Want to buy happiness? Spend your money on someone else!
At least that's what researchers at UBC and Harvard Business school report in an article (from March, sorry for the delay!) in Science magazine. They asked subjects to rate their happiness on a scale of 1-10, for a baseline. Then they gave them some money and told half of them to spend it on themselves, and the other half to spend it on someone else. The results?
Subjects who spent money on others were happier than those who spent it only on themselves. Even spending just $5 on someone else made individuals feel happier than whatever they could've bought for themselves....
Surprised? Well perhaps its gotten lost in the hubbub of modern society, but the naturalists understood this concept just 100-200 yrs ago:
"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no person can
sincerely try to help another without helping themselves." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-can-money-make-you-happy
http://www.livescience.com/health/080320-happiness-money.html
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/yes-money-can-buy-happiness/
Science Article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5870/1687?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=money+happiness&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5870/1687?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=money+happiness&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.compassionate-touch-training.com/
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Okay, the six-month sabbatical is over. I've been really busy with my research at UCLA, but after I saw this article I just had to post a quick snippet.
Several airports in the US (Baltimore, LA, Denver, Albuquerque, and Kennedy) have recently started using these new full-body scanners which utilize (sub-)millimeter waves. This admittedly low-risk radiation penetrates low density materials (clothing) and provides an image of any high-density material in the scanner (i.e., your body/skin). The image is viewed in a separate, closed room for privacy reasons.
Unfortunately most people have NO IDEA what this machine does (despite a few signs posted nearby, and faster bloggers than myself) and consequently only about 4% of requested passengers decline in favor of a pat-down. Perhaps the image of a TSA consultant below might give some of you pause the next time you are asked to enter this machine...
(image from the NY times, online)
The ACLU calls the scanners a "virtual strip search". Now personally, I can see how this technology would be an excellent replacement for strip searches (e.g., in jails or prisons). When a strip search is already called for, this machine can accomplish (essentially) the same objective in a much shorter time and without requiring personal contact between the searchee and the searcher. However, when was the last time you consented to a strip search at an AIRPORT?!?!?
If they randomly select me for this machine, I will kindly inform the TSA agent that I consider a pat-down much less of an invasion of privacy... How about you???
Several airports in the US (Baltimore, LA, Denver, Albuquerque, and Kennedy) have recently started using these new full-body scanners which utilize (sub-)millimeter waves. This admittedly low-risk radiation penetrates low density materials (clothing) and provides an image of any high-density material in the scanner (i.e., your body/skin). The image is viewed in a separate, closed room for privacy reasons.
Unfortunately most people have NO IDEA what this machine does (despite a few signs posted nearby, and faster bloggers than myself) and consequently only about 4% of requested passengers decline in favor of a pat-down. Perhaps the image of a TSA consultant below might give some of you pause the next time you are asked to enter this machine...
(image from the NY times, online)The ACLU calls the scanners a "virtual strip search". Now personally, I can see how this technology would be an excellent replacement for strip searches (e.g., in jails or prisons). When a strip search is already called for, this machine can accomplish (essentially) the same objective in a much shorter time and without requiring personal contact between the searchee and the searcher. However, when was the last time you consented to a strip search at an AIRPORT?!?!?
If they randomly select me for this machine, I will kindly inform the TSA agent that I consider a pat-down much less of an invasion of privacy... How about you???
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Scarily Serious Sci-Fi...
Reference: NY Times Article (11/16/07)
My father once told me a very interesting story about the first time he was truly scared after reading a sci-fi novel. When he finished "Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton, he happened to have been in his father's library. It just so happened my father stumbled across some of the references Crichton had used among the scientific tomes my grandfather kept, demonstrating the chilling plausability of Crichton's work.
Here we are about fourty years later, and Crichton is still writing science fiction novels just as powerful (and plausible) as ever. I recently read "Prey", on the suggestion of a professor at UCLA I respect very much. The novel combines broad strokes of nanotechnology (as Crichton tends to do with nebulous concepts pregnant with potential in future applications) with more specific aspects of computer science. The programming ideology he discusses in detail used to be called "distributed artificial intelligence"; and while the book may make it seem like A.I., it is called intelligence because the systems are supposed to achieve complicated goals thought only achievable by an intelligent system.
Now referred to as "multi-agent systems", the concept describes large numbers of autonomous individuals programmed with very simplistic goals which, when assembled, are able to achieve much more complicated goals. The book takes this idea to the extreme: where the robots learn how to reproduce themselves, and eventually how to kill people to protect themselves. But the idea of distributed intelligence is no longer limited to programs in a computer...
Researchers in Belgium (VU Brussels) have just programmed autonomous robots doused in "cockroach perfume" to behave like real roaches. They tested them by giving them a choice between two shelters: normal roaches choose the darker shelter 75% of the time. The robots were programmed so that they chose it 85% of the time. When the programming was changed to prefer the lighter shelter, the mixed group (4 robots to 12 roaches) spent only 31% of the time at the darker shelter, contrary to their natural instinct.
This basic research has broad implications: if we can modify the behavior of insects, we might be able to replenish our diminished honeybee stocks, or better control pests without the use of harmful pesticides... and this doesn't even scratch the surface of targeted evolution (e.g., creating a type of insect which feeds on biomass and excretes a useful chemical or fuel, helping to solve our energy problems).
My father once told me a very interesting story about the first time he was truly scared after reading a sci-fi novel. When he finished "Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton, he happened to have been in his father's library. It just so happened my father stumbled across some of the references Crichton had used among the scientific tomes my grandfather kept, demonstrating the chilling plausability of Crichton's work.
Here we are about fourty years later, and Crichton is still writing science fiction novels just as powerful (and plausible) as ever. I recently read "Prey", on the suggestion of a professor at UCLA I respect very much. The novel combines broad strokes of nanotechnology (as Crichton tends to do with nebulous concepts pregnant with potential in future applications) with more specific aspects of computer science. The programming ideology he discusses in detail used to be called "distributed artificial intelligence"; and while the book may make it seem like A.I., it is called intelligence because the systems are supposed to achieve complicated goals thought only achievable by an intelligent system.
Now referred to as "multi-agent systems", the concept describes large numbers of autonomous individuals programmed with very simplistic goals which, when assembled, are able to achieve much more complicated goals. The book takes this idea to the extreme: where the robots learn how to reproduce themselves, and eventually how to kill people to protect themselves. But the idea of distributed intelligence is no longer limited to programs in a computer...
Researchers in Belgium (VU Brussels) have just programmed autonomous robots doused in "cockroach perfume" to behave like real roaches. They tested them by giving them a choice between two shelters: normal roaches choose the darker shelter 75% of the time. The robots were programmed so that they chose it 85% of the time. When the programming was changed to prefer the lighter shelter, the mixed group (4 robots to 12 roaches) spent only 31% of the time at the darker shelter, contrary to their natural instinct.
This basic research has broad implications: if we can modify the behavior of insects, we might be able to replenish our diminished honeybee stocks, or better control pests without the use of harmful pesticides... and this doesn't even scratch the surface of targeted evolution (e.g., creating a type of insect which feeds on biomass and excretes a useful chemical or fuel, helping to solve our energy problems).
Sunday, November 4, 2007
UCLA Research: Superhydrophilicity
... (a period of silence) ....
Now after that brief break, I decided I'd update the blog with what I've been so busy with the past several weeks. We are working on a method to generate superhydrophilic films using polystyrene nanoparticles and thin film SiO2. I designed a process which utilizes the atmospheric plasma for substrate pre-treatment, nanoparticle etching, and plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of silicon dioxide. I'm off to present the results at the 2007 Annual Meeting of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) in Salt Lake City, UT this week. Wish me luck!
Now after that brief break, I decided I'd update the blog with what I've been so busy with the past several weeks. We are working on a method to generate superhydrophilic films using polystyrene nanoparticles and thin film SiO2. I designed a process which utilizes the atmospheric plasma for substrate pre-treatment, nanoparticle etching, and plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of silicon dioxide. I'm off to present the results at the 2007 Annual Meeting of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) in Salt Lake City, UT this week. Wish me luck!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Excuses, excuses... Mac-Style
Steve Jobs was issued a subpoena from the SEC to testify about his role in backdating his own stock options (as well as those of other Apple CEO's). It has come to light that Jobs had a personal hand in the illegal action, but "did not appreciate the significance" of the financial hand-waving. So far, he is facing no criminal charges...
Okay, putting aside the fact that if he didn't realize he'd be making more wealth for himself by doing this THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN HIM ASKING THEM TO BACKDATE the stock purchases... since when did ignorance of the law become a legitimate excuse?!? Isn't this kind of like somebody driving a brand new Porsche out of a dealership, being caught with it a few days later, and then being set free because he claims he thought it was a "free sample" since it was just out there in the showroom with the keys laying around...
Is this special consideration for one of the greatest magnets of wealth to this country? Or just croney-ism??? Well, at least it doesn't set a precedent for this "ignorance" excuse in jurisprudential history, since without charges it never even enters the courts system...
Okay, putting aside the fact that if he didn't realize he'd be making more wealth for himself by doing this THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN HIM ASKING THEM TO BACKDATE the stock purchases... since when did ignorance of the law become a legitimate excuse?!? Isn't this kind of like somebody driving a brand new Porsche out of a dealership, being caught with it a few days later, and then being set free because he claims he thought it was a "free sample" since it was just out there in the showroom with the keys laying around...
Is this special consideration for one of the greatest magnets of wealth to this country? Or just croney-ism??? Well, at least it doesn't set a precedent for this "ignorance" excuse in jurisprudential history, since without charges it never even enters the courts system...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
