Proof of God

ARGUMENT FROM BEER (I)
(1) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
(2) Beer exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEER (II)
(1) Christian: Whatever you believe in is your god.
(2) Atheist: I believe I'll have another beer.
(3) Ha ha.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Soundtrack to Portland

there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt

Fuelonomics

When it was all said and done, this weekend I traveled approximately 630 miles. Although it might not seem like a lot, the bulk of the travel was done 5 hours.

While I was driving I thought a lot about the big deal people tend to make out of fuel efficiency. With fuel prices hovering around the $2.50/gallon range in the Pacific Northwest and nearing (or at) $3.00/gallon in other parts of the country, any automobile that gets less than 25 miles per gallon (MPG) is usually deemed as receiving terrible gas mileage. Anything above 25 and below 30 MPG is respectable. And anything above 30 MPG is fuel efficient.

I have thought a lot about selling my current vehicle for something more fuel efficient. I think this largely because 1) fuel prices continue to climb, 2) it seems like I'm filling-up more often, 3) I hate fuel stations, 4) it's somehow wired into my consciousness that I can't afford to pay for the rising cost of fuel and for my fuel-inefficient vehicle.

So I did some highway math...

Let's take two vehicles, a gas hog that gets 20MPG and a responsible/sensible vehicle that gets 30MPG, assume that we drive 20,000 miles in a year, and the cost of fuel is $2.50.

20 MPG GAS HOG
- miles driven in one year: 20000
- gallons of fuel used: 1000
- price of fuel: $2.50
- daily cost of fuel: $6.85

30 MPG SENSIBLE VEHICLE
- miles driven in one year: 20000
- gallons of fuel used: 667
- price of fuel: $2.50
- daily cost of fuel: $4.57

The difference in fuel costs per year between the two vehicles is ~$833, or $2.28 per day! At only $2 a day, that hardly seems like a reason to get rid of my current vehicle for something more fuel efficient. This isn't to say that there aren't other reasons for getting a more fuel efficient vehicle--it's just that the cost of fuel alone may not be a good reason as people usually think.

DCTOSEA

Little Boxes

I like prefabricated homes. I was first turned on to them in early 2005 when my first issue of dwell magazine reached my mailbox. It was in my first issue that I learned the difference between a prefab and a modular/mobile/manufactured home. Prefab is a term used to describe a modernist-styled home that is manufactured off-site, usually in a factory and created in sections, and later assembled on a building site.

Prefab homes feature clean lines and open floor plans. Most prefab homes combine building materials including concrete, glass, metal, and wood. Because these homes are mass-produced, they are relatively cheap compared to traditional homes that are built on-site. By using materials that are created and assembled in a controlled environment, materials are less-susceptible to being improperly installed or rotting. Most interior rooms are made of foamed glass core resulting in a structure that is incredibly light, warm, strong, and fireproof!

Once an interested home buyer has selected a site, the site is cleared, excavation is carried out, and a concrete foundation is poured (pre-cast concrete can also be used). The modules or sections are assembled on top of the foundation. The home is completed by adding rooms around the core. Because the structure is completely modular, upgrading is a snap--simply detach the old module and attach the new.

There are a number of modernist architects designing prefab homes. With a wide variety of design, sizes, and styles, there is no problem finding a prefab home to meet your sites needs. A number of designers are beginning to use environmentally-friendly building techniques and materials including reclaimed certified woods, radiant heating, living roofs, solar panels, and non-VOC (volatile organice compounds) paints or treated woods.

Book Review: Freakonomics

I didn't read the last 50 pages of this book. I should have stopped reading at 50 pages. Actually, I should have never started this book.

"Freakonomics" is a book that tries to explain social (and to an extent cultural) phenomenons with economic theory. The problem with this book is that economic theory is not an easy subject to understand. In an effort for this book to appeal to the masses, the theory and process is watered down so far that it makes equilibrium analysis look like child's play.

Maybe it was the hype the book received--it has been on the NY Times Best Seller List for almost a year, maybe the 4-star rating it received on Amazon, maybe it was because the cover of this book is also the cover for The Division Group's Apple/Orange EP, or maybe it was because I made the mistake of reading "The Tipping Point" and telling people about it and then having them tell me I should read "Freakonomics."

Rather than go in to the details of why I disliked this book, this post will serve as a reminder to not read books recommended by my work superiors. "Reefer Madness," "Don't Think of an Elephant," "The Tipping Point," and now "Freakonomics"--all recommended to me and all books I didn't enjoy reading.