Marriage

As a single nearly 26 year old Latter-Day Saint it should not be surprising that marriage is a topic that is regularly on my mind. This is mostly because people of the older generation will regularly ask me, "How are you doing," which is mormon for, "Why are you 26 and still single?" or possibly, "How are your dating relationships progressing towards marriage?" This is the sort of thing that has the potential to getting tedious almost instantaneously. It is for this reason that I was surprised how much I enjoyed the conversation I had recently on the subject with my mother.

The conversation revolved around the reason that some relationships last while others fail to do so. The topic was on both of our minds due in no small part to the recent marital disappointment that a friend of mine has suffered that we had both been made aware of by my rumor mongering brother and his wife (both of whom are people that I love to death). She is a smart, fun, considerate, ambitious, spiritual and gorgeous woman who had married a man who for all accounts appeared the be equally attractive, ambitious and spiritual. This is why when he suddenly dissolved their recent marriage it came as such a surprise.

That occurrence was something that caused a paradigm shift for me. Previous to that point I had never considered the possibility of marrying someone that had previously been married. I had met girls that been divorced, but there's a sort of mormon stigma that's attached to divorcees and it never even crossed my mind that I could consider them as marriageable. I think the problem is that I had never known someone well before a marriage that didn't work out. Anyone who knows my friend knows that her ex failed at life the day he walked out that door. She's certainly not perfect, no one is, but the sum of everyone of her shortcomings is so insignificant when compared to the benefit that one would gain from being married to such a intelligent, attractive, strong and righteous woman as to be entirely irrelevant. If someone could leave a woman like that, then there are no doubt several previously married women that are more than deserving of my attention.

The example of this friend's marriage stood in stark contrast to a couple that we had met only the previous evening while hosting a small Christmas Eve party in our home. The wife was very nice, but not actually attractive in any physical sense. The husband was attractive, but socially deficient in a number areas due to a fairly severe case of Aspergers syndrome. It's not the sort of marriage where you would generally put a lot of confidence in its longevity. Except that it has lasted, and has every appearance of continuing to do so. Not withstanding issues that for many couple would be insurmountable they are entirely devoted to each other.

The secret is humility. Others may call it selflessness, consideration or thoughtfulness, but the idea is the same; a lack of pride and selfishness. It's something that both of the members of that couple at our party had in abundance and something my friend's ex sadly was found greatly lacking. A marriage is something that can whether all the storms of life except the poisoning influence of pride. It's like Russel M Nelson taught, in a succesful marriage we need "to appreciate, to communicate, and to contemplate."

99%

Sometimes you read or hear something and it just gets you ire up. You fill with righteous indignation, go to grab the proper data to throw back in retaliation only to find that it isn't there. That is a sobering moment of reflection and paradigm shifting. I had just such a moment this evening after reading Chris Espinosa's article 99%.

What I thought at first was simply cleaver manipulation of data turned out really to be a fair portrayal of the financial situation of the different wealth classes in our country. That isn't to say that his article isn't without space for criticism (Chris, a flat rate tax would be a variable expenses, not a fixed one), but he does paint an accurate picture of the growing wealth divide. 

When I first saw this graph I immediately smelled misrepresentation of data. I looked at it and thought to myself, sure the rich grew in adjusted revenue from half a million to almost 2 million in average pre-tax income, but the other groups are so small comparatively that they could easily have have proportional increases that are just hard to see because of the scale and absolute nature of the numbers. 

In such a situation I did the only reasonable thing, I called Chris out and called him a pinko com...I mean, I went to the actual Congressional Budget Office numbers and did a graph of the proportional growth in income per group by year since 1979. What I found is summarized in the graph below.

The results surprised me. The inflation adjusted income of the top 1% increased 200% from 1979 to 2005. In comparison, the change in income of the lowest 20% increase by only 1.27% in that same time period. Sure the effective individual income tax rate for the bottom 20% dropped from 0.0% to -6.5%, while the top 1% rate stayed pretty close to the same (21.8% to 19.4%), but the results were still suprising to me.

However, beyond the fact that there is a growing wealth gap in the US and that gap is growing at an increasing rate my agreement with Chris ends. The gap is growing, between each group it turns out, but the fact is that not a single is group is worse off then they were 30 years ago. Yes, the income of any group is proportionally less then any of the groups above them, but their own buying power hasn't been diminished in any way. The fact is the second quintile (the second lowest 20%) could buy 10% more in 2005 then they could in 1979, and even the very bottom 20% are slightly better off then they used to be.

Once that point was made I don't know why Chris even bothered to keep writing.

Of course it’s a myth that the CEO who makes 185 times the average worker’s pay earns it by working 185 times as hard

 Well clearly, I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to work 1480 hour days.

—it takes almost no work at all.

Really? You're going to stand by that? I have to ask, "Chris, have you ever managed anything or anybody in your entire life?" The board of directors isn't paying the CEO 185 times the normal worker because they like throwing money at people. They do that because that's the going rate of a good CEO and a good CEO make the company more money and everyone in the company more money. A bad CEO leads the company to failure and bankruptcy.

The increasing wealth of the 1% comes largely from the 99%: the mortgage, credit card, and auto loan interest, the gap between corporate profit growth and wage growth, the arbitrage on the ups and downs of the 401(k) accounts of the majority of Americans is the almost effortless source of wealth for the 1%.

First of course the investments of the 1% make money largely off the 99%. If whatever they were doing with their money was targeted perfectly across society they would still be make 99% of their money for 99% of the population. Secondly, aren't you glad that somebody is giving money to banks so that you can then borrow it to buy a house? Here's a little tidbit FYI, if you don't want rich people "exploiting" you with interest payments don't borrow money from them. You'll hang onto more of your money and those "terrible" people making money off of our insatiable need to buy more then we can afford will make less.

...make companies responsible for their own losses and end Too Big To Fail.

That however, I agree with.

Why DRM?

Digital rights management, or DRM, has become a technology buzzword for the modern age. Users frame large organizations like the MPAA and IRAA as totalitarian monsters while these same organizations simultaneously frame the users as hardened criminals. However in all the hubbub the real importance of the debate is lost. The point of different digital right management technologies should be two parts

1. Give proper credit to content creators
2. Assure appropriate compensation to content creators

Maybe with big name movies and music giving proper credit isn't as big an issue since everyone can clearly see that Brad Pitt and George Clooney star in the Ocean's movies, but blockbuster movies and pop music are not the only place digital rights management is important. Independent music and film and well as online publishing of commentaries and literature need credit given where credit is deserved. Funnily enough these groups that are mostly likely to be hurt are also the groups that are the least likely to be protected since the large organization that lead the charge against piracy aren't the least bit interested in the independent little guys. The big problem with digital rights managements is that it's being implemented by organization like the MPAA and IRAA who's interest is not the right of content creators, but rather content providers. What the future needs is a technology that the content creators can use to manage their own content and make sure they get their fair share and credit.

Tech and the Gospel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Saints is a church that is very plugged in and aware of the impact and reach that technology can have. Currently the Church is active on facebook and twitter. Members are encouraged to share the gospel through blogs and other online social outlets. These are powerful tools that can be used for great good, but come with a word of caution I think that Elder Ardern said it well in his address this last conference,

There is much that is good with our easy access to communication and information. I have found it helpful to access research articles, conference talks, and ancestral records, and to receive e-mails, Facebook reminders, tweets, and texts. As good as these things are, we cannot allow them to push to one side those things of greatest importance.

That's good solid advice for all aspects of our lives. Use the tools that have been given us, but make sure they're used appropriately and in moderation.

Stallman

So after recently watching revolution OS, a film about the rise of Linux and the open source movement, I was struck by something; Richard Stallman is completely nuts. Now, you have to respect the commitment that Stallman has to his principles. Stallman's belief in the importance of building community is inspiring. However, the lengths that he will go to avoid using software that is not free is pathological. His belief that all software should be free is itself crazy. Clearly there are some business models where free software works and can be profitable. However that doesn't mean it's the only reasonable model and that others are wrong. Like many zealots Stallman is dedicated to his cause to a point of unreasonableness. I mean, should everybody refuse to use MP3s just because the MP3 algorithm isn't GPL licensed?

Hackers in Society

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the effect that hackers have on society and the position that they play. Having recently finished the Cukoo's Egg, the topic has been on my mind. There are basically two type of hackers (although the line can be really fuzzy), people who want to see how stuff works and poke at vulnerabilities and those that wish to wreak havoc and steal. Because of the latter group the former becomes necessary. People who find weakness in systems without breaking things in necessary in a world where people want to wreck havoc. Fortunately basically ever computer nerd in the world likes doing that sort of things and most of them are pretty nice guys.

Technology and the Past

Thanks to the miracle of modern technology everyone is now getting a peak into the past. According to a recent article on CNET everyone that has access to the internet also has access to one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of the last century, the Dead Sea Scrolls. This single project shows how technology can change the way that people interact with great discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. While in the past access to this discovery was limited to a few carefully selected experts, now it's accessible to every expert, enthusiastic and casually interested person with an internet connection. In the future projects like this could allow a huge break through in academic research allowing researchers and experts to weigh in and share their expertise to a greater extent at less cost.

Batteries Suck

The recent review of the Motorola Droid Bionic by computerworld.com underpins a major flaw with the Bionic and mobile technology in general, battery life is terrible. While the Bionic is a prime example of horrendous battery life (four hours under normal use according to the review) it's a problem that's going to get worse and worse. The down side of the Moore's law is that power consumption also increases with the increases as processing power increases. Unfortunately, battery technology is not keeping up with increase in power consumption. This means phones and other mobile devices are getting more and more powerful and capable, but batteries can't keep up with the demand. The worst part is, unless there's a massive break through in battery technology the only options are live with 4 hour battery life or start shrinking and pulling out other components so there's more room for bigger batteries.

The Machine

About a month ago my mom shared an article from the Wall Street Journal with me by Marc Andreessen which he titled Why Software Is Eating The World. Andreessen's made the point that business has changed in a fundamental way so that every major industry has become, at least in part, a member of the software industry. This observation by Andreesen is a natural outgrowth of a fundamental change in society as a whole, the rise of the machine. The reason software is a fundamental part of every major business is because computers have become a fundamental part of day to day life. If you're a person in your twenties or younger then chances are you you make most of your purchases with a credit or debit card, most non-food purchases happen online, you don't own a watch because you use your phone instead, your phone is your alarm clock, most of you news comes from the internet, your more likely to watch "TV" on hulu then an actual TV, etc... Software runs computers and computers have become the new de facto modus operandi.

Guiding Principles

While reading through Focus and Priorities I was struck by the idea that the world may change, progress and grow in a myriad of ways, but if we are people grounded in solid principles we'll always know how to react to those changes and incorporate them into our life. It's the same kind of idea that Dr. Knutson espoused about parenting in his interview with Jon De Pre, the principles of parenting don't change just because your children now spend part of their time hanging out  in the virtual world, you still want to know where they're going to be and who they're going to be with. It makes me stop and ponder what the guiding principles in my own life are since I don't believe I've ever really enumerated them. It seems that it could be said that my main principles boil down to fulfilling my commitments and trying to keep the Spirit in my life, and of those, maintaining the Spirit is the most important. If you can keep the Spirit in your life you'll know if your striking the right balance between school, work, publishing a sloppy web comic, watching community, performing your church calling, taking care of your spiritual well being, socializing, etc... If you're trying to do what's right then you'll know the right thing to do.