Calorie counting really works. . .

. . . or, well DUH!!!

So, a scientific study found that reducing just the amount of calories consumed at lunch can lead to weight loss. Apparently, one of the prevailing thoughts was that if a caloric deficit was introduced at one meal, we would naturally make up for it during another meal or snack time.

Instead, the researches say they were able to "sneak in calorie reductions without the body noticing."


I make mockery of the article, but there really is a hidden lesson here. A lot of diet and weight-loss programs tell us we have to count all of our calories, all day long, using draconian methods. Instead, this research highlights that small changes are effective.


So, replace eating out at lunch with a portion-controlled meal, and do everything else the same. You incur a calorie change and will slowly lose weight.


Now, I just need to remember that myself, and implement it.


(h/t to Instapundit)

Wait, what? Verily, the mind doth boggle

While reading a rather interesting WSJ.com article about home foreclosures and deficiency judgements, I came across a quote that epitomizes why the housing market is in such dire straits.

Ms. Ingham says when she bought them, she misunderstood how much her investments put her on the hook for. Her builder, she says, promised she could invest $10,000 in four properties and then flip them for a profit. Ms. Ingham says deficiency judgments punish borrowers who were taken advantage of by lenders and builders.

(emphasis mine)

So here we have a lady, retired programmer for IBM, that was presumably rather financially successful (Big Blue paid well back in the day). She saw an opportunity to "make it big" in the real estate market, and rather than doing any sort of research or due diligence, she just trusted the builder's claim about how quickly she could flip the properties.

So, she now owns 5 properties (I'm assuming she owns her primary residence), and can't unload her 4 "flips". She quits paying the mortgages, the properties go into default and then foreclosure, and then the bank decides it wants its money back. Explain to me exactly how this situation is the fault of the lender or the builder, and not the fault of someone who thought they could turn a quick buck?

Oh, and I should have known the article would turn into a stress-test of my cardiovascular system when the lede is:

Joseph Reilly lost his vacation home here last year when he was out of work and stopped paying his mortgage. The bank took the house and sold it. Mr. Reilly thought that was the end of it. (emphasis mine)

So, we're not even complaining about primary residences, but vacation homes.

Are government loan guarantees a form of venture capitalism?

Megan Mcardle over at the Atlantic responds with a resounding NO!

This is one of the better analyses on this I've seen, and it addresses something that's been bugging me. If the technology is sufficiently ripe or exciting (whatever technology it might be), then why does the government have to guarantee the loans in the first place? As Mcardle says:

Now, maybe you think that there is some unpriced social return of these investments.  But then this has nothing to do with VCs, portfolios, or risk; it's a subsidy.  And loan guarantees are not a very good way to structure that subsidy.

Here's why: at the company level, there's no difference between an optimal market outcome, and an optimal social outcome (from the DOE's point of view); both investors and society benefit if more solar cells are sold.  If the solar cells are unlikely to be sold to many people, than the loan guarantee is not a good idea--it will not foster much environmental benefit.  If the solar cells are likely to be sold to many people, than the loan guarantee should not be needed; private investors should be easily found to back the manufacturing. 

I absolutely agree with that. This is yet another case of the government picking winners and losers in the market place. And it's not even picking winning and losing technologies. It's picking one particular company in a particular market segment.

If the government wants to subsidize a particular technology, there are other ways it can do (and has done) that. Think about energy efficient appliance credits, and the like. In those cases, the government is not picking a company, it's picking a technology or desired outcome. Efficiency standards were developed (whether or not you agree with them is another story; at least it was a relatively level playing field) and any company could manufacture a product that complied with those standards. Then, the consumer was allowed to choose (wow, that sounds suspiciously close to free-market principles) if they want to purchase a compliant product, and if so, from whom. Now, it's possible that the government tax subsidies would play a role in that decision-making process. Certainly, the companies hope it will, as much time as they spend advertising that particular benefit. But, it's also possible that other factors like 1) Will it fit in my laundry room? or 2) Can I afford the purchase price RIGHT NOW? or 3) Do I like its form and function? might be bigger drivers in the decision. Either way, the consumer gets to choose, and the government is merely trying to influence the decision through its legitimate taxing authority.

In the case of Solyndra and the other loan guarantee recipients, there is no element of free-market control in the process. The government is straight-up picking winners and losers, and losing out in the end when business plans the open market wouldn't touch with a 100-foot pole crash and burn.

Further, I think loan guarantees inject a measure of moral hazard into the process. Once the government has loaned money in the first place, it behooves it to continue to prop up that business. Also, the government is not receiving any sort of equity stake like a traditional VC would, so therefore has no control over what the company does with the money. It's almost like the government is more in a position of being the reinsurer, and on the hook for any losses.

I'll be honest. There is one place that I can think of where a loan guarantee process might make sense, and it's in terms of what Obama pitched as his "Infrastructure Bank". These are not revenue projects. They will make money for the construction firms and that's about it. Further, these are then essentially government to government loans, so Washington isn't really competing in, and mucking up, the market. However, there are also some huge issues with an Infrastructure Bank, and I'm still up in the air as to whether or not it's a good idea long-term.

However, loan guarantees to private companies because they put together a really cool presentation deck? Yeah, that needs to stop, yesterday.

Should this be Mike Sherman's last season?

For that matter, I'm sure some are asking if he should even finish out the season. For two weeks in a row, the Aggies were up big at half-time after a dominating first-half performance. It was easy to think that even if they hiccoughed a little in the second half, they had still done enough to win the game.

And the Oklahoma State and Arkansas had different ideas.

The Aggies have scored a grand total of 10 points in the 2nd half in those two games (not counting the safety that Oklahoma State gave up). Yes, the offense failed to move the ball and take control of the game, but the defense also had its troubles. Blackmon for OSU and Wright for Arkansas both had huge games. For two weeks in a row, the opposing quarterback set schools records for yardage. One or two more stops, and just maybe the games come out differently.

My point is, while it's very easy to say "Fire Mike Sherman", both games have shown a total collapse on both sides of the ball. I know DeRuyter is supposed to be a defensive genius, and things did improve last year when he switched the Aggies to the 3-4. However, it does seem like the staff as a whole is getting outcoached in the second half. The other teams are making adjustments, and we aren't. They're executing, we aren't. They're moving the ball and scoring, we're not.

To go from pre-season national title hopes and aspirations to a 2-2 record is very disappointing. It's demoralizing. I'm trying hard to not be a "bad Ag" and give up on the team. I mean, we technically still have a chance to win the conference, but it's very hard to believe right now.

The coaching staff deserves a chance, but Sherman's chair should rightfully be feeling a bit warmer right now.

Who says floppy drives are useless?

This is just too cool for words.

Follow-up on tracking RSS feed stats

On Thursday, I asked a question about tracking RSS views and stats via Sitemeter.

As I expected, nobody really knew anything. However, having done some research, I have stumbled upon the answer. I had previously noticed that a lot of people used Feedburner to provide their RSS feeds. I wondered about that, because most blogging platforms provided native RSS support.

Well, it turns out that Feedburner is for RSS feeds what Sitemeter or Google Analytics is for web sites. So, I've changed my feed settings in blogger to point to feed burner, and I've changed the RSS chicklet on my site as well.

I can now see how many subscribers there are to my feed, and which entries they actually click through on. So, if you already knew that, I'm sure you're chuckling and smirking behind your hand, but if you didn't, hopefully this is useful for you.

Sitemeter bleg

Okay, so I finally signed up for a Sitemeter account, because I wanted the better stats that they offer.

Here's my question: Do you include it in your RSS feed, and if so, how? Or, do you just accept that you'll only track people that actually click through to your site?