If you are interested in this topic just click the link writing papers for more details and information or reply to this message.

On the topic of 'chops', a pretty common metric bandied about lately is 10,000 hrs to reach 'expert' or championship levels.  It would be interesting to note if there are local 'maximums' along the way on the learning curve.  ie., after 100 hrs or 400 hrs, can you expect a certain level of competence?

Recently picking up tennis again, and having put in about 10-20 hrs, I can see a marked improvement... but then will I 'plateau' here for a while?  Of course this has much to do with how much comes back from the 100's of hours played in the past.  So this could be different due to the fact that its not a new skill for me.  Thinking further along then, the question becomes when can I expect to reach the same level I once had, and then what to do in order to surpass that?

Which then raises the point, its not any 10,000 hrs - you could be training but doing the wrong stuff, or constantly the same stuff...  So then its a matter of seeking out the boundaries of what you know, or can do well.  In essence its a matter of your discomfort index.  How well can you deal with the discomfort of threatening your ego and picking up new skills?

On the topic of books, I've been trying to not buy anymore physical books, since I have so many ways to read eBooks now.  Unfortunately my last 6 books that I wanted either they are not being released as eBooks or they are much more expensive than the used hard cover alternatives.  Much more in fact.

Even with $3.99 shipping for each book, I paid about $16 for 3 'used' books, and the eBooks price was going to be $40+

Still haven't tried that selling back to Amazon option, but plan to over my 'vacation' in  a couple weeks.  Its mostly a home improvement/renovation vacation.

Adj. 

1 - Of a mental act performed entirely within the mind

2 - Of qualities that are spread throughout something

(at least its new to me)

I looked up a few of my older (less read/recently used) trading/market books and they fetch about 10-20 bucks each...  I might consider trading them in (pun intended  )

But the line about them just tossing them out, if they don't like the condition is a little disturbing.   My guess is that some  people will try to send in absolute crappy condition books- and this is there way of protecting themselves.  I tend to keep my books in decent shape.

Sounds simple enough... print out mailer, tape up box.  Good - bye to books.

i just noticed a new feature on amazon, a 'trade in' link when you look up a book. Its right next to the 'sell yours here' button. "trade in" lets you get amazon.com credit for books you mail in for free (trade in).  They also tell you right there how much you can expect to get.

For popular books, its about 50 cents to 1 buck. For more rare or expensive books it can be like 20 bucks.

The books have to be in pretty great condition though, and can be rejected (and thrown out) by the recieving merchant.

I probably still prefer walking my books into a local used bookstore (i recently got $100 doing that with 6 boxes of books i was about to throw out), but its interesting that amazon has this feature now. Might be useful at some point, especially if you have just a few but valuable books and are looking for some quick cash.

Of course i expect that selling my books (after OCR scanning them) will more than pay for my investment in the OCR equipment.

A lot of Market psychology that I read about and started to use in trading is listed and outlined in this one convenient location.  In a larger context, it answers what and why we all do the quirky things we do.

A Scribd document:

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=30548590&access_key=key-16z0xj5qe5jejhknehs9&page=1&viewMode=slideshow[/flash]]<a title="View Cognitive Biases - A Visual Study Guide by the Royal Society of Account Planning on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30548590/Cognitive-Biases-A-Visual-Study-Guide-by-the-Royal-Society-of-Account-Planning" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Cognitive Biases - A Visual Study Guide by the Royal Society of Account Planning <a href="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=30548590&amp;access_key=key-16z0xj5qe5jejhknehs9&amp;page=1&amp;viewMode=slideshow" target="_blank">http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=30548590&amp;access_key=key-16z0xj5qe5jejhknehs9&amp;page=1&amp;viewMode=slideshow</a>[/url]

I think this is like saying "food" or a "hammer" is bad for you.  It depends on the individual and the diet of shows they watch.  You could say "junk food" is bad for you - which makes more sense, but could still not represent how healthy that individual is.

Considering that my local cable company offers hundreds of channels, it can be hard to find stimulating shows, and the ads are far more frequent for shows that are more well funded by the toy, snack, movie, etc. industries.  So watching TV is a slippery slope so to speak - it is rather easy to slide into bad habits.

On the other hand, there is enough content that is very thought provoking (and not just the lefty VS right talk show fodder too).  A balanced diet of shows can be a huge gateway to other learning.  Also even the standard evening entertainment has gotten more sophisticated - the average crime drama involves so much more actual science than say a generation ago.

Too bad most simply stuff themselves with junk- tho, diversion can be healthy at times too.  If everyone simply did some exercise every commercial break, or ran a small electric generator we'd be in much better shape on so many levels.  It would be interesting to know whether the current economic trend drives more or less TV watching.

so my cousin was in town and we took the circleline cruise (the 'half cruise' that goes from 42nd street west, down to ellis island, then up to 42nd st east, and then back down to 42nd street west. 2 hour trip).  Yea it was one of those touristy things to do that you dont do until someone is visiting you and insists on going. Got some decent pics out of it.
Oh, also went to the USS intrepid, which was a lot more fun than I expected.

(incidentally, we went thru times square around 6pm on our way home, the bomb excitement there happened at 6:30, so we missed it by 1/2 hour, i guess we were lucky).

Thats one big boat:




nice shot with serendipitous sailboat in foreground:


postcard shot of brooklyn bridge as we passed under it:


btw i couldnt see a damn thing on the lcd screen on my camera, washed out by sunlight. I was basically aiming and shooting in the dark. So was pleasantly surprised that some of them came out nice. Then again downtown manhattan is like the grand canyon: you can pretty much point the camera in any direction and get a postcard shot.

downtown skyline framed by bridge:



The intrepid was a LOT of fun, we spent nearly 2.5 hours there, and easily could have spent more, walking thru the many levels of the aircraft carrier, looking at the planes parked on the deck, and also they had a sub there.  And they also had this parked there, which is an amazing thing to walk up to, since I never could have afforded the $1000 tickets when it was still flying, this was my first time up close and personal to this legend:

a startlingly beautiful piece of technology:




we got to walk thru it; inside, its basically like a greyhound bus. No, seriously. Its like an extra-long greyhound bus. About same size seats and same size headroom and same size width, etc. Except that its a mach 2.0 greyhound bus. Thats one of the most beautiful airliners ever made. Looks spectacular from any angle.

lots-o-fighter jets (and tourists) on the deck of the intrepid:

...as if we didnt know this already, but some new study is out saying if a 2 year old watches too much television, they can expect a host of problems by age 10.

""Television is a passive intellectual activity, television is a passive physical activity," Pagani told LiveScience, "And when it occurs early on, during the time that brain expansion is going on, during the time when lifestyle habits and preferences are talking place - they're kind of crystallizing - it can have extremely negative long-term effects."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/l...nkedtoahostofproblemsat10