyone on the Edge would find what Edge Foundation discusses as interesting, and vice versa. Interestingly, the Edge Foundation and the Edge appear to have "officially" started at almost exactly the same time, though we didn't know about them and I'm pretty darn sure they didn't know about us.

Yes I know Fanu Fiku is down…

centaur 0

... I'm working on it.  It also affects dresan.net and all the other people I know using the same hosting provider.   Stay tuned.


-the Centaur


Studio Sandi Updated

centaur 0

My wife's site, Studio Sandi, has just been updated with a lot of her new art and many more samples of her faux finishing work.  If you live in Atlanta, New York or California and don't like the look of your walls, give her a call.



Above is one of her latest pieces in the Gigeresque series, Petrified Coral.  After seeing it hanging in its first showing, I decided to buy it ... but Sandi gave it to me for our second anniversary.  How sweet!  Now I own two pieces in this series; the first I bought, Gigeresque itself, was also the first piece in its series, and an offhand comment by me gave it its name:



Both of these Gigeresques are hanging near my desk at the Search Engine that Starts with a G: Petrified Coral over my desk, and Gigeresque in the hall outside my office.  Nice.


-the Centaur


P.S.  Studio Sandi is generated by a Python script I wrote based on the code for Fanu Fiku, and allows Sandi to update her site with no programming - all she needs to do is organize her pictures into folders with a text file listing their names and descriptions, and the software does the rest.  Hopefully I will release this software soon.


National Novel Writing Month 2008 Entry: Blood Rock

centaur 0

So ... it once again is National Novel Writing Month, the tenth edition of the yearly "contest" to write 50,000 words in a new novel in one month. I'm going to tweak that a bit: I've been working for the last month or so on Blood Rock, the sequel to last year's Nanowrimo entry, Frost Moon. Blood Rock is a return to the world of "skindancer" Dakota Frost, a magical tattoo artist living in an alternate Atlanta, and it's quite fun to get back to her universe. I'm already 25,000 words into it ... so for my Nanowrimo entry, I'm going to push this through to the end, roughly 75,000 words. The intro:

From the outside, my baby blue Prius looks as normal as can be: a streamlined bubble of a car with an aerodynamic rear-hitch bike rack, humming along on a hybrid gas/electric engine. She couldn’t scream ‘liberal soccer mom’ louder if she was a Volvo plastered with NPR stickers. Peer inside, however, and you see something completely different.

In the driver’s seat, yours truly: a six-foot two woman with a purple-and-black Mohawk – short in front, a la Grace Jones, but lengthening in back until it becomes a long tail curling around my neck. Striking, yes, but what really draws your eyes are my tattoos.

Starting at my temples, a rainbow of tribal daggers curls under the perimeter of my Mohawk, cascading down my neck, rippling out over my arms, and exploding in colorful braids of vines and jewels and butterflies. Beautiful, yes, but that’s not why you can’t look away — its because, out of the corner of your eye, you saw my tattoos move — there, they did it again! You swear, that leaf fluttered, that gem sparkled. It’s like magic!

Why, yes, they did move, and yes, they are magic. Thanks for noticing. All inked at the Rogue Unicorn by yours truly, Dakota Frost, best magical tattoo artist in the Southeast.

Beside me sits a five-nothing teenaged girl, listening to a podcast on her iPod. Normally she’s dressed in a vest and Capri pants, but today she’s in a shockingly conservative schoolgirl’s outfit that clashes with her orange hair and elaborate tiger-striped tattoos.

At first what you see is easy to interpret: an outsider trying to fit in, or a rebel suffering a forced fit. But then your eyes do another double take: are those … cat ears poking out from beneath her head scarf? Did they move? And is that a tail? My God, honey, could she be one of those … what are they called … “were-cats”?

Why yes, her ears did move, and yes, she’s a weretiger. But didn’t your mom tell you it’s rude to point? She has a name: Cinnamon Frost. And she’s my adopted daughter.

Both the Prius and the weretiger in its passenger seat are brand new to me. I met Cinnamon only two months ago, visiting a local werehouse to research a werewolf tattoo, and ended up adopting her after a serial killer damn near killed her trying to get to me. I picked up the Prius right around the same time, a little splurge after winning a tattooing contest.

The adjustment was hard at first: Cinnamon took over my house and tried to take over my life. But my Mom had been a schoolteacher, and I’d learned a few tricks. In the first few weeks after she moved in I put the hammer down, never smiling, setting clear boundaries for her behavior and my sanity. Finally — when she got past the point of the tears, the “not-fairs,” and the most egregious misbehaviors — I eased up, and we once again shared the easy “gee you’re a square but I like you anyway” camaraderie we’d started with.

Now we were peas in a pod; whenever I went out she tagged along, riding shotgun, listening to her audiobooks while I jammed to Rush. The two of us look as different as can be, except for the identical stainless steel collars about our necks, but one minute seeing the two of us laughing together and you’d think I’d been her mother for her whole life.

But today my sunny bundle of fur was feeling quite sullen.

“Don’t worry,” I said, patting her knee softly. One of them will accept you.”

So how much do I need to write each day to do this? Some Python (apologies to the J fans out there, but my J installation was acting cruftly today and I'm just as fast if not faster coding in Python):
>>> for day in range(1,31): print "Nov %d:\t%d" % (day, 25000 + (50000 / 30.0) * day)
...
Nov 1: 26666
Nov 2: 28333
Nov 3: 30000
Nov 4: 31666
Nov 5: 33333
Nov 6: 35000
Nov 7: 36666
Nov 8: 38333
Nov 9: 40000
Nov 10: 41666
Nov 11: 43333
Nov 12: 45000
Nov 13: 46666
Nov 14: 48333
Nov 15: 50000
Nov 16: 51666
Nov 17: 53333
Nov 18: 55000
Nov 19: 56666
Nov 20: 58333
Nov 21: 60000
Nov 22: 61666
Nov 23: 63333
Nov 24: 65000
Nov 25: 66666
Nov 26: 68333
Nov 27: 70000
Nov 28: 71666
Nov 29: 73333
Nov 30: 75000
I'm currently at 26,744 words, so I have a lot to do today. For those people who are starting at word 0, here's a slight variant of the above you can cut and paste to make your own writing progress chart.
>>> for day in range(1,31): print "Nov %d:\t%d" % (day, (50000 / 30.0) * day)
...
Nov 1: 1666
Nov 2: 3333
Nov 3: 5000
Nov 4: 6666
Nov 5: 8333
Nov 6: 10000
Nov 7: 11666
Nov 8: 13333
Nov 9: 15000
Nov 10: 16666
Nov 11: 18333
Nov 12: 20000
Nov 13: 21666
Nov 14: 23333
Nov 15: 25000
Nov 16: 26666
Nov 17: 28333
Nov 18: 30000
Nov 19: 31666
Nov 20: 33333
Nov 21: 35000
Nov 22: 36666
Nov 23: 38333
Nov 24: 40000
Nov 25: 41666
Nov 26: 43333
Nov 27: 45000
Nov 28: 46666
Nov 29: 48333
Nov 30: 50000
Have fun, everyone!

-the Centaur

Political Diary: Examining the Fundamentals

centaur 0

I and a number of my friends have been arguing about Obama and McCain's financial packages ... one of them even asked, "So, which of these guys is going to win the war on pandering?"

  • http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/campaign.wrap/index.html
  • http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14406.html
I'm not going to dig into their proposals. Instead, I have spent some time digging into economics in response to the crisis and at my 50,000 foot level I've come across the following approximations about how the economy works as a whole, which lead me to question my knee-jerk idea of "pay the debt down now!" We've been discussing these ideas in emails, and I'm going to attempt to summarize some of what I'm thinking about, and some of their responses, here.

In sum, looking at the economy as a whole:


  • Spending equals income. The nation's net income - the GDP - sets the limit on the nation's net spending. The GDP is made up out of what consumers buy, governments spend, investors invest, plus our net exports (that last bit is a current net negative). This has a few corolloraries:
    • If government spending goes down, the GDP goes down, and hence, so does the aggregate income of the nation. Put another way, if you lay off a cop, he buys less donuts.
    • If government taxes go down, the GDP goes up, and hence, so does the aggregate income of the nation. Put another way, if you cut the cop's taxes by 10%, he buys more donuts.
  • We consume less than we earn. If wages double, spending doesn't double - it goes up somewhat less. This doesn't hold for transient events like stimulus checks, which people tend to "discount" as a one time event, but it does hold for "permanent" tax cuts, which people tend to factor in to their long-term plans. If you measure this factor over the long term, it's roughly sixty percent or so, depending on how you measure it. Take that as an approximation.
  • Spending changes have a multiplier effect. If the government cuts spending or raises taxes, there's a disproportionate effect that ripples through the economy. When you cut the cop's pay by 10%, he buys 6% less donuts (and other stuff), which leads the donut shop cutting its employees' hours 6%, which leads to 3.6% less other expenditures ... in total, that 10% becomes roughly a 25% hit on the economy. A tax cut of the same magnitude has a positive effect, also about 2.5x its initial value. This is also an approximation.
  • Lack of liquidity increases the multiplier. If your income goes up 10%, but all of your money is tied up in long-term CDs, you can't buy that new house. If mortgages are not available, you can't buy that new house. If you don't have a credit card, you have to wait until after Christmas to buy gifts, even if your Christmas bonus is a sure thing.

The actual economic picture is MUCH more complicated than this Keynesian ideal (for example, net exports have an opposite effect, and this does not factor in investor confidence, etc), but at the 50,000 foot view, it seems like a few corolloraries in this crisis might be:

  • Government services should be maintained. If the government does a radical belt-tightening or even a spending freeze relative to its current growth, there will be money in the government coffers that does not go out to the economy - and all those defense contractors, cops, social workers, civil engineers and so on that are out of work are not going to have money to spend or save, having a further impact on the economy.
  • Taxes should be cut. If the government raises taxes, even for the "good" reason of being fiscally responsibile, individuals will have less money to spend or save, having a further impact on the economy.

So, shockingly, the two candidate's plans to cut taxes are not as horrible as I thought they were. I'm not completely sure about the above logic, as the economy is very complicated, but while I'm speculating I'm going to go further on a limb and try a few more ideas:

  • If (if!) taxes are to be raised, perhaps they should be raised on the high end of the consumption curve. I'm not certain, but I strongly suspect that the consumption curve above is nonlinear - that the higher end of the curve flattens out, as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do not have a million homes each. Since most of the money is on the high income end of the curve anyway, this is where you will have to raise taxes. It will hurt - don't kid yourself that it won't hurt - but it will have less impact than if you tried to get the same money out of the bottom end of the curve. (For example, at the bottom end of the curve people will go into debt rather than starve).
  • A tax on consumption would directly impact the consumption curve, and should be avoided. Taxing consumption is like putting a brake on the relationship between national income and national spending - it will decrease the marginal rate of consumption (the 0.6 above) and raise the Keynesian multiplier (the 2.5 above) putting the brakes on the economy. This seems to indicate that sales taxes are a bad idea, and perhaps is bad news for the FairTax idea - the FairTax may be designed to make the system more fair, but it applies taxation to a place in the economy that will interfere with the growth of GDP. I haven't dug into the FairTax in detail, so they may have an answer which will ease my fears on this issue.

I'm not arguing here based on whether I think government should be big or small, or whether I want higher or lower taxes. I want lower taxes so I can buy more books, pay off my house more quickly, or get a new hybrid electric car; but more importantly, I want lower taxes because I think it will get the economy moving, as I've stated above. Speaking frankly, I have no desire to soak the rich: the rich pay most of our taxes (no, really) and do most of our investment upon which many of us rely for their jobs. So I don't want to make their lives harder; however, the rich have a greater ability to pay and still be able to invest and consume so if (if!) we were to raise taxes they should go up on the higher end. So based on these ideas ...

  • Obama's tax cut idea is not horrible. It raises taxes on wealthy people, but overall it is a tax cut, and should stimulate the economy.
  • McCain's tax cut idea is better. It lowers taxes on more people, for a larger overall total, and should stimulate the economy more.
  • McCain's spending freeze is questionable. It's not a terrible idea, but it does suggest that we should focus on trying to grow the economy to the point it can pay for our services, rather than cut our services and thus stop pumping that money back into the economy.
  • Obama's idea to back up states the way we are banks is not a horrible one. The biggest problem is the moral hazard it creates ... obviously all 50 states cannot do this forever, or basically we're draining our income taxes into our state budges. But if we allow governments to stop providing services, it will hurt the economy.

A few notes on things not completely covered by this model:

  • McCain's mortgage plan is ... WTF? Seriously, as a friend put it recently, "if we're going to spend 700B we should think out of the bo x". The answer may or may not be McCain's plan, which is more complicated than my simple little model and my dime-store understanding of economics. It would save homeowners and reduce risk to lenders, which should help things ... but the moral hazard, and investment risk, worry me.
  • Paulson's plan to buy into banks is ... not so bad? The capital injection into the banks, because it comes with a 5% dividend, sounds like a good idea. If the government is buying things at a steal, this could help the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, I think we are in "uncharted waters", as both the Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google gadlfy Mark Cuban. We have a crisis of investor confidence, which has led to a severe drop in the amount of investment recently. Some bold people with liquid cash, like Warren Buffet, may make money ... unless we are on the high side of a slide down to the market losing 90% of its value, as another friend pointed out happened in the Great Depression.
In this case, larger issues that the simple Keynesian model come into play:

  • Moral hazard. What kinds of behaviors do our policies enable? As one friend. has repeatedly reminded me, "if this goes on" we would keep bailing people out forever. The solution to that is to increase regulation on the bailed-out industries ... which will slow them down. So do you not bail them out ... in which case the lack of a bailout will cause a certain amount of pain. How much pain is too much pain? If we avoid bailouts and regulation, is that saying that we as a nation have to depend entirely on the market and sort of hope that maybe it will do the things we need to supply our nation with the things it needs to defend itself and maintain its global position (which in turn enables the functioning of our market)?
  • Investor confidence. As investor confidence drops, the amount of money invested in the economy drops ... causing multiplicative effects as we have seen above. In recent times these "factors" have become highly nonlinear and disruptive ... so we can't predict how much investment will happen from overall effects on the GDP. We have three big variables we as a nation can use to affect the economy: how much we tax, how much we spend, and how easy it is to lend money. The third factor has gone off the rails because of investor confidence ... it is looking like we have little control of this right now, though the TED spread is getting better. The tax and spend equation is also off the rails because of our huge debt, which means that some huge percent of our government income is not directly getting fed back into the economy in terms of goods and services, but instead is being paid off as debt, sometimes to people outside this country.

If we could wave a magic wand and fix things, we'd see a country with:

  • No debt, and thus not driving with the parking brake on.
  • If possible, less taxation overall, which would make it easier for people to spend/invest what they have.
  • If possible, less government spending in relation to GDP, which will increase the rate of growth of the economy and over time give us the revenues we need to do a wide variety of useful government programs.
  • Government spending close to government income, aaaaand...
  • A large cash reserve. This would be used to smooth over the rough times when we need to drop taxes or expend services to jumpstart the economy. It could also be used for bailouts or to smooth over state budgets ... money that was loaned out at strict rules and/or with high interest. Which makes you wonder ...
  • Is the idea of buying in to the banks a better one than we ever realized? Should the U.S. Government become a (safe, risk-averse) investor?

Right now I'm still researching, so these are more discussion points for ideas, not proposals at this point. But my big point here is I'm not talking ideology here. I'm not saying that big government is good or bad or saying that it would be wrong to redistribute wealth or wrong to encourage dependence on government. I'm saying, economically, some things will work and some things won't. Taxing the hell out of ourselves is going to slow the economy. Cutting government spending is going to slow the economy. Running with low taxes and high spending too long is going to raise debt and slow the overall growth rate of the economy, so when we get the economy running again we need to trim spending further to raise the investment rate - even if you want to ultimately provide more government services, you have to grow the economy first or you're trying to save the world with your hands tied.

If we want to have the resources available to us to do what we want - whether we want to buy guns or butter - we need to clean out the tank, release the parking brake, and drive the country's economy in the right direction.

-the Centaur

Emotional Memory and Adaptive Personalities

centaur 0

So a couple days ago I sent off the final draft of a paper on Emotional Memory and Adaptive Personalities to the Handbook of Synthetic Emotions and Sociable Robotics.  Tonight I heard back from the publisher: they have everything that they need, and our paper should be published as part of the Handbook ... in early 2010.


"Emotional Memory and Adaptive Personalities" reports work on emotional agents supervised by my old professor Ashwin Ram at the Cognitive Computing Lab.  He's been working on emotional robotics for over a decade, and it was in his lab that I developed my conviction that emotions serve a functional role in agents, and that to develop an emotional agent you should not start with trying to fake the desired behavior, but instead by analyzing psychological models of emotion and then using those findings to design models for agent control that will produce that behavior "naturally".  This paper explains that approach and provides two examples of it in practice: the first was work done by myself on agents that learn from emotional events, and the second was work by Manish Mehta on making the personalities of more agents stay stable even after learning.


The takehome, however, is that this is the first scientific paper that I've gotten published in the past seven years, and one of the few where I was actually the lead author (though certainly the paper wouldn't have happened without the hard work and guidance of my coauthors).  Here's hoping this is the first of many more!


-the Centaur


Political Followup: The Bailout

centaur 0

A few followup thoughts on the bailout, after discussion with friends:



  • Why we're in this mess:
    One of my friends pointed out that the real problem was banks buying toxic debt and not being willing to sell it for pennies on the dollar; because they sold us a story that they're "too important to fail" we now have a "no banker left behind" bill.  He suggested that the money should go instead to augment the short-term commercial paper market.  Well, this is now happening.  Maybe this guy should be my financial advisor.  Another friend had a similar idea and said it reminded him of Hamilton's Bank of the United States, a 20-year experiment that was used to put the new country's fiscal system on the right track by reducing speculation and increasing private commercial investment.  So there is precedent for these experiments.

  • The Fate of Libertarianism:
    The same friend was discussing this situation and said (in his perspective) that it was the death knell of the Libertarian party.  His friend said "try living without the FDA" and pointed out the current food crisis in China as an example; he then suggested that the same thing could be said of the financial markets - perhaps the argument might be "try saving without the FDIC", or "try investing without the Fed".  Maybe that could work, but you'll find plenty of libertarians who'll tell you we weren't doing pure libertarianism before (see the Community Reinvestment Act) and so it's pointless to blame libertarianism for this problem.  Nevertheless, the blame game is going around, and it's been difficult for me to get to the facts because so many people examining this situation are hopelessly partisan.  More in a bit.

  • The Fate of Capitalism:
    Another group of friends were wondering about the fate of unrestrained capitalism in the face of this situation.  A fair number of Republicans agreed with them over the past few years, calling for increased regulation which didn't happen while Democrats were arguing for less regulation - an odd flip of their normal positions.  George Bush is being accused of being a "big government socialist" for the bailout by conservatives and liberals are calling for more regulation.  Another friend was wondering if this would lead to fundamental changes in the capitalist system, and, shortly thereafter, the U.S. government started buying shares in banks.  If successful, these shares will jump-start the flow of credit and, if the bailout is successful, will win for the taxpayers.  If unsuccessful, we will be in the Second Great Depression, and the loss of that $250B will be the least of our worries.


So where do I stand?  Right now everyone's too partisan to think clearly: the Republicans are blaming the Democrats, the Democrats are blaming the capitalists, the libertarians are blaming the government, the bankers are looking at their shoes, and no-one's trying to look at the many Americans we were encouraging to buy homes and who are now defaulting.   I don't know if everyone's so scared they're grabbing for their favorite bugaboos or whether, more cynically, they're trying to use the crisis to get their favorite policy change implemented - or perhaps both.


But what I do know is that the amount of the bailout - seven hundred billion dollars - is only around 5 percent of our current GDP.  At the "worst" point of the Great Depression, 1933, the GDP fell to about 50% of its pre-Depression levels.  So at worst, the bet Bernanke is making is 10% of the GDP we should expect to have if things go really south.  So ask yourself: is it worth it to take 5% of your income for a year --- roughly $2300 from each American --- to invest in a business upon which you depend for 50% of your income?  Of course, the question isn't that simple: what help is the $2300? what's the chance that the business will fail anyway? what's the chance you will get it back? and, really, what's the likelihood that the $2300 is going to cause your crazy uncle to do something stupid again?


So I think it is worth it as long as we do the following things with the bailout money:



  • Make it accountable: We need to know where the money is going and why.

  • Don't throw good money after bad:  If a business is going to fail anyway, don't prop it up.

  • Put the money where it is needed:  Whether this is buying short-term commercial paper, propping up mortgages, buying in to central banks to give them liquidity, it should be something that really helps in a material way with our real problems.

  • Don't give the money away:  The stakes we are buying in banks pay a hefty dividend.  It goes up if the banks don't pay us back.  All our other investments should have similar incentives for the taxpayer to be paid back.

  • Don't get the government in the business of business:  The government encouraging banks to do things they ought not to was a key part of this mess; we don't want the government meddling in the running of these businesses because what government officials think that businesses "ought" to do often has little to do with reality of the market.

  • Don't let business get away from its fiduciary duty:  Business leaders and individuals taking on more risk than they should was another part of this mess.  Part of the game of people running businesses as businesses without being exposed personally to the businesses losses is the fiduciary duty of the people running the business: they are responsible for being responsible with the money that they have been given.  Smart regulations should be put into place to discourage financial institutions from taking on the huge risks that they did in this crisis, without taking away their flexibility to do what they need to do to keep the market moving.


In short, if we carefully use this money responsibly, we may be able to blunt the impact of this downturn; if we're even more careful in how we invest it, as we appear to have done by investing in the major banks, the taxpayers may even come out ahead.  We're not out of the woods yet, but there is reason to be hopeful that the bailout can help if we hang on to our principles.


-the Centaur