Book Review: The Org by Fisman and Sullivan

Tax refunds were direct deposited in the back account this recently.  I guess this bumps me one step closer to retirement or a new motorcycle.  More likely neither.

I don't know if it has evolved this way on purpose or not, but the Federal Income Tax system is a stroke of genius.  None of us like paying taxes, but few of us rarely realize how much taxes way pay even though this would be trivial for federal taxes.  

For most of us, taxes are taken out throughout the year.  Then, early in the next year we "do our taxes" which involves filling out a bunch of forms in some manner.  At the end of this exercise, the number we are left with is a refund or a small (relative to the actual tax) check to write.  This is the genius.  I have almost never heard anyone comment on the total tax they pay, even though this number is clearly written, as it comes from the tax tables for most of us.  What I always hear about is the refund (gleefully) or the amount owed (with disdain).  The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this must be done on purpose.  Thinking about this I had to go back and see what my actual tax was, even though I did know what my refund was.  Chalk one  up for government mind control.

Lots of numbers are thrown around about the unfairness of taxes, but they are never really explained.  Warren Buffet claims his secretary pays a tax rate of 35.8% compared to his 17.4%.  I have a hard time understanding where 35.8% comes from.  Is this overall taxes including Social Security and Medicare?  Is this relative to Gross income or Adjusted?  I won't even attempt to understand 17.4%.

Since it is "tax time" the TV adds are filled with commercials for Turbotax and various human-based tax preparation.  This is good for TV since New Years resolutions have been thrown into the dustbin, the commercials for gym memberships and smoking cessation products are waning.

This year's commercials for H&R Block are often very condescending   Everyone else is an idiot but them.  They probably work though as there is an innate fear of spending a few extra dollars even if preparation costs a lot more than that.  

What I can't believe is that the average person's taxes are so complex that they can't do them without payed help.  The IRS still allows taxes to be done with paper and pen.  A few forms, a bit of time and done; not too complex.  Maybe my finances are just too simple though.

I'll admit to being a dinosaur in this regard although I did try electronic filing a few years ago.  I tried to use the IRS "Free File" option.  When it came time to actually file though, I continued to get the error message that my name and social security number did not match.  I was stuck, I could not continue to file electronically (I am aware of what my name and social security barcode is) but wasn't sure if I could back out and file by paper.  I chose the latter and all went well.  Since then, I've never gone back to file electronically.  I can hold a grudge forever.

What is frustrating is that the IRS really does have a lot of smart people.  Their web site is super easy to use and find information that is needed - their search option actually works.  Alternatively Minimum Tax help - walk through the questions.  The IRS is prevented by law from creating a simple web-based filing system that probably 95% of us could easily use making tax preparation easier and saving the government untold quantities of money.  Lobbying efforts by groups representing H&R Block and their condescending commercials prevent this gentler approach.

As I was doing my taxes this year, one thing that hit me was that every word on every from; every statement in the instructions was actually written by a human, and assuredly had multiple bureaucratic approvals before being distributed to us taxpayers to use.  Every word.

Which brings up the book, The Org by Fisman and Sullivan.

I don't remember where I heard about this book, but I thought it was going to be a snarky and cynical look at the office, a la Dilbertesque.  It wasn't.  This was an economist's view of the structure and function of large organizations and how and why these organizations are the way they are; why they often look the same.

The beginning of the book was slow and painful.  This may have been because it was not what I was expecting.  The second half of the book was much more interesting, explaining why painful bureaucratic things exist the way they do and why faceless bureaucrats behave the way they do.

It also boxes in much of the systems in place as one of motivation of employees and demotivation of unhelpful (lazy, human) behavior.

The section on office culture and how it relates to productivity and perceived productivity was truly enlightening.  I continue to struggle to know how to use this information in my own job, but there is a nugget there somewhere.

The one part where the book absolutely falls flat is where the authors struggle to rationalize the exorbitant pay given to chief executives.  Their reasoning may work from an economists standpoint, but they fail to recognize the symbolism that comes from such excess in the face of employees' pay which constitutes a rounding error of an executive's.  Rationalizing the pay given to company heads who have failed falls absolutely flat.  Only tacit acknowledgement is given to the reality that corporate boards are controlled by other company heads and a "lets scratch eachother's back" situation is unavoidable.  Most of us are comfortable taking care of others like ourselves as long as it does not negatively affect those most like ourselves, which is ourselves.  Golly if that doesn't define bureaucracy (I can never spell any variation of that word.  Damn the French...).

Spoiler Alert:  In the end, the authors basically say that the reason large organizations are the way the are, work the way they do and tend to look very similar despite very significant differences in business is because there are many competing interests.  Since business is designed to get the most possible out of every employee (who are trying to get the most out of their employers) and oversight only comes with documented expectations we are left with few alternatives.  And, oversight requires oversight.

So the best we can expect is "glass half full."

In other words, if you want to have a job with a paycheck, or if you want to be a boss and have the growth possible with contributing employees.  Suck on it.

Davis Vantage Vue Weather Station

I've wanted a weather station for quite some time.  Things have conspired against me to do it though until I worked through a few issues to make it happen.
My old house sat low in a holler and was surrounded by many large trees making it generally unsuitable to weather monitoring. Leaves and twigs plug everything, so even a rain gauge was sometimes an issue.
The house I live in now is in a very rural area, but open and much higher in elevation.  I didn't really want a weather station if it couldn't be online and my internet choices are somewhat limited.  There is no cable or DSL where I live which limits the availability of an always-on internet connection.  My internet connection for the last couple years has been cellular.  There is a data cap, but the reception is good enough I can get a reliable 4g (HSPA+) connection.  4GLTE is nearby; hopefully it will expand a few hundred yards more some day as the LTE speeds are pretty impressive.  I won't hold my breath.

In order to make cellular work for my overall needs, it has to be reliable and work with a couple devices at the same time.  So, I retired my air card and bought a used AT&T Elevate from an Amazon Partner.  I could have reupped my AT&T service and got one "for free" but used Elevates are readily available for very reasonable prices.

I had to play around with the settings to get an always on connection, but that was pretty easy to figure out.  One benefit to getting a MIFI over the smaller air card was I can put it in a spot in the house where the connection is better, giving even better speeds than I previously had.

With a stable internet connection, I needed a computer to hook my weather station to.  I have an old desktop which works and is reliable, but it is very large and I wanted the weather station to be placed in the kitchen so a large computer wouldn't do.  I poked around and found the Asus EeeBox.  These are remarkably small computers, about the size of two DVD packages stacked on top of each other.  I didn't want to pay full retail but was able to buy one of these from and Ebay Auction for around $60.  That was a steal!  It came in great shape.  While not a supercomputing powerhouse, the demands for a local stable internet connection for a weather station don't require a lot of processing power.
Originally I was looking for a very small monitor to go with it.  The plan was to hide the computer above the kitchen cabinets and then have a small monitor on the wall.  The EeeBox came with a bracket to mount it to a monitor which seemed like a better idea.  I had to drill new mounting holes in the bracket to clear the power cord on a smaller 18" HP monitor, but once that was done the entire computer with wireless keyboard and mouse combo make a perfectly small kitchen computer.  Yeah, the cords are ugly.

OK, big deal, now there is a computer in the kitchen.  I thought this was about a weather station?

I've researched weather station options for quite some time and there are lots to choose from.  I'm actually surprised there were no WIFI weather stations available.  There are options to have a very small (even smaller than the EeeBox) dedicated Linux weather server, but that seemed to limiting.
After looking at all the available weather stations, I chose the Davis Vantage Vue.  This seemed like a very good compromise on price, features and reliability.  Some of the cheaper stations have lots of negative reviews and questionable reliability.  These do sit outside all year round, exposed to heat, freezing weather, rain, etc.  There are definitely more functional units available, but this is a hobby.  I'm not trying to become a meteorologist.  I'm just a local weather nut who would like to be able to monitor weather in my back yard (even if I'm across the country).
Davis had more expensive units that I considered, but I liked the compact sensor "suite" which allowed simple mounting.  If someone is going to purchase a Davis unit, shop around.  Prices are all over the place.  I was able to buy both the Davis Vantage Vue and the WeatherLink software with data logger for nearly the same price as some of the cheaper units available.  I'm confident this was the right choice for me.

The Vantage Vue comes neatly packaged in a box with some assembly required, but it is super easy with very good instructions.  Obviously, the sensors need to be mounted outside.  I had read reviews saying the "tipping bucket" rain gauges can be negatively affected by a wobbly mount so I was paranoid about making sure I had a good solid post to mount the unit on.
After looking at options, what I ended up doing was using one of the corner posts of my chain link fence.  I bought a top rail section of fencing and put it inside the corner post.  In the area between the inner and outer post, I poured a slightly thinned slurry of concrete.  This post is SOLID - almost frighteningly so.

In order to cap the posts and make it less unattractive, I used a whole saw and hand cut the top post cap of the chain link fence and sanded it to precisely fit the top rail post.  I think this makes a very nice look. Once the weather warms, I'll probably put a think bead of silicone to prevent water intrusion and corrosion even thought it is galvanized.

I let the cement harden overnight before assembling and mounting the Vantage Vue ISS.  I'm very happy with the outside mounting of the overall unit!

With the sensors ready to go, I turned back inside to the console and computer.
The Davis console connected instantly with the outside unit.  Davis says it will receive at 1000 feet.  The sensors are only about 65 feet from the house so the connection is great.  Within a short time everything was working and I was monitoring the weather.  The Davis manuals are acceptable, they do a good job of installation, playing around with the features of the console was almost easier by trial and error once I understood the basic flow of the unit.

In order to connect the Vantage Vue Console to a computer, you must buy their WeatherLink software which comes with a data logger.  The data logger can hold months (or more) worth of data and has a USB-out to connect to the computer.  I think the data logger is the purchase, the software just happens to come with it.

The Asus EeeBox does not have an optical drive, so I copied the entire CD on another computer to a USB memory stick.  I installed the Davis WeatherLink software from the memory stick and then plugged the console into the computer (the manual says to do it in this order).  Within a few minutes, I was monitoring the weather on my computer.
I've read a lot of negative reviews of WeatherLink.  After using WeatherLink and a couple other options (as well as looking at a few more), I think I'm sticking with WeatherLink.  I don't think the software is too bad, but the documentation is poor.  Cumulus has some nice features, but I didn't really see any advantage once I played around with those two options.  WeatherLink also has some nice features that I didn't know about until I clicked around a lot and found some hints online.  I will say, I think Davis' hardware is more advanced than their software and associated documentation.
Once the decision was made to use WeatherLink, I wall-mounted the console and tucked everything out of the way.  I still need to do something with the birds nest of cords behind the computer/monitor, but I may get a UPS first (a day after I started posting weather data, we had a power outage).  Even without power, the console has battery back-up (C-batteries, haven't bought those in years) so data is collected.

 After getting the sensor set up and mounted; the console up and talking with the sensor, and the console talking with the computer, it was time to get online.
I registered my station with Weather Underground.  Weather Underground makes a "module" to directly send data from the WeatherLink software to Weather Underground.  The instructions to do this are on Weather Underground's web site and it is very straight forward.  Within a short amount of time I could see my data online.
Then I saw I could also include a weather webcam - yep, I gotta do that too!  I have a window only a few feet from the weather computer.  I had a cheap webcam I had never used that I bought for around $5.  I hooked it up and it connected to the EeeBox quickly.  Weather Underground has instructions for webcams which is also really easy.
There are several options for WebCam software.  I chose YAWCam as it did everything I wanted it to do including saving images locally on a different schedule that what is posted to online, and setting a schedule where the software is not constantly sending black night-time images.
I did find that I had to "reconnect" the webcam to the station several times on Weather Underground's web site before the two seemed tied together permanently.  Within a few hours, I was able to see my weather station history and webcam online.  Too cool!

Unfortunately, a $5 webcam takes two-bit pictures and I was taking weather webcam shots through a window and screen, further deteriorating the images.  The results were less than satisfactory.  Additionally the webcam seemed to set the light exposure when it was plugged in and then never adjusted again resulting in over and under exposure most of the time.

Looking at other weather webcams online, I knew that I could do better even through a screen.  I went to a local very good computer store and perused the options.  On the bottom of the rack was a Microsoft LifeCam HD-5000 that someone had returned, for a very big discount.  It only came with 30-day guarantee.   I figured since it was going to be on almost continuously, if it didn't work, I would know very quickly.
Picture quality isn't perfect, but probably about as good as I can get looking through a window and screen.

It took a few days before my station was seen as an option in Weather Underground.  I can now see my station online and on my Android phone using the Weather Underground website.  There are also other phone apps to see Weather Underground station data.

I also wanted to connect with the Citizens Weather Observation Program or CWOP.  This is a program which takes local weather station data and sends to NOAA for use in very short term models as well as refining local weather patterns.
This was less straight forward than Weather Underground, but instructions to do this from WeatherLink are available online.  The CWOP program started out as a way to send data using HAM radio.  Since its birth was pre-internet, the path from computer to NOAA is hopelessly complicated.  The data also goes through a quality check at some bounce in the process.  I've read many adequate pages on the CWOP and understand the basics, but not much beyond that.  This is an interface between private weather enthusiasts and the federal government.  There is evidence of bureaucracy and understanding the acronyms is not trivial:  CWOP MADIS, WXQA, findu.com, APRS...  I'm just happy the instructions to send data to the system are relatively easy.  I wish there was a single web page that explained the system in total in plain English.  There are some decent Wiki's on the subject but the text still looks like it came out of Dilbert's Jargonator.  The public-private partnership is also plagued with servers no longer in operation and links, images and pages that no longer exist.
At some point in the near future, I'll dive into this more to understand it better. For now, I know my data is going to NOAA and that the visual tools available to see my data from the program are very useful, especially in monitoring quality vs. other local stations.

Davis' info says that to see your weather it just "requires only a permanent Internet connection, a nice place to put your outdoor sensors, and a few hundred dollars burning a hole in your pocket."

This whole adventure costed a bit more than I expected (<$650; AT&T Elevate, computer, monitor, weather station with data logger/software, webcam, mounting hardware, etc. etc.), but at this point, the weather station has been up and running for over a week.  I'm sending data online with webcam pics to the world.

Guns: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics But, Data.

There are two things I don't like to write about here:  Work and Politics.  This is an exception.

Guns have been in the news a lot lately.  There is a legislative push to increase background checks and the checks effectiveness, restrict magazine capacity and ban "assault" rifles.  Lets look at the assault weapons ban.  Diane Feinstein's legislation defines an assault rifle as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine which also one of the following characteristics:  pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
As an aside, depending on how "detachable stock" "barrel shroud" or "pistol grip" are defined, this could ban all magazine fed rifles, now or in the future.  There are some disclaimers (the bill is 132 pages and I've read all of it), but interpretations can be just that.
Before our Dear Leaders do this, lets look at the numbers to make data driven decisions.

Disclaimer:  This is a blog, not a scholarly article so it is not footnoted as to source data.  However, data comes form credible non-partisan sources such as the CDC, WHO and FBI.  None of the data comes from sites such as i_hate_guns.com or ar15s_rock.com.
One source for much of the raw data was U.S. Department of Health & Human Services report Deaths:  Preliminary Data for 2011.

In 2011 there were approximately 2.5 million deaths in the US.  16k of those were homicides for a per 100,000 homicide rate of about 5.  This puts us in the same camp as countries such as Ukraine and significantly below the EU average of around 3.0.  We can be a mean bunch of people.  Murder (as opposed to all homicides) put the US in a similar neighborhood although the numbers get murkier due to varying definitions and reporting of murder.
The US gun ownership rate is 0.9 guns per person.  This is beyond the top of the list.  Three times Canada and the EU, and even more above the global average of about 0.25 guns per person.  We own a lot of guns.

In 2011 there were a little over 30,000 deaths by firearms in the US.  What surprised me when I looked into the numbers was that approximately 20,000 of these were suicides.  Guns are a particularly good tool for suicide, but the fix for that is elsewhere as there is an unlimited number of effective ways to take ones own life.  Surprisingly, the US suicide rate is middle of the pack (15 per 100,000) much below France's 30 and above UK's 10.  Overall, the data don't support that more guns automatically means more suicide.
That leaves about 10,000 homicides by firearm in the US.  Slightly less than half of those are criminals shooting criminals or deaths while people are involved in criminal activities.  I think the take away from that is that if someone keeps there nose clean and doesn't enjoy the excitement of the criminal lifestyle, then death by firearm rate is closer to 1.7 per 100,000 or roughly 5000 in the US.
Comparing the 5000 deaths in the US per year to other deaths (from the same source):
Falls:  25,000
Drowning:  4,000
Car Crashes:  40,000
Alcohol Induced Deaths:  25,000 (acute)
Drug Deaths:  40,000
Alcoholic Liver Disease:  16,000
Poisoning:  33,000

These data show that if a person is not involved in criminal activity, he or she should be nearly as afraid of drowning as guns.  And much more afraid of being poisoned.  Car crashes are nearly an order of magnitude above guns as a cause of death.
There are various statistics around the likelihood of gun deaths based on gun ownership (gun ownership increases the likelihood).  I believe these - absolutely.  I also suspect drownings increase with pool ownership and heroin consumption increases the chance of drug deaths.

Expanding on the homicide rate for 2011 according to the FBI:
Handgun:  67%
Rifles:  2.5%
Shotgun:  4.1%
Knives:  13%
Blunt Force:  4%
Hands/Feet/etc:  6% (I'm curious what the FBI classifies as "etc." here)
Strangling:  1.4%
So rifles are somewhere between blunt force murder and strangling.  If the government wanted to reduce murders, knives would be a better choice to go after than rifles.
I could not find any statistics that met my criteria for coming from an objective source so let's assume that every single rifle murder was done with an AR-15.  If Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are successful in banning the AR15, the most this would affect the murder rate in the US is 2.5%.
What is the conclusion from this?  The decision to go after assault weapons is done out of fear or misunderstanding of them.  This is not a decision based on data.  This is bad public policy.  Banning assault rifles is being done out of emotion, and public policy and legislation should be done based on data and facts, not emotion.

Samuel Clemens said there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.  I agree.  But what the data says is the following:
Unless involved in criminal activity or determined to off yourself, you are significantly more likely to die in a car crash or be poisoned than be killed by a person with a gun.  This is nearly the same chance as drowning.
If we ban assault weapons and take them all away, the murder rate at most would drop 2.5%.

Disclaimer:  I'm not going to divert from data to speculation.
Let's assume Carolyn McCarthy succeeds in banning assault rifles.  This is followed by a 2% drop in murder rate and a 3.5% drop in firearm murder rate (this would be unlikely since murders previous being done by rifle would likely be done by other means, including other firearms).  Do you think Carolyn McCarthy will be satisfied?  Do you think that meets Diane Feinstein's goal?  If you do, you are delusional.  After a negligible drop in the violence rate, the next target will be some other firearm, then another, then another.  It is unavoidable because these decisions are based on emotion, not data.  Legislation should be based on what is real, not what is assumed or felt.
Part of the reason we have such a problem with violence in the world and in the US is due to emotion.  Murder does not happen out of ambivalence.  Unfortunately, emotional legislation will never help the problem.

Further Disclaimer:  I don't have data to back the following up.  I'm still thinking about what data is needed to further understand this.
So what will help?  I'm just a guy writing a blog and nobody really cares what a fat ugly middle-age guy thinks.  I wonder what would happen with an increase in scrutiny over gun sales.  I'm always a little disturbed when I see a sign at a gun show that says:  Private Sale!  No Check Required!  The National Instant Check System appears to have worked well.  I wonder what it would really take to expand this to most firearm sales?  This is not as trivial as the news makes it out to be and the cost could be phenomenal.  Having an FFL is a privilege  not a right.  As part of that privilege, doing checks for other sales at a nominal fee ($20????) could be required.  I'd bet people might pay the $60/year just to get an FFL and facilitate these sales (cost drops to $30/year after three years).

Back to data...
Regardless of what happens, the current legislative push is not data driven and will do little to nothing to make us safe.  Legislating against the madman with a gun is like legislating against the drunk driver who is also naked, having sex, sitting in the passenger seat, going 97 miles per hour in a 35MPH zone while texting about the whole thing.  Creating laws to guarantee a stop to this is not possible without affecting every other careful law abiding driver, likely making driving impossible.  Maybe that is the intent.