Neural Spasms

Crazy Logic Around the Abortion Issue

2011-10-25T01:32:00.000-07:00

I just saw this article posted yesterday in the Boston Daily online magazine:

The Sex Education of Mitt Romney by Barry Nolan

It discusses an audience question directed toward GOP presidential campaigner Mitt Romney. Essentially the questioning went:

Do you believe life starts at conception? Yes

That would mean banning most forms of conception. Why are you against conception? To which Mitt, apparently, responded with a stunned silence.

The article then critisizes him for his seeming lack of knowledge of the functioning of contraception, stating the questioner was correct.

To which I respond with saddness at the seeming lack of logical deduction abilities in the average reporter today... and with the following observation (originally intended as a comment on the site, but since they require the article to be shared on facebook before comment, I chose not to):

------->I'm not republican (by a long shot), but I will suggest that perhaps Mitt was 'tripped up' by the seeming illogical 1+1 = 3 of the question. If anti-abortionists believe life starts at conception and contraceptives prevent conception, then fertilization has obviously not taken place and there is no issue of whether you're harming life because there is no life there to harm--from anyone's point of view.

For contraceptives to be considered harmful to life, even by anti-abortionist views, life would have to be considered to start at the level of sperm or egg. That would be a difficult sell, however, since male masterbation or, indeed, a woman's menstration could both be considered acts of murder. In fact, couples would still be committing murder even if sex lead to fertilization, since only 1 in millions of sperm 'survives' (oh yeah, and since sperm die after a few days anyway, whether used or not, men would be committing murder just by existing).<-------

This article exposes some of the craziness that arises around the issue of abortion. Especially when it's mixed with politics.

Lightspeed Dreams vs glacial progress

2011-05-25T05:24:00.000-07:00

There is a big issue regarding superinjunction in the UK right now. I won't comment on my personal opinion in this post, but rather, my comment is reserved for an article that suggests that twitter and facebook should be censored in order to uphold such laws because they are like internet media outlets.

This idea is, of course, completely crazy.

The editorial is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/twitter-ryan-giggs-social-media

and my response is here:

This is clearly written by someone who misunderstands the technology of the modern age completely.

Twitter and Facebook are no more akin to media outlets than talking to your neighbour in the street is. They are far more like textual mobile phones, than newspapers. And I don't think Richard would dare suggest a delay after every sentence communicated over cellular, just so the censors could confirm its legality. Or what about big brother agents standing on street corners with directional microphones listening to all conversations on the street?

This is yet another example of the glacial pace of the establishment clashing with the lightspeed dreams of modern technology. One of them has to give, and unless the establishment is willing to take us back to the caves to maintain control I'm sure it will be the glaciers.

The Illegal War in Libya

2011-05-02T02:48:00.000-07:00

I wrote this as a forum post in support of the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/nato-gaddafi-libya-air-strikes?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

because some of the posts seemed to show such a naivete that it was frightening.

-----------------------------------------

Bravo on all counts.

Accurate on all counts. I have trouble believing that thinking readers understand otherwise, and I have to put down crazy comments like:

Make no mistake, Nato's strategy violates international law, shows callous disregard for the innocent, and prosecutes a war approved by no international body,

--> Wrong on all three counts.

to astroturfing (that is: the 'Wrong...' comment). Especially as the poster gives no further elaboration on what anyone can clearly see is a gross, illegal, but entirely expected, overstepping of the original mandate.

Otherwise, some of the 'enlightened' posters surely would have to question why we're expending so much energy on Libya when other, much worse regimes, are not being addressed (Saudia Arabia, as mentioned in the article, is essentially the king pin of all terrorism, but also our greatest financial supporter).

And, yes, such 'enlightened' posters would have to conclude that, once again, money and oil are doing the talking. Libya has one of the largest oil reserves in Africa. That and its proximity to Europe make it an ideal country in which to install a puppet government.

Even if such 'enlightened' posters ignored the black gold issue, they would have to question the ethics of appointing ourselves (along with US) as global policeman. After all, no one else wanted us to have the job. No one begged us to invade them and most countries spend their time either laughing at or loathing us. Even more worrying is who polices the policemen?

We run around the world professing to help downtrodden people in areas that suit our economy. But think. If Britain or the US had a civil war (and mark my words, it's not too far off) do you really think we would want someone like China or Russian to come in and 'help' us?

I can't help but think that the majority of 'enlightened' posters would answer a resounding 'no'. To which I must conclude that they are hypocrits. If we don't want to be policed, what gives us the right to police?

And now, as the western world rejoices at the 'death' of Bin Laden (buried at sea?! come on, you can do better than that U.S.) we are supposed to conveniently forget that we were complicit in an invasion that killed an estimated 30 times more civilians in Iraq than the 9/11 attack (not officially, of course, since allied forces conveniently decided not to keep count). Our leaders are as big criminals as any despotic regimes we're currently attacking. Yet none will ever come to justice, since justice seems to be a concept only available to the west.

Anti-Nuclear Rhetoric

2011-04-01T04:01:00.000-07:00

I was reading The Double Standards of Green anti-nuclear Opponents by George Monobiont in the online Guardian--a very balanced look at nuclear power and how it dangers compared to other energy sources are often exaggerated and, as usual, once finished I went browsing the comments and following up some of the links provided by concerned readers. I came across one comment a few times that I just can't reconcile with my understanding of reality so I decided to write a comment, which I'll share here.

-------------------

3. The creation of energy through renewables has the potential to spread wealth, generate employment, and increase equality.

The above comment confuses me, yet I've read it in various places by different people. For the life of me I cannot see how renewable energy has the potential to do any of those things.

1) Renewable energy collectors / transducers / distribution lines will still be built by companies who will still reap most of the benefits (even government contribution will be reduced the way the UK is going).

Energy production/distribution is big business and building a different type of energy generator is not likely to change that. Even if we each have personal solar panels everywhere, we'll still have to buy the equipment etc. and there will be some form of tax to make us pay more (or, in UK, we'll have a few sunny areas we'll go where we'll pay to rent space for charging our panels!).

Building a personal wind farm is impractical due to money and space (again, especially in UK where there are more people per square km than China, and a lot less area. However, you may be able to rent a windmill at a reduce rate...)

2) I can't see that the construction would require that many more people but, in the case of wind, it would obviously require much more area also --> would that not result in greater damage to the environment? Even the sea has creatures and ecosystems and a wind farm has a huge footprint.

Maintenance would likely be similar for both

Any renewable source requires almost no further human intervention apart from maintenance, construction and manning the stations--same as non-renewable sources (i.e. no mining, shipping, waste removal, etc are needed). Therefore, any non-renewable source almost by definition would supply more jobs.

3) Given the above--that wealth will remain localized to the companies, and that there will not be any more jobs than with non-renewable energy--how will renewable energy contribute to greater equality? I just don't see it.

So, I'm quite confused by some of the arguments and would appreciate some clarification.

-------------------------

And I would, because some of the arguments put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby seem full of meaningless utopian rhetoric.

Edwin

Religious Thought: War on Drugs?!

2010-06-07T01:26:00.001-07:00

I find it strange that we in the west have had a war on drugs for at least the entirety of my life, it seems. Yet, the euphoric state of peace and carelessness is exactly what much of Christianity prescribes to being in heaven. Many I've talked to will say heaven must be much like being in love all the time (in love with God, of course) and little else seems to enter the picture. Of course, the obsessive, euphoric state that we commonly describe as love is a highly disturbed period of a person's life that's not unlike an addiction.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would find trillions of years in a drugged haze to be a vast waste of existence (not to mention the obvious question: why would God want to keep everyone in that state?).

So, basically, Christians are a vast organization of pushers in the midst of a turf war. They're trying to run all other drugs off the street to get a monopoly for their own version.

---------------------

Supplemental thoughts:

(1) Perhaps the 'chosen' represent those who are most susceptible to the drug!

(2) Why would God want an 'army' of mindless, addicted souls?

Updated Religious Thought of the Day

2010-06-07T01:24:00.000-07:00

Mythology = old beliefs

Religion = new beliefs

The Truth 101: Going to Church

2010-03-21T03:44:00.001-07:00

People do not go to church because they want to believe in a higher power than themselves. People find religion because they want to believe in a higher power than themselves. They go to church because they want someone else to tell them what and how to believe about such a higher power.

Religious Thought of the Day

2010-02-05T01:43:00.000-08:00

The religious view of mankind is akin to putting someone on a pedestal and then kicking the crap out of them.

State of the World

2010-02-02T00:58:00.000-08:00

With all the religious-themed hatred, bigotry and violence being perpetrated on all sides, I'd say the world has gone crazy. But was it ever sane?

Religious Thought of the Day

2010-01-20T03:05:00.001-08:00

Mythology = their beliefs

Religion = our beliefs

Social Warfare, Drawing the Lines

2009-11-19T00:40:00.000-08:00

While it may not be obvious to many, there are several social wars underway that, if ever resolved, will determine the direction of society itself.

It's understandable if you aren't aware of them, or hear of them only in passing. The world is so busy today, with longer work days, automation leading to greater expectations at work (contrary to the initial assumptions), more leisure activities to distract. In addition, there are the societal demands of your spouse and children to eat into ones time. With all these distractions, there simply isn't time for most people to be socially aware.

So what I thought to do in this and the following blog posts is to summarize some of the most hard-fought wars that are currently underway in western society.

1) Creationism vs. Evolution
This simply won't go away. The lines were drawn with the publication of Charles Darwin's famous book Origin of the Species, however, I'll argue that the seeds for this war were sown with the origins of the Catholic Church.

2) Digital Rights Management
Simply put, this is a war over who has the rights to control that tech device you just bought. This is actually a subset of an much larger and more insidious war. Simply put, corporations are trying to control...well, everything. It sounds like a conspiracy theory when written, but anyone who pays attention to the machinations of Big Biz will note the trends.

3) Go Green
This, arguably, is the simplest and yet most complicated of the wars currently being waged, and the only one that, if one side is right, has a time limit. To make it more complicated, it has become my view that we could lose regardless of who wins unless calmer heads prevail.

In the next few blog posts I'll go through these issues trying to show where the lines are drawn and what each side has to win and lose. Of course, I have a side I favour and, sorry to disappoint, but I won't pretend to be impartial. Unlike the media, who pretend (or at least pay lip-service to the idea) that each side of an argument is equal, I will try and show the logic of one side over the other.

If you haven't guessed my leaning yet, I'm a humanist. I believe that everyone is born with the right to a healthy, happy life. It's not achievable for all, since there are people who are made happy by gaining power over others, but those people, regardless of their social position, should be considered to have a mental illness. As intelligent people building a healthy future, we should take the path that makes the majority happy (the meek shall inherit the Earth?). It has always struck me as strange that those who gain happiness from physically hurting another we lock up in prisons while those who gain happiness from controlling and making suffer thousands of lives, we reward with big houses and huge salaries. Ultimately, this is the mentality we will have to break, if we are to truly harness the power of the coming technology.

Religious Thought of the Day

2009-11-11T02:14:00.000-08:00

Christianity is the McDonald's of religion.

It took something that had existed for thousands of years before, made it tastier and more accessible, and introduced kiddie versions to 'get them hooked while they're young'.

Reality TV Xtreme

2009-08-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

So what's with all the wimpy reality TV these days. I never watch the shows except when flipping to catch a few minutes when nothing else is on. I did, however, watch survivor reruns about 6-7 years ago when the station would play them every night. Perhaps that's why I see the difference when I'm unfortunate enough to catch a few minutes of Stranded or whatever the show was called where they're supposed to be marooned on a dessert island (not that survivor was all that 'survivor' either). I mean, the entire time was about various quasi-romantic liaisons, and everyone was nicely showered and wearing good clothes. I really must be missing something here, but where's the 'reality' in this 'reality TV' or the feeling of being stranded and needing to survive?

What I'd like to see is something much more reality:

-Stack an island with props / food / challenges / cameras
-Drop teams at either end of the island
-Leave them to their own devices to get food, water and find the way off
-Each evening the teams do a secret ballot to remove one member. That person is taken off quietly/secretely while the groups sleep.
-Various challenges are added each day, but without knowledge of groups (until the challenges are encountered). That could mean that, as they move through the island, their path behind becomes perilous also.
-Challenges are set so that teams figure everything out on their own, and eventually when getting to the end, there is only one person left
-Important: at no time does anyone from either team come in contact with show hosts or anyone setting the challenges (except when taken from the island or for medical reasons). The challenges are not scripted (i.e. there are no instructions to read, no one telling them what to do). Everything is totally 'real'.

That's what I would called survivor reality TV. Not this club med stuff that's on now.

Of Afghanistan and Video Games

2009-08-17T00:38:00.000-07:00

As ever more British soldiers are killed in Afghanistan (204 as of writing), ever more questions are asked by the British media and public. Before I go any further I'd just like to state that I support the idea of removing the Taliban from Afghanistan and I believe it should have been the main goal in the region even before 9/11. The resources poured into the illegal invasion of Iraq would have been much more useful in Afghanistan where they could have actually combated an evil/terrorist supporting regime.

Be that as it may, it seems the US/UK still hasn't learned their lesson (or aren 't actually serious about taking Afghanistan?). Somehow, the governments are still playing at WWII tactics and haven't realized that most of their wars since then have been more akin to guerrilla warfare than European urban warfare. I saw an interview with a government official this morning who insists that over the last few months the troops realize they've been making substantial progress. Then, when questioned further on a timeline, he goes on to say that both he and the general believe that very real progress can be realized over the next several years.

What?

He's spouting such a can of hogwash it isn't funny. The short of it is that, as of now, Afghanistan is basically another Iraq (if you consider the real Iraq battles to have started after Hussein was ousted). And that is precisely because the government is being wishy-washy and is not fully committing either way (going full-on or pulling out). Granted, the terrain of Afghanistan does present some formidable problems as does the guerrilla nature of the conflict against an army of fundamentalist zealots. Which is precisely why the governments need to decide go-or-no-go and stick to it. A policy of perpetual war might have been useful for them in the past, but considering the internet for disemminating information/opinion and considering the financial crisis and a wishy-washy policy is far more detrimental to all involved than almost any other option.

The numbers I've seen are that there are an estimated 20,000 Taliban. The report this morning said the UK military is requesting there be 9000 UK troops and the US around 30,000 troops with a total internation forces of around 65,000.

?

Either someone hasn't been doing their math right, or, as I suggested above, they're treating this as an urban European war. If these numbers are correct, the international forces outnumber the Taliban around 3:1 To have any chance at winning a guerrilla war the attacking forces (us) typically requires 10:1 numerical superiority. So, the numbers alone will tell you that this war will not end any time soon (and probably never with a favourable outcome for us).

Conspiracy freaks have your way with this info (i.e. either someone has goofed big time, or someone doesn't want the war to end).

So where do the video games come into it? Only regarding battle experience in relation to numerical superiority. Anyone who has ever played a real-time-strategy game (RTS) such as Warcraft, Starcraft or any of the numerous others in the genre quickly realizes that without appropriate numerical superiority there is very little hope of victory. In fact, the only thing that stops an devastating counter attack is lack of resources by the enemy.

For those of you who don't like numbers, keep hoping that something good will come of it. Those of us who've looked at the numbers know that a finish to this is very unlikely in the near future--and the finish we desire much less so even then.

If God does exist...so what?

2009-08-16T11:23:00.000-07:00

I've spent much of my life questioning the existence of God. I was twelve when I told my parents I wasn't going to church anymore because I didn't believe. And that wasn't just a kid complaining about an unpleasant chore. I didn't believe because it was my impression that the events of the bible could more likely be carried out by aliens than Gods. Seems even at twelve I instinctively understood the burden of proof, or more accurately, the truth behind the phrase: an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Be that as it may, I think I've reached the point where it's time I've moved on to a new question. I'm now more concerned with the idea that, even if God exists, why should anyone worship him?

Perhaps I come at the whole religion thing differently than most people and that's why I can't understand the common thinking. I believe that, if God(s) exist it/they are simply being of a greater scale than us. Even as we are of greater scale than other beings. They may even have created the universe from an older universe outside ours (or maybe universe creation is just a natural even of the cosmos). But even if they did create our universe...so what? That still doesn't leave any reason, in my mind, for worshiping them.

I suppose many believe that such a god holds the key to other dimensions--afterlives, if you will--and that worshipping them, getting in their good books will come with rewards. Yeah. Whatever. If you believe that a being capable of creating universes has anything but a passing interest in your existence then...well, let's say, I have some property in Atlantis to sell you. Do we take any serious notice of ants? When we stick them in an ant farm, do we really care about them. Do we feel any great, long-lived angst when we empty the farm in the back yard when it's time for us to move on? 'Higher' beings do not, and never will truly care for 'lower' beings except as pets or curiousities.

So whether God(s) is creator, higher being, or imaginary friend, there is absolutely no reason to worship him/her/it/them except self delusion.

Dark Matter / Dark Energy Could They Be...

2009-06-24T15:02:00.000-07:00

Something a bit different this time, a bit of recent cosmological speculation of mine coming as a result of reading the non-fiction book Parallel Worlds by the physicist Michio Kaku. It is a credit to his layout of the book and a bit of extrapolation relating to my digital 3D artwork that I had this idea.

Let me start from the beginning.

Michio leads off with an overview of the book in which he describes the idea of parallel worlds/universes as becoming a popular idea in modern cosmology. He also likens this to a combination of religious ideas where you can have your creation and your perpetual universe too. That is, he suggests the idea that the multiverse could be thought of as universal 'bubbles' constantly 'banging' (as in big bang) into existence amid the timeless sea of a greater cosmos.

He continues by discussing results of WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and 2002 measurements of the background radiation that put the universe, very precisely measured, at 13.7 billion years old.

Another thing that WMAP did was to show us just how much of our universe is not composed of the periodic elements. We now see that only 4 percent of the universe is made up of matter of a type we understand. The rest is made of dark matter and dark energy (a mind boggling 73 percent is dark energy).

Now, I don't have any more idea on the fundamental nature of what dark matter or dark energy could be composed of, however, what did occur to me is that, if our universe is not strongly bounded but rather a quasi-loose collection of matter (galaxies, stars, etc) then the situation may be more akin to a dandilion dander floating in a river. Conceptually, one could think of this (here's where the 3D art part comes in) as a sphere whose volume has been textured with patches of colour (galaxies) and patches that are transparent. Or, to put it another way, imagine our universe is permeable to the greater cosmos (that sea of the multiverse). Now, instead of being self contained, we are part of the whole and the whole can flow through out universe. i.e. the dark matter energy may actually be fundamental 'stuff' of the greater cosmos, the structure of the multiverse, that flows like an immense river through our (and other) universe.

Conceptual representations of different universe 'types'. The top image represents a bounded, homogenous universe as a sphere bobbing in the sea of the cosmos. The middle image is the general view of our universe as a bounded sphere that has matter inhomogeneity (galaxies, stars, etc). It is still an entity unto itself. The lower sphere is that of a unbounded, inhomogenous collection of matter that floats as a loose sphere in the cosmos. It is only this last version that is transparent to the 'stuff' of the cosmos (dark matter/energy?) and allows the matrix of the multiverse to flow within it.

So, if my idea is right, then by studying dark mater/energy we could actually learn about the fundamental nature of the mulitiverse, that currently hypothetical area 'outside' our universe.

Edwin Rydberg
June 24, 2009

jobs and the environmentally friendly world

2009-05-26T15:49:00.000-07:00

I'm really getting tired of the excuse that 'we can't go green because it will destroy thousands of jobs', or 'it will change our way of life'. If your car stalls on the train tracks with a train coming toward you, do you stay in it because you can't bear to leave your car? Of course not.

So, first things first. Yes, it will change our way of life. It has to. If our way of life didn't change, then nothing would have changed and we will keep marching down the road to oblivion. But that's actually irrelevant because...life is constantly changing! Many people somehow seem unable to see this. I personally blame religion (especially the Abrahamic ones) because living your life around one ancient book tends to give people the idea that things shouldn't change. Buddhists. on the other hand, see everything as constant change. So do biochemists. Without change there is very literally no life. The biochemistry that gives us life requires flux, change. If the system is at equilibrium (i.e. no net change) the organism is dead. So on a fundamental level change is always happening and is crucially necessary. But so too on a larger scale. Is the world the same as it was last year? five years ago? ten years ago? Was our way of living the same a hundred years ago as it is now. The people who use this argument are intending to imply (without actually saying it) that our way of life will somehow be worse if we live better and more harmoniously with our environment. I suppose, for them, it might since most of the people starting such ideas make their money from destroying the environment.

Now onto my real pet peeve (yes the last argument was just a warm up). Will we lose jobs if we go green. Yes. And no. Once again, this comment is said with the suggestion that we will all be destitute when we stop building gas-guzzlers or stop running coal-fired power plants. That simply isn't true. You know and I know that just because we don't make gas-guzzling cars doesn't mean there won't be cars, they'll just be more fuel efficient--and who is going to build those fuel efficient cars? New technologies, in energy generation, transportation, and others, will require factories and plants of their own. It will mean retraining, at least for some. Although I'm sure in many cases the retraining wouldn't have to be that significant. But if fear of retraining is the only real argument you have against this then I say go live in a cave or get with the age of technology because things are only going to move faster from here on. So going green, in and of itself, will not necessarily cause any net loss of jobs and will open up many more new jobs and industries.

Thus, the only real arguments against shifting to a green society real boil down to laziness or fear of not being in first class on the big business money train. But, if we don't go green either through habits or technology, then we'll be forced to change in ways we never wanted to.

Postman Pat should be fired!

2009-05-24T05:03:00.000-07:00

Those of you with young children will likely know what I mean. I often watch Cbeebies on BBC with my young daughter and one of the shows is 'Postman Pat' - now the Special Delivery version. In writing terms, each episode of Postman Pat follows the ' idiot plot ' model. Which is to say that all the characters have to be idiots for the plot to work. And this is precisely what I believe Postman Pat should be fired. Normally, the post suggests to us that a 1% failure rate is very reasonable (that itself is questionable, since they deal in millions of objects and 1% failed delivery amounts to tens of thousands of objects not being delivered...). Regardless of whether we accept the post's claims, the simple fact that Pat screw up his delivery EVERY show warrants a serious look at his work record by his supervisors. His record is made all the worse by the fact that he only has about ten people to deliver to. Yet still he finds ways to lose or mix up their packages--everything from Teddy bears to reels of film. He even lost a cow once. There is no doubt that the people of his district would be better served with a new postman.

DRM: Help! Amazon is robbing my home!

2009-05-22T04:53:00.000-07:00

Well, not my home, but, effectively, that of certain people. Let me explain.

If you're at all into the e-reader scene you would have to hiding under a rock not to know about Amazon's Kindle. Originally hailed as a wondrous device and essentially the herald of the true future e-reader, opinions of the new version have done somewhat of a 180. With the company's remote access to the new Kindle, opinions are now more of the mind that the Kindle is the harbinger of true corporate invasiveness. On the chance that you've not heard, while the Kindle allows very convenient access to Amazon's online store from anywhere in the region (U.S. atm), it also allows the company to access your Kindle. And disable it, should they feel the desire. And, apparently, that desire can grow from something as relatively innocuous as returning too many items. Once disabled, you lose access to everything stored on the kindle.

Now, music and movie companies have, for almost a decade now, been trying to convince us that copying a DVD or CD or recording a movie is like stealing it from the store. And the courts agree, which is why movie and music 'piracy' is now illegal in most of the developed world. However, Big Business is trying to eat their cake and sell it too. Somehow, they believe that by selling a product they gain the complete rights over how and when it is used. WRONG. Once we buy the product, it's OURS to do with (legally) as we'd like. If we want to take it apart, that's fine. If we want to sit it on the shelf and admire it, that's fine. If we want to use it constantly, while returning other items that we don't deem to be to our standards, they may not like it, but tough, that's still fine. In parallel with the DVD/CD copying analogy, we have the idea that e-books are still books and still subject to the same rules--be that copyright or ownership. If I buy a book in a store and take it home and put in on my shelf, I don't expect the bookstore to come by a few days later and remove it from my shelf. If they do, I'll call the police. Likewise, if Amazon feels the need to inactivate a legally purchased Kindle, thus preventing access to legally purchased e-books, they have essentially come into the book owner's house and robbed them. And Amazon should be taken to court for every time it happens.

It's time to make big business realize that the street runs both directions.

Aren't hospitals insane?

2009-05-07T19:07:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else think the idea of hospitals is criminally insane?

I mean, you bring all the sick people from the surrounding area, all those carrying the worst contagious diseases, and you concentrate them in the same building. You ensure the building is cleaned well to kill all competing microbes so that only the strong pathogens are present. Then you have healthy staff and family visit so they can catch the illnesses and transmit them to the healthy population. It's no wonder we have superbugs evolving in such an environment.

How has such a psychotic system managed to survive until now?

Job Security

2009-05-06T04:50:00.000-07:00

I've just realized that, with the world financial crisis and increasing redundancy to machines (let's face it, most jobs could be done faster, cheaper and more reliably by machines) the only place with job security for the average person is as a civil servant (until they take over completely, machines will never encroach on government). Here in England, even as jobs in other sectors are either getting slashed, or getting their pay slashed, the government keeps expanding. The newest fear-created department: National Health Service Department of Flu Resilience. Yeah, whatever.

Disease double standard?

2009-04-28T04:28:00.000-07:00

I'm just curious why, when the bird flu arose in China the world was on high alert and we were warned against travel and to be careful, and the media watched it's progress like a hawk--even though it took months to move from China to the rest of the world. Instead, Swine flu arises, quickly kills 50 people in Mexico, within days it's across the Atlantic...and yet the media tells us that we shouldn't worry this time. Am I the only one confused? I can't help but see a strong double standard or the hand of propaganda at work through the WHO. A disease comes from the west and it's 'let's wait and see, it's probably not that bad' but a disease comes from the east and it's 'we're all probably going to die if we're not super careful and cut all ties to the country of origin'. Come on! These are peoples lives! More common sense and less politics please.

Tenuous Freedoms

2009-04-19T11:07:00.000-07:00

The G20 summit in London has been over for a while now but questions into the actions of the police are still arising. It seems this is becoming common after such meetings (as, of course, are the protests). One comment made was that the police must remember they are servants of the public, not masters. Incidentally, the same should be true of politicians. It seems to me that comment precisely encapsulates the problem. More and more, especially since 9/11, the authorities seem to feel they are our masters and we, the helpless, ignorant children. Furthermore, it has surely become obvious over the last 8 years is that, despite all the protections built into our constitutions and political systems, any freedoms we possess are still at the whim of the powerful and we could lose them at any time. This should be a wake-up call to all but the most willfully ignorant.

Early Fandom

2009-04-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me recently that religion is the first example of fandom. Many people are religious and/or defend their religion on the basis of the great story it tells. Many children are introduced to religion through the stories: 'baby Jesus' at Christmas comes readily to mind. To me, this is nothing other than an example of fandom. It's literally no different than believing Atlantis is real because Plato wrote about it thousands of years ago. Or that Middle Earth is real because of the richly detailed background of the story. I'm convinced that if Lord of the Rings had been written two thousand years ago it would now be the basis of a religion.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: a fractal pattern

2009-01-10T18:05:00.000-08:00

I has recently occurred to me that the Israel-Palestine conflict seems to be a fractal pattern of conflict. By this I mean that the conflict is present, and essentially similar in concept, at all levels from global to personal. This is typically unlike most conflicts, which will often vary greatly when viewed at the international level as compared to the interpersonal level.

As an example, the Iraq war (or Vietnam, or many other recent wars). Internationally, the US government went to war against Iraq and thus the two countries were in conflict. Yet if this was extended down to the level of states or further to individual people, say an American and an Iraqi meeting in the street in New York, or Kansas, or L.A. there would likely be no conflict or even thought of conflict.

Yet in the situation of Israel and Palestine, essentially the same conflict can be found to exist at all levels. First, internationally: Israel is surrounded by Arabic nations who generally desire Israel's demise (one might also extend this one level outward and suggest that the Arabic nations are, in some way, surrounded by Christians--the allies of the Jewish in this conflict) just as Israel surrounds the Palestinian territories and in many cases, let's be honest here, longs for the demise of Palestine. So the international situation mimics the national situation. Furthermore, on a personal level there is often great distrust between Israeli and Palestinian (is there any surprise why?) even when the most liberal of each side are involved. When those less liberal in their thinking are involved there is obviously open conflict.

So we see the fractal pattern of conflict: the large scale (international), the mid-scale (national) and the small scale (personal) all mimicking each other. This is undoubtedly reminiscent, in some ways, of certain other wars such as WWII, where the animosity existed at all levels (although the proximity component was often missing).

Perhaps this fractal analysis of conflict is a new method of thinking about the 'power' of the conflict, and the degree of effort that will be needed to resolve it. Were I an historian, I might go about applying the principles to other conflicts to see if there might truly be a general utility. In the meantime, however, I think it seems valid for use here. WWII , for example, essentially required the complete elimination of the opposing forces and the total destruction of several cities (both by conventional and nuclear forces). In analogy, I'm suggesting that the view of the Israel-Palestine conflict taken by the West is overly simplistic in its scope and therefore we can't help but attempt to enforce overly simplistic 'solutions'. We are mislead by apparent scale: 'two tiny states far away fighting it out'. One can't help but realize, however, that this is a conflict that has shaped much of modern history (and, in many ways, ancient history also). The Fractal analysis also supports what should be obvious to anyone who has truly looked at the conflict: that it is very deep seeded. There is no way that such a conflict will be resolved with band-aid measures. However it is finally resolved, via bloodbath or miraculous peaceful discourse (and that would make it the first conflict of such seriousness ever to be solved by talking) it will require an immense effort not just on the part of Israel and Palestine, but also by the West.

For Crimes Against Humanity...

2008-12-17T11:13:00.000-08:00

The global financial crisis was perpetrated by a few hand-fulls of people and will affect potentially billions. There is no question that, left to their own devices, the perpetrators would have continued their destructive policies. Therefore, I feel there should be no other recourse than to try them for crimes against humanity. Their policies were intentionally deceitful and they showed an utter disdain for the harm they were causing and have caused. This should leave no doubt that these people are of the worst sort of human and must be made to pay for their crimes.

On Visions and Reality

2008-12-14T17:05:00.000-08:00

How can a person spend so much time looking in the mirror without truly seeing themselves?

A Thought on Modern Life

2008-12-07T15:33:00.000-08:00

Today it's all about the destination. Where has the enjoyment of the journey gone?

Does this sound like a civilized country?

2008-11-28T18:33:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I'm just upset by the youths who come round every few days trying break out kitchen window (which is now safety glass, since they succeeded three times previously). Or perhaps I'm truly shocked by the events of my current home country, but wouldn't you be? In the category of 'truth is stranger [scarier?] than fiction' comes Three reasons to question whether you country is civilized

1) It is a hotbed for slavery. Criminals trafficking in women and girls aimed at the illicit sex trade are widespread.

2) I has been known to export terrorists and is currently under investigation for possibly exporting terrorists in regard to a recent massive terrorist attack

3) The national security department has secretly searched and detained official opposition to the government

Now, I'm pretty sure that we're all horrified when we hear of countries like this. What wrong with the world? Why doesn't the UN or someone do something? At least I live in a civilized country. We shake our heads in dismay for the poor victims before we breathe easy, secretly happy that at least our country doesn't do such things. I know I was that way once. It seems long ago now, before I became more aware of the world's reality, before I paid real attention to the news--trying read between the lines, taking in the global picture. Sometimes I wish I had remained like I was before, sometimes I still try. I've even taken to watching the news only once or twice a week to reduce the media fear-mongering and sensationalism, and to try not to be so depressed.

It's all building up to something--something that can only be beginning with fire!--Pete Townsend

We do have chances to fix things--the financial crisis was the perfect opportunity to try and rectify and obviously flawed system. We chose to use the bandaid approach. Car manufacturers are in crisis (what a surprise! people buy fewer cars when they have less money and when they worry about the environment!). We could choose to make them go green, force them to develop and build green cars after we bail them out. Instead it's same-old, same-old. All we're doing it passing the problem to our children. Sure, that's what we humans have being doing for many generations...only this time, our children really will have to deal with them.

Anyway, I've digressed somewhat from the opening topic. So, for anyone curious as to which country I was speaking about: it's England.

1) Sex trafficking has been a huge problem here for many years. Girls as young as 12 from Asia or Eastern Europe believe they are visiting their new boyfriends and looking for work and when they arrive, their passports are taken and they're forced to work as prostitutes.

2) The UK has exported Muslim terrorists in the past (one was involved in a suicide bombing in Israel) and currently, allegations that some of the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks were British are under investigation

3) Yesterday the Homeland Security Department searched the office and homes of opposition member Damian Green and detained him for questioning for 9 hours in regards to 'leaks from the homeland office'. All of this was done in secret and was, technically, legal under the anti-terrorism laws. Maybe they were taking him in for 're-education'.

Children: a Privilege not a Right

2008-11-25T19:13:00.000-08:00

I'm hoping to elicit some comments with this entry. Basically, this last week there has been a lot of news in the UK regarding child abuse:

a 17 month old foster child was brutally beaten for months before being killed and left in his blood-spattered bed.
a mother stabbed her two young children to death (Manchester)
a mother was involved with the kidnapping of her own daughter in order to get a share of the reward money when she was found (Leeds).
a father was discovered to have repeatedly mentally and physically abused his two daughters over a period of 25 years! leading to 19 pregnancies, 9 births and 7 living children (many of which have severe disabilities). (Sheffield) [this comes on the heals of a similar case in Austria recently]

This brings me to the very obvious point that there are some people who simply should not be allowed to raise children. Actually, they should not be allowed to conceive, raise or even be around children. In this day and age, with almost 7 billion humans on the planet, there is no justification for allowing such people to breed. Countries like China already have limited procreation, perhaps the west should follow.

Incidentally, many people will argue: well China does it because of their limited space and resources. China is the fourth largest country in the world, and has a population of 1.3 billion. The United Kingdom is one of the smaller countries in the world (about the size of Oregon), and has a population of about 60 million. In terms of population density, the UK, with 298/sq km has over twice the density of China (138/sq km)! [you can work it out for yourself using the numbers on the CIA world fact book web site] There is no way that humans evolved, are wired if you will, to live in an area with an average density of almost 300 people per square kilometre (incidentally, that's about the same as India).

I propose that a license be brought in. You have to take a test and qualify for the right to have a child. And then, your license will state how many children you are allowed. The government should love this as it could be another source of revenue--you have to renew your license after the first year, and then every x years (5, 10).

[as an aside, I'm still adjusting to all the people in other countries. I grew up in Canada, where the average population density is 3.3/sq km (and 0.3/sq km where I grew up). You get a very different perspective on life in such places).

[aside #2: it's interesting to me that most countries really start to worry when their population growth is negative. This is a sign of the times: growth is better, more is better, quality doesn't matter. In today's world, in a country like the UK, with 60 million people, the government should be happy with a falling population. The country would probably be comfortable with about 20 million people. Incidentally, a license could help regulate the rate of population growth also.]

The Reality of Reality TV

2008-11-20T16:28:00.000-08:00

Okay, we all know in our heart-of-hearts that there is something screwy with Reality TV. Many questions have arisen regarding people in past shows not being who they are described as being. And just why do so many actor-wannabe's get on the shows, etc. Not to mention the fact that all survivor-type shows feature strong Type-A's. There hasn't been a single reasonable person on the show.

More recently, the big reality shows revolve around talent searches: X-factor, Come dancing, and others. The key to this model is that we the public get to spend our hard-earned money to vote for who we want (just imagine how much money that could be! If 100,000 people call in to vote, that's $100,000 made per episode, excluding advertising!). For such a model to work, and not to lose face, the public's vote has to count, their decision has to matter. But, even ignoring the fact that they don't reveal the number of votes for each person and that the last two have to 'sing off', regardless of their vote differential (at least in the UK), does it?

Here in England there have recently been two cases that question the validity of the vote and the public's importance to the network. First was an X-factor show where a singer favoured as one of the top two was voted off seventh. This sparked a petition of 21,000 names to get her reinstated (in vain).

The second case was far more blatant. On Strictly Come Dancing, the public was, for whatever reason, in love with a guy who simply couldn't dance. Week after week they voted him back despite the judges' very harsh criticism (judges, I might add, that have no real role in the show except as targets for the public scorn). Finally, the guy quits the show! It might be what the judges wanted, but it was not what the paying voters wanted! Clearly someone, somewhere in TV land is taking themselves too seriously and the public not seriously enough.

Now, personally I don't care, I don't like dancing and I would definitely never watch a dancing show. However, the principle of this really bothers me. The fact that the networks have a show where people can vote in to get what they want, and then the network decides to tell the people what they should want or what the show should be! You can't have your cake (or cash cow) and eat it too! You have a show run by the people, you have to listen to the people. It shows you just how much they really think we're mindless ants, doing whatever they tell us.

World Philosophy Day

2008-11-20T16:01:00.000-08:00

In honour of World Philosophy Day, I'll post some questions from the BBC and my responses. Feel free to post your own answers/comments:

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

(A) Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

(B)Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

(C)If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

(A) Obviously not. Where would it stop? One could easily envision a warping where rich and powerful people could buy less fortunate people from poor families for money. Poor could even have children just to sell them (hey, it already happens for other reasons). In any event, donors could become available after you killed Bill.

(B) No. To quote James T. Kirk: 'I don't believe in the no win scenario.' As long as there was a chance, I'd try and work to stop the guy. And if he gives me the gun to shoot them, what's stopping me from turning it on him? or throwing it away?

(C) Yes, if I can find no way to derail the tram. In my opinion, this is the only one of three where someone actually has to die (and will die regardless of whether you interfere or not).

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven years. You might instead say you're an organism, a particular human being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.

But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.

But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if the surgeons didn't implant your brain in Bush's skull, but merely scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush's pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House would again be you.

But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once.

In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works. You are not the person who started reading this article.

This isn't a question so much as a statement, and it is rather obvious anyway. It is only our belief in ourselves as separate entities that even allows us to raise the question. To a Budhist, the question is irrelevant as we are all one and everything is constantly changing.

As an aside, your mental states result from the structure of the cells and neurons in your brain and thus, your 'mental state' could not be implanted on another biological brain without completely altering its structure. In which case it would not be a copy of your brain anyway. It may be possible to mimic the brain through computer software/hardware and thus imprint your brain on a computer at sometime in the future (maybe even in this century?!). In which case, who says one person cannot be in two places? That is a very restricted view of reality (I would suggest reading Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer for a good presentation of this possibility).

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths.
Muller-Lyer illusion
Are things always as they seem? The Muller-Lyer illusion indicates not

But this, you might reply, doesn't show that the senses cannot provide good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it's about to rain.

Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is right 99% of the time. After that, surely, its readings can be good reasons to believe it will rain.

Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

The reverse of 'how do I know I exist?' Short answer is: You don't. As Descartes wrote 'Cogito ergo sum' I think therefore I am. Pretty much the only thing you have any chance of being remotely sure about is that there is some entity somewhere that is having your thoughts. If nothing else, The Matrix should have convinced you of this.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

As presented, this point is not very interesting. Given Quantum uncertainty principles, we would argue that such a level of prediction is not possible. My only interest in this part is pertaining to religion, as it would be easy to replace 'Fred' with the God of Christianity, who is supposed to be all-knowing. If God could be all-knowing then why punish someone (Adam and Eve) for doing something that is not their choice? Surely, as the creator of such a system, God would know how everything would go from the beginning. It actually makes him irrelevant after the big bang.

However, a more interesting version of this has come about recently in relation to neurobiology research. It seems that our brains are far more autonomous than we previously suspected. Measurements of signals in the brain have revealed that the stimulus to do something (say, pick up a glass of water) is actually made before the conscious thought. Without getting into more detail, it seems the role of our conscious mind is simply to veto, or not, the thought/action that our brain initiates. There have been several good SF short stories made around this research into free will (or lack thereof).

Anyway, those are my answers/comments/reasoning. I'm interested to hear from others.

A sign of the times

2008-11-10T12:20:00.000-08:00

It seems to me to be somehow symbolic of the larger global climate, that the monks of two Christian sects came to fisticuffs at their most holy site this weekend. The world is controlled by Christian countries. If the clergy of different Christian sects can't even get along, how can anyone expect their countries to.

Scary thought for the day

2008-10-26T06:08:00.000-07:00

In honour of the approaching Halloween, I'm offering my scary thought for the day.

With the rapid pace of technology--nuclear, computer, biotech--by the middle of this century the average high school student will have the ability to destroy the human race.

Sweet dreams.

The REAL dangers of porn

2008-10-25T05:57:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article discussing the REAL dangers of pornography--not the 'dangers' that the feminists or religious right would have us believe (rampaging sex-crazed men). Rather, the opposite, and the important gender relationship changes that come about from this (i.e. less male interest in 'real' women).

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

Athiest thought #6

2008-10-22T14:03:00.000-07:00

It seems many people never outgrow the need for an imaginary friend.

Interesting Times

2008-10-13T07:17:00.000-07:00

"There is a curse that says 'may you live in interesting times.' " - Terry Prachet

Carbon Footprint

2008-10-13T07:16:00.000-07:00

I'm really bothered by the hypocrites on TV who boldly announce that you should reduce your carbon footprint by turning your TV from standby to off. Meanwhile, they boldly drive around in their SUVs.

I may leave my electronics on standby, but I walk or take mass transit everywhere. My family doesn't even own a car (by choice). Fifteen years ago I gave up my driver's license (no, I wasn't legally obliged to; no, I had no points on it). Most of the known world considers me crazy for doing so, including every one of my friends and family. Which only shows that, unlike most of the population, I actually believe in personal responsibility and will back up my words with actions.

Now, I won't get into how politics, the economy and the environment would change (for the better in my opinion) if everyone gave up their cars. What I will say is only, if you want to talk to me about reducing my carbon footprint by unplugging my toaster, or something equally ludicrous, don't. Just get on your four-wheeled high horse and ride on back to the ranch, carbon farmer.

New Definitions: Blockbuster

2008-10-10T15:16:00.000-07:00

Blockbuster used to be used to refer to some product (movie, drug, book...) that made vast amounts of money. Obviously our most familiar usage is with the phrase 'blockbuster movie'. Interestingly, I'm under the impression that that meaning has changed to 'something that cost a lot of money to make' or 'something we have high expectations of'.

Case-in-point: today on the news I heard mention that 'the latest blockbuster, City of Ember, is premiering today in Belfast'. But how can it be a blockbuster if it hasn't even been released yet?

Like children playing with nukes

2008-10-10T02:46:00.000-07:00

Modern bankers / brokers are like children playing with nukes, they aren't careful with their toy, and they don't understand the true power they wield and the effects it has on other people's lives. Unfortunately, we, society, are the weak parents. We aren't teaching them the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. This financial crisis was the perfect opportunity to give them a big spanking and set them back on the right path. Instead, we just told them they were bad, gave them a kiss on the cheek, and sent them out to play. With these reassurances, their delinquent ways can only continue.

Global Financial Crisis - some questions

2008-10-08T10:09:00.000-07:00

The words in the title of this blog bring to mind so many different thoughts, especially now that 'clean up' processes are supposedly under way:
why do we, the little guy, have to clean up after the rich (they won't ever be affected by the crisis, but we are)?
why does no one insist the rich have to pay for their mess?
is the 'bail out' really helpful, or just another money grab by those who want more (the stock markets still haven't responded positively, despite plans in the US, UK and EU)?
is the crisis truly global (I haven't heard any word of trouble in China, India or the Arab nations)?
just how long can we put off the inevitable collapse of the Western Empire?

and one that I'm quite interested in recently, in this world of ubiquitous addiction (food, TV, work, substances, religion), why has no one insisted that those responsible for the 'economic crisis'--the leaders and major stockholders of the banks--undergo therapy for money addiction? Yes, that's right, these people, who have far more than enough (the richest 400 Americans have more combined assests than the poorest 150 million Americans!) are clearly suffering from severe addiction to money. As part of any bail out deal, they should each be made to undergo intensive addiction treatment until they realize that they have neither the right nor the need to make more than 400 times what their average employee makes.

Alas, it won't happen. Why? Two reasons. First, the rich are the ones in power and thus make the rules. They see nothing wrong and so nothing will happen to them. Second, we the people, the masses that actually support the system, don't insist. That's right, it's as much our fault as theirs for letting them get away with it, for following along like sheep, for allowing our own greed get the better of us and believing and hoping that their fairytale--you too could become disgustingly rich--could, possibly, be true.

'We the people...' have the power. That's why much of government/industry's energy is bent towards controlling us--either calming us into a state of quiet acquiescence, sedating us with cheap baubles and flashing images so we ignore what they're doing, or whipping us into a state of fearful panic so we gratefully allow them to do what they want. We're like trained dogs, panting at sweet-sounding orders for their amusement. And until we wake up (if we ever wake up--read '1984' by Orwell people, it's far more prophetic than the bible) we always will be.

'We the people...' have the power. But we have to get out of our lazy-chairs to use it.

Olympic men's 100m sprint: Paradigm Shift

2008-08-24T07:34:00.000-07:00

I didn't get a chance to write this when the event occurred, but Ussain Bolt went on to win 2 more gold and set 2 more world records after the 100m sprint so, in a way, it is even more obvious now. What is? Namely, that we are the beginning of a paradigm shift in men's sprinting. Until now, the paradigm had been that tall athletes did not make good sprinters. Their long legs would mean poor starts, an inability to accelerate as a shorter athlete could. Well, Bolt has demonstrated, convincingly, that a tall athlete can be a world-class sprinter. True, he has a slow start, but his powerful legs and long stride mean that in the middle of the race, he simply blows past the other sprinters. He set a world record of 9.69 in the 100m without trying his fullest. Jamaica, with Bolt running the 3rd leg, destroyed the US world record in the men's 4x100 relay with incredibly cautious handovers--meaning they should be able to beat that record in the future.

So, it should be obvious that Ussain Bolt's performance will mean a paradigm shift in the thinking of world-class sprinting. You've heard it hear...expect 100m sprinters to be getting taller from now on.

Unpunished crimes against humanity #1

2008-08-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

In keeping with the date and my recent Rush theme, a relevant quote from the band's 1985 song Manhattan Project off the album Power Windows:

The big bang took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The end was begun and it hit everyone
When the chain reaction was done

The big shots tried to hold it back
Fools tried to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say

So, today's unpunished crimes against humanity could actually count as #1 and #2, one being perpetrated 63 years ago today, and the other 63 years and 3 days ago. Of course, while there is debate, they have never been officially considered as crimes against humanity--despite being responsible for the #1 and #2 largest loss of lives in any single attack in the history of the world--because, well, history is written by the winners isn't it? As you might guess, I am speaking about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki (Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, respectively). Yes, they led directly to a swift end of WWII, but does the ends justify the means? I certainly hope not, or we're all in a lot of trouble.

A few facts from the bombings:

Hiroshima

Atomic (fission) bomb--Little boy
Core: U235
Yield: 13 kT (13 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 600m over Shima Surgical Clinic
Estimated killed instantly: 70,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 140,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

Nagasaki

Atomic (fission) bomb--Fat man
Core: P239
Yield: 21 kT (21 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 439m above city
Estimated killed instantly: 40,000-75,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 80,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

As if the instant destruction of 2 cities and over 200,000 lives wasn't enough, the US government was readying a third bomb for the next week, with three more planned for September [ref:National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. The George Washington University (1945-08-13).]

For all these reasons and more, I think it's obvious that the nuclear bombings of Japan in WWII easily deserve the title of the most heinous unpunished crimes against humanity in recorded history.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki for much more detail, including references.

Human-made intelligences and Intelligent Design

2008-08-06T17:36:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to think that those believing in Intelligent Design--a recent bit of Christian pseudoscience--would try and convince us that our intelligence was created, not evolved. It seems to me that, having set such a precedence, i.e. that intelligence can be created, such people would have to be strong proponents of the possibility of so-called true artificial intelligence. In other words, they surely must believe that, if we keep increasing our understanding of life and the universe, there is no reason why we could not create our own intelligent, albeit inorganic, beings. If not, then at the very least they would have to believe we will be able to uplift other creatures to intelligence. After all, God may have created the first intelligent species (perhaps, the jury is still out...) but he still had to follow the rules of the universe, rules that we can learn and use ourselves.

Sadly, I'm willing to bet that very few Intelligent Design proponents actually believe that humans will have either ability (AI or uplifts). And this is one of my big beefs with religion. It sets us at the center of the universe while telling us that we are either not allowed or too stupid to go anywhere else. Apparently, we were just supposed to sit quietly in our paleolithic caves and wait for salvation (oops, except most modern religions hadn't been invented at that time).

A response to some comments:

Thanks for the comments.

In response to the I.Q. point--this is true and has been happening throughout history. It's obvious if you think of the things that you know now as part of your general knowledge versus what, say, the average ancient Roman knew. General things about the structure of the atom, space, technology, how things work, different types of wildlife, history, geography, biology... If an unskilled biochemist today went back even 70 years, their knowledge of biochemistry (even just protein and DNA structure) would make them the pre-eminent genius in the field at that time. Almost anyone in the western world today has better medical knowledge than the best doctors of only a few hundred years ago. The 'average I.Q. remains, by definition, at 100 (and, in truth, represents only a very small amount of the population). What has to change, every 5-10 years probably (and soon more often), is what qualifies as 100 on the test.

Incidentally, and on an only minor aside, the future extrapolation of this trend is feared by some (do a search of technological singularity).

Currently, high school student's can do molecular biology experiments that required most of the duration of a Ph.D., and a lot of hard work, in the '70s--only 40 years ago. So...what will the situation be 40 years from now? The fear is that it will be trivial for almost anyone with the desire to create a genocidal pathogen.

In fact, much of technology follows a similar trend:

There a several high school students who have successfully built inefficient nuclear reactors in their basements.
Pre-pubescent kids can lock-up corporate web sites using easily available software and a network of zombie computers without even fully understanding how the software works.

It has even been postulated, due to these trends in technology and general knowledge, that an intelligent species is very fragile once it develops basic technology. Within 200 years from the harnessing of radio waves, based on human progression, a species will not just develop the means (or several means) of autogenocide, but that means will be in the hands of each and every citizen on the planet!

In the 1960s we worried about presidents with the fingers on the red button. In the 2060's we will very likely have to worry about the kid next door...or down the block...or the one who's upset with his teacher...

Feeding the world...

2008-08-05T18:16:00.000-07:00

Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines

A prophetic line from the Canadian rock band Rush in 1985. In someways, today the situation is even worse. We are getting to the point where we can't afford to feed either the people or the machines. And when we can, we choose to feed the machines. I mean, how messed up are our priorities when, due to the rising costs of oil, we have devoted food crops to producing fuel for machines while millions starve each year. You'd be laughed at if you ever put something like this in a novel. Reality really is stranger than fiction.

X-Files Movie 2008: I don't believe it!

2008-08-04T13:55:00.000-07:00

Ten years on, the duo shacked up, a wimpy stance on stem cell research, lots of God, and no aliens. Who's crazy idea was it to diverge so strongly from the main theme of the entire series for the new movie? [and just what is it with Hollywood's return to the big red scare lately? Everywhere you look the Russians are back as the bad guys?!]

Sharing mp3s: not stealing, giving to charity

2008-06-13T17:55:00.000-07:00

The RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) would have us believe that sharing/downloading mp3s/movies is like stealing cars or televisions. We are told this almost constantly in the news, before movies in the cinema, etc. Most people find this difficult to believe at least for the obvious reason that, once a TV is stolen, it is no longer in the store. But once an mp3/movie is downloaded, it still exists with the 'supplier'.

However, what has occurred to me recently, is that P2P sharing of mp3s/movies is less like traditional theft and more like...giving to charity. One steals a TV or car in order to make money, which is to say, to resell it. Instead, most people who trade mp3s online do not do it for the money, but rather to sample what is there, to reacquire songs they once owned but lost, or other similarly non-capitalistic reasons--appreciation, for example.

Thus, P2P sharing is more similar to taking your old clothes to a charity, than it is to stealing a new TV.

As a post script, the RIAA and movie industries claim huge losses due to downloads. Indeed, this is the prime driving force behind the current 'awareness' campaign (and lawsuits). However, I beg to differ with their interpretation. In reality, if the internet (or P2P) didn't exist and the songs/movies couldn't be downloaded, most of them would never be acquired by these people. That is, the people doing much of the downloading (apart from those doing it as a business--and these people are not targeted by the RIAA) would not be buying the CDs/DVDs anyway. Most of these people just download as a collector might and probably never listen to most of the songs they download--and would definitely not be buying them. So, in effect, P2P has not lost the companies much money and has actually gained them a free advertising venue. Unfortunately, the typical, dollar-signs-in-their-eyes executives are unable to see reality through their imaginary financial losses. Anyway, anyone that's traveled some of the world can tell them that their real losses are coming from the mass downloaders that package and resell the CDs/DVDs more cheaply than the original, something that happens in the Mediterranean countries, the middle east and southeast Asia. I've seen stores in Middle East shopping centers that have the knock-off media proudly displayed in the front of the store and will mention to you that you can also buy the more expensive original, if you want, in the back.

Not the Jedi I should be

2008-06-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I feel like Anakin in Revenge of the Sith: 'Something's wrong...I'm not the Jedi I should be.'

Western 'life'

2008-06-08T19:30:00.000-07:00

More and more westerners understand, at least at a subconscious level, that money is not the answer. Unfortunately, we've moved so far down the path in pursuit of it that it now seems we've lost sight of what the answer is.

Don't believe me? Countries of the western world have the highest suicide rates. We live in the most luxurious conditions, with the best jobs and highest standards of living. Yet we commit suicide more frequently than any other culture. If money was the answer, shouldn't we enjoy life more, not less?

Athiest thought #5

2008-06-08T06:11:00.000-07:00

The only thing religion actually teaches is how to blindly follow an ideal.

None of the 'rules to live by' espoused by religion (ten commandments, etc.) are specific to deities or especially to any one deity. They can be arrived at just as well through secular reasoning, thus, they are independent of religion. Therefore, when stripping away all that can be learned either secularly or through sacred means, we are left with only this one fact.

Rigged games shows #1: Goldenballs (UK)

2008-06-07T09:48:00.000-07:00

Over the course of their existence, there have been several cases of rigged game shows. Usually this has taken on the form where popular contestants have been helped to win. However, the form of 'rigging' I'm speaking about here is the modern, money-conscious, control all variables form. And nowhere is this better exemplified than in the UK game show Goldenballs.

For those who haven't seen the show, it begins with four contestants who each have four golden coloured balls before them, two each in two rows. Everyone can see the 'front' two balls but only the contestants can see the rear two. The balls each have a money value inside them, however, to make things interesting, there are several 'killer' balls which come into play in the final round and thus form one basis for 'voting off' contestants. In round one, the four contestants talk and try to convince each other of what they have in the other balls and why they should go to the next round. After a time limit, they vote and one person is removed, showing all their balls (which are then removed from play). More money balls and killer balls are entered into play and the second round proceeds much like the first (except each contestant now has 5 balls). After the voting, two players remain. They then enter a short, cooperative round to build up as much money as they can by trying to select money balls and avoiding killers. The show ends with the inevitable back-stabbing round where each player elects to either 'split' or 'steal' the money. If both 'split' they each take half the pot. If one splits and one steals, the stealer takes all the money and if both steal, none get the money.

At first appearance, the show seems an interesting psychological experiment. First in trust and deception, then in the old golden vs silver rule of life. When broken down logically, however, it can simply be seen as a fun show where virtually no one will ever take home any money.

Why?

Let's look at the final round: split or steal, and break it down logically.

1) Choose 'split'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win half the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

2) Choose 'steal'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win all the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

From the above, it is easy to see that a contestant's best option is always to choose 'steal', regardless of any real or perceived greed or trust issues. Regardless of which choice one makes, there is a 50/50 chance to take home money. However, with 'steal' you will take home twice as much as with 'split'. Since the odds are the same, but the take is higher, contestants could always be counted on to choose 'steal'. But if all contestants choose steal, no one will ever win money and the show never has to pay out. (thus, if every contestant chose 'split' they would all win, always But since there will always be someone choosing 'steal', so too will everyone else).

The only way one could ever see it changing would be if several contestants made a written agreement, in private, before the show. Or, perhaps in a charity show where all could be expected to choose 'split'.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #3

2008-06-02T20:16:00.000-07:00

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

Temperature

Who would have thought something so basic as the temperature could cause such problems. Yet problems does it cause. Doubly so if you are from different parts of the world. While I don't believe all women require the house to be a sauna, it does seem that women require greater warmth, in general, than men. Perhaps owing to their more minimal attire?

Whatever the cause, I still have to try to avoid dehydration while my wife has the fireplace heating and 2 quilts on the bed...in June!

Today's Neural Spasm: Aspartame

2008-05-22T13:04:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't it be funny if Aspartame (Neutrasweet) was found to cause retention of fat?

Athiest thought #4

2008-05-20T03:30:00.000-07:00

God doesn't save people, people save people.

Athiest thought #3

2008-05-19T17:02:00.001-07:00

To the more liberal minded: So what if the bible is 'inspired' by God? Have you ever listened to a CD of music 'inspired' by a movie? Did it, in any way, help you understand what the movie was like?

Athiest thought #2

2008-05-19T17:02:00.000-07:00

Religion is like a drug, it makes the weak feel powerful. And just like a drug, in the vast majority of cases that power is little more than illusion.

Athiest thought #1

2008-05-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

God doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #2

2008-05-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

#2 Bathroom clutter

Perhaps the modern metrosexual man is an exception to this but, in general men seem to be bathroom minimalists. The general necessities for bathroom going include toilet paper, hand soap, a toothbrush/toothpaste, a towel, shampoo and bath soap and shaving items. In an average-size bathroom these will take up almost no space, leaving an uncluttered bathroom and an, if not pleasant, at least not frustrating bathroom-going experience.

Women, on the other hand, seem to have an almost psychotic urge to fill whatever bathroom space exists. Regardless of the size of the bathroom, rest assured, it will be completely filled with...stuff. Once all the 'necessities' are moved in (and I have no idea what most of those 'necessities' are), if there is still visible open space, a woman will proceed to introduce all variety of small, colourful, often smelly and generally in the way, decorative objects. All of this has the result of turning a once simple room into a cluttered mess.

Is there any surprise men don't like to wash the bathroom? The shear volume of objects to move for completing the task is almost overwhelming.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #1

2008-05-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

#1 Dirt

Yep, number 1 cause of marital disputes is dirt. Most men, even ones considering themselves to be clean and orderly, like myself, find they end up fighting with their wives about cleaning. Seems clean is never clean enough for most women. This is particularly problematic for me in those times that my professional wife stays home (such as during maternity leave).

Of course, man-to-man, the real issue here is not cleaning, but rather cleaning on demand. Which is to say that said area of house has to be cleaned when she wants. Two hours from now is not good enough. Five minutes from now is not good enough. And this evening, after you've finished your work and whatever else is infinitely more entertaining, is definitely not good enough.

As you may gather, I work from home which brings a whole new level to the issue. Some people, no matter how hard they try, are just unable to truly believe that working from home is working.

Bush Co. is at it again

2008-04-30T21:13:00.000-07:00

It's become a regular occurrence, something inevitable, expected, and unavoidable--like death or taxes. Yep, now that election time is rolling around, Bush Co. have whipped out the 'terrorists want you' card.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3OfYY31yv9LNOspwKcj73SwDegwD90CCOO00

Is anyone even surprised anymore? Between the fear factor and the rigged voting machines, I smell another Republican 'victory'.

Why the green approach won't clean up the environment

2008-04-29T13:27:00.000-07:00

Simply? Because it's been commercialized.

That's not to say that the green mentality, as it's meant to be, wouldn't have worked. Only that it won't work any longer because the companies have gotten hold of it and bent and twisted and pureed every ounce of meaning from it.

Case in point:

Today we received a junk mail advert the size of a large postcard with the similar hard feel and glossy image on the front (in this case from The Boxford Farm in Suffolk). As far as I can see, the point of the advert is to give a coupon for a 50p discount on Copella fruit juice. So? you say, what's unusual about that?

Yes, we all get vast amounts of junk mail each week and that, in and of itself, is not unusual. In this case, however, the coupon, itself, is less than 1/4 of the postcard. The rest is meaningless babble, some personal-sounding smoozy letter that no one will read. This wouldn't even be 'bad' or noticable, just a corporate gimmick, if it wasn't for the labels at the bottom of the card:

'Paper sourced from a FSC sustainable forest
Printed using waterless presses and vegetable based inks.'

So, as far as I understand it, this company has intentionally chosen eco-friendly paper as...?...a sneaky appeal to the conservationist in all of us? It can't be because they actually care about the environment or reducing the size of landfills or their carbon footprint, etc. If that was the case, they might have thought that they didn't need a postcard advert 4 times the size of the coupon! With the same amount of paper, they could have produced 4x the number of coupons/adverts or, of course, they could have printed the same number while only using 1/4 of the paper.

And so, until everyone (companies included) actually notice this specific problem in logic, and until everyone actually cares about this kind of thing (and how many of us really do?), the 'green mentality' is doomed to be relegated to just one more useful tool in the corporate advertising machine.

What is the Western World Coming To?

2008-04-17T16:42:00.000-07:00

I thought the Nazi's lost WWII but apparently, in this world terrorized by the thought of terror, I'm wrong. In both the US and UK, street photography is strongly frowned on and, in some instances 'illegal'--by which I mean, the police will stop you, sometimes even confiscating your camera, and will make you delete your pictures. Just for taking photographs of public buildings, landmarks, interesting sites.

A few links to show you what I mean:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm
http://www.alternet.org/rights/22084/
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/05/23/public_photography_becoming_illegal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207_b_illegal.htm
http://flickr.com/photos/21500190@N07/2167976932/
http://digg.com/security/Photographer_Told_Taking_Picture_of_Building_Illegal

I've recently moved to the UK. I thought that, although they had their idiosyncrasies, they were still better with human rights than the US. Now I'm not so sure.

Incidentally, you can check here: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf for you rights as a photographer (unless they quote 'national security'. Then all rights go out the window).

Interestingly, in all cases it seems you are more likely to be accosted by the authorities if you look professional (ie: are using a 'real' camera vs. a cell phone)!? Does this strike anyone else as a little backward? After all, anyone looking to take clandestine photos would likely try and hide the fact. Although, in reality, any terrorist target is already going to have a million photos all over the net and probably the blueprints to go with it.

Does anyone still believe the 'allies' are winning the war on terror? How can we be when almost daily our rights are being stripped away. I'm sure this is how intelligent Germans felt as the Third Reich strengthened their grip on power, slowly stealing the basic rights and freedoms of the German citizens.

On the chance you believe the state and believe that the paranoia about terrorists is justified, I have the following questions for you (aimed at those living in western countries):

1) This year, how many people in your country have died unnatural deaths? How many of those deaths were due to terrorists?

2) In the last 10 years, how many people in your country have died unnatural deaths? How many of those deaths were due to terrorists?

#2 intentionally includes 9/11 to demonstrate a point. In the US, in the last 10 years there have been more than 160,000 murders ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm --that's a lower estimate as I was a bit lazy to add the yearly figures. The upper estimate of 9/11 deaths was 3000. That means that in the last 10 years 'murder' by terrorists accounts for less than 2% in the US (and that's not even factoring in deaths by car accident, accidental shootings, etc.). But financially, including the Iraq war (war on terror) it accounts for a huge percentage of the US budget (trillions).

Incidentally, in the UK, the murders by terrorists in the last 10 years is a much smaller percentage (approx. 60/8000 or approx. 0.75%).

We are killing ourselves at a much faster rate than 'they' (the terrorists) are, so why all the fear about 'them'?

In my opinion?

It's an excuse for a power grab, a convenient excuse to build to unreasonable levels in order to scare the people into handing over sweeping powers to the government. This is no conspiracy theory people, and this is not Orwell's 1984. This is real and it is happening now. And it is only the power of the people that can stop it.

Think I'm crazy? For all our sakes, I hope you're right.

Global warming--hate to say 'I told you so', but...

2008-04-07T17:01:00.000-07:00

...I did (see my December 10, 2007 entry). Four months ago, I told you that global warming was here to stay and all the well-meaning attempts at carbon-footprint reduction that the few hardcore greens were doing would mean precisely squat. Well, it now seems other scientists, economists, etc. have come to the same realization. As reported in the NY Times, online edition, today:

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming

Recommendations are now being made to the effect that, instead of focusing on reducing emissions, we need to focus on new, cleaner technologies. Why? Again, precisely as I said, because the numbers from recent years show that people are not reducing and fuel efficiency is actually decreasing globally. So *surprise, surprise* whatever reduction we attempt (geologically slow as our governments are) will be far too little far too late.

So get out your wet-suits and wax up your surfboards, cause the age of Aquarius is coming (Aquarius being the water bearer of the zodiac).

The passing of a visionary

2008-03-19T12:21:00.000-07:00

Yes, in many way the death of science fiction author and visionary Arthur C. Clarke on Tuesday feels like the end of an era. Along with Isaac Asimov and Carl Saga, Arthur C. Clarke was one of the most influential people in my early life with regards to science, science fiction and skepticism.

In addition to being a science fictions writer, Arthur C. Clarke was an expert and a visionary in the field of communications technology. In WWII he was involved in the development of radar defense systems. In 1945 he lay the theoretical foundations for geosynchronous satellite orbits, which were realized two decades later. Such satellites are now placed into what are called Clarke orbits, in his honour. One day he may also been more widely known for championing the space elevator, which was featured in several of his books including the 2001 series and is now under development.

Clarke celebrated his 90th birthday last December. His clarity and vision will be missed.

Most Christians don't really believe

2008-02-23T20:42:00.000-08:00

That's right, I've recently come to the conclusion that most Christians don't really believe in their religion. Oh, they think they believe, but they don't really believe. Don't get me wrong, there are some that do and I, for one, am thankful that most don't, but that doesn't change the simple fact.

Okay, I'll throw you a bone. Yes, all Christians believe the basic tenet that Christ died on the cross to forgive their sins. But that's about all they believe these days. The most obvious area where they don't believe, and the topic which lead me to my conclusion, is in life after death. An easy way for me to highlight my point is by describing some points from the movie Johnny Q, which I have recently seen again.

The father in Johnny Q is trying to get his son's name put on the heart donor list but runs into the horrible American health system where money, and only money, speaks. Eventually overcome by frustration, this good Christian and family man takes an emergency room hostage. He does all he can to help the people he's trapped while negotiating for what he wants. After all, he's a good Christian man. Finally, after being shot at by an inept police sniper, he gets more serious, however, time has almost run out for his son. Therefore, Johnny Q decides the only way to save his son is for him to commit suicide and donate his own heart. The rest of the movie is not relevant to my discussion here and I don't want to ruin the rather obvious ending for anyone who hasn't seen it.

On several occasions, the movie mentions that he is intended to represent a good Christian husband/father so let's look at some of his actions with regards to Christianity. I can already hear some of you saying 'but he only held them hostage to fight a corrupt system'. That's fine by me and completely irrelevant to this discussion. My main interest is in the fact that, after Johnny Q has exhausted all possibilities (presumably God has ensured Johnny's devotion by now) he then decides to take his life to save his son.

Now, in my understanding, one of the other big tenets of Christianity is that all good Christians go to heaven to live in peace and happiness with their family for all eternity. And now we come to the meat.

While Johnny's actions are more extreme than most would attempt--after all, this is a movie, the realm of hyperbole--I'm sure most Christians do not criticize them on a Christian level-->after all, he's showing great devotion and love for his child. Or is he?

Let's take a logical run-down of what would happen assuming the Christian belief system is correct.

A. If nature takes it's course and the son, call him Junior, dies then Junior has lived about eight years and will now spend an eternity (presumably infinite time or at least until the end of everything) in heaven in peace and happiness. When Johnny Q and the wife die in forty or sixty years they will join Junior in heaven for an eternity, reunited as a happy family. So, the family will miss Junior for the rest of their entire 'natural' lives which amounts to an insignificant value in relation to the infinity together in heaven after their death (60/infinity x 100% = infinitesimal %).

B. If Johnny Q had succeeded in his suicide plan, then he would have sinned one of the big ones (can't repent after suicide, cause you're dead). So Johnny Q would go to hell for eternity (hey, seems unfair but I don't make the rules). In the meantime his wife and child live their normal lives, die presumably good Christians and go to heaven for eternity. In this case, Johnny Q has sacrificed an eternity together to allow his son an insignificant amount of extra life (80/infinity = infinitesimal).

So, if Johnny Q is really a good Christian, the logical thing to do would actually be to let the child die--anyway, presumably that is the will of God, no? Yet he chooses what is basically the worst possible choice, and the important part to me is, never once is his status as a good Christian questioned.

Now many of you good Christians will say "it's only a movie" and yes, you are correct. But how many of you would fight as hard as you could in the same situation instead of rejoicing that the Lord has chosen your child early. Many of you feel sad when a good Christian loved one dies? Why? Should you not feel happy that they are going to heaven? Some of you will argue that I'm analyzing the situation too much and in the heat of the moment you do what come naturally. This is actually exactly my point--a true believer 'knows' there is an afterlife and will except and be happy that God is taking their child there. Only someone who doesn't believe will fight the situation.

There are some 'true' Christians, don't get me wrong, but by-and-large, I am willing to argue that 99% of Christians don't really believe in the afterlife (if they analyze their feelings and motivations on the issue). In reality, this is undoubtedly a good thing for the world as I could see no real reason for doing much of anything with an eternal afterlife of milk and honey waiting.

Censor it? Don't play it--and a challenge to muscians

2008-02-09T06:11:00.000-08:00

This is a note to all those radio stations and music TV channels out there. If you feel the urge to censor a song then please, just don't play it. Don't. It's almost laughably absurd to listen to some songs where 1/3 to 1/2 the words can be censored and any meaning the song might have had is completely lost in a wash of null sound. Censors already disgust me but if a company is not willing to challenge the censors or to find a way around it (like playing the music after prime time) they just shouldn't play the music. Period.

Note to the parents: Get in touch with reality. Your desire to censor such things will have absolutely no effect on whether your children know/use the language (except, perhaps, to make them more curious). You're living in a dream world if you think otherwise.

Challenge to musicians: I would love to see a well written song designed so that, after the censorship, the remaining words form a message (ie: the song has one meaning without censorship and another meaning with). Could be anything, but obviously a political statement or comment against censorship would be most interesting.

M.I.A. Paper Planes

2008-02-05T12:52:00.000-08:00

Alright, who's the tone-deaf record exec that signed this group? I just heard this song and the only thing I could think of was how annoying the voices were and how bad the singing was. At the risk of sounding older than I am, is bad singing the new trend? I mean I like rock, alternative, hip-hop, etc, (not country...too depressing) so I consider myself fairly open-minded musically. However, not only is every verse in the song repeated at least 2x but it's repeated off key. And this is supposed to be the best song on their album? Well, let's just say, they are either really good and doing it on purpose or...

On another note, this song really makes me feel out of touch with western society since I'm not overly concerned about an influx of immigrants (which is apparently what the song is about--relax, the group is only intending to highlight society's fear). It does make you wonder why westerners are so afraid of 'foreigners' (a word that I feel has little meaning in today's world) however.

Of slaves, religions and history

2008-01-25T09:49:00.000-08:00

Can anyone doubt that we are still living with the consequences of history? Of course, this is true in many ways, but I'm thinking predominantly of the effects of religion--namely, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Before you click the 'next' button, I'm not here to rant about religion today, but more to wonder on how similar events and circumstances can effect different peoples in so dramatically different ways.

More precisely, I'm interested in how two groups of people, enslaved and mistreated throughout recorded history--namely, Jewish and African peoples--can have had such a different effect on the world. While the differences can be seen in many areas, simple observation has to suggest that, while Africans and their descendants have had a relatively minor effect on the world (outside of their more recently achieved domination in sports and music), the Jewish people have been at the center of events and ideas that have, and continue to, crucially effect the world--I'm speaking, of course, about their creation of a monotheistic religion, it's progenitors, and the conflicts that has spawned throughout the world.

There can be little argument that both groups spent a significant part of their early history enslaved (by the likes of the Egyptians, Romans and many others). However, while Africans continued to be enslaved by various groups until quite recently, the Jews liberated themselves from the Egyptians and then fought the Romans for freedom (something that, unfortunately, led to the creation of Christianity and further prosecution for the Jewish people). So, what interests me is what is the difference between the two groups that led to vastly different responses and outcomes to their persecution.

We can guess from the Torah (old testament) that the Israelites had already developed a sense of community, a loose nationality at the time they were enslaved by the Egyptian pharaohs. They already felt themselves 'a people'. Moses, or which ever person or group he might represent, was able to draw on this sense of community, forging it, through the bonds of religion, into a unified cause. A cause that has held the Jewish people together throughout time and distance in the millennia since.

Africa, to state the obvious, is much larger than Israel. In the early world, this would undoubtedly mean that the peoples and communities likely existed in much smaller, more independent forms. It's quite likely that, because of the vastness of distance, the richness of the nature and relative abundance of food, and the absence of competing neighbours (at a distance they could appreciate) there was little reason for a 'sense of community' or the larger concept of a 'people' to develop quickly. Thus, when the first empires invaded, seizing the people for slaves, there was no sense of a nation about which to form a resistance. Hence, the African people continued to be enslaved with relatively little trouble for thousands of years, accepting this lot with a fatalistic view but otherwise causing little trouble.

An analogy to the African people can likely be found in the indigenous people of North and South America. These people also lived on large continents in similarly nature-oriented communities. Of course, these North American peoples did develop strong loyalties toward their communities, their nations, but one could argue that they quite likely had many more thousands of years over which to develop this before the Europeans invaded. So when the Europeans did finally invade, the indigenous nations fought (and where, of course, slaughtered due to the greater technology of the Europeans).

I believe this idea of the influence of community can further be bourne out by following the plight of African slaves brought to America. Again their was little resistance amid the enslaved peoples as they were largely kept separate, unable to communicate or develop a greater sense of disenfranchised community. Once the civil war ended, however, African-American were more free to form communities through the US, although they were clearly still treated as 2nd or 3rd class citizens. However, from the end of the civil war it took only about a century until the event that lead to the rising of the African-Americans themselves and the granting of greater 'equality'.

Thus it appears, to me at least, that the sense of belonging to 'a people / a nation' has been a significant force in shaping the events of history right up to the modern world. It's amazing to think how the world would be different if the Jewish people had been enslaved before they had developed their own identity, or if the African people had been enslaved after they had developed their identity.

Hmm, I smell some interesting alternative history stories in the making.

I'm An Atheist...

2008-01-07T20:03:00.000-08:00

I'm an Atheist, which means I have nothing to die for.

It's true, regardless of how you view it. Unlike the majority of the world (almost 40% claim to be a member of an Abrahamic religion with another almost 20% being Hindu), I have no reason to want to die. There is no heavenly host waiting for me, there are no 40 vestal virgins, no past and future loved ones after I shed the mortal coil. I have nothing to die for. Conversely, that means I have everything to live for.

Yes, that's right. Contrary to what religion teaches, atheists have everything to live for. We accept that there is only one life--for us or for anyone else. Somehow, religion has twisted this idea into the suggestion that atheists should therefore be violent and untrustworthy. The very opposite of what would be expected of most atheists. After all, if you only have one life, you don't want to screw it up.

Of course, everyone needs a scapegoat and, besides members of other religions, theists commonly choose the rationalists or non-joiners. After all, we're 'different' and most people consider 'different' as strange at best, bad at worst.

The funny thing to me...and that's funny 'on no!', not funny 'ha, ha', is that it is really the theists who are to be feared in life. At least, the true believers. After all, there are no reasons that I can see for any good Christian or Muslim not to rush immediately to the afterlife. What do they have to gain by staying on Earth? Furthermore, I can see no reason for any true believer to justify their staying on Earth. After all, who in their right mind wouldn't want to go to heaven, and both those major religions provide easy ways to get there.

The west is currently facing an onslaught of devout Muslims eager to ascend in service of their Lord. They are the true believers, the ones who are certain there is something waiting for them. Fortunately for the world, there are many less devout Christians these days (their days were spent in service of fighting the Roman Empire and during the Crusades, etc). I leave it to your imagination to visualize the horror of 1 billion soldiers on either side of a modern war eager to reach their just rewards in the sky.

I suppose I should back up a moment because I hear the outraged cry of countless Christians screaming in my ears 'we are good Christians! just because we don't want to go to heaven yet...'. Well, my point is actually that, in my opinion, most Christians don't really believe in a heaven and thus aren't really 'good' Christians. I mean, the evidence is all around you...ever been to a Christian funeral? What's all that about? When a good friend goes on vacation to a great place for a few months I, and I'm sure most people, don't start bawling their eyes out and crying 'I'll miss you so much!' Instead, they congratulate the person 'you lucky dog! I wish I was going with you.' For a good Christian, death is only a stepping stone to the next life. Regardless of what you've done in this one, as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you're set. So what's the problem? Why aren't you happy when a good Christian friend dies? Funerals should be grand events with lots of celebration, music, dancing and generally good times. After all, in the big scope of eternity, a few years wait to see them again is nothing. Hell, if I really thought there was something that great up there, I'd be game to get there as quick as possible. If only the anti-abortionist activists really believed! Then they could spend as much time killing themselves as they do other people.

So, I'm forced to understand that most Christians don't really believe. Which also, fortunately, explains why they're not throwing themselves at the terrorist horde. Oh, and there's no use claiming that suicide is a sin in Christianity. You, conveniently, have a 'get out of hell free' card in Jesus's crucifixion. There's no point in claiming otherwise, the logic doesn't stand. Either his death forgives all sins if you believe, or it doesn't. Anyway, I'm sure you've committed other sins in a premeditated fashion--ever steal stationary from the office? download mp3s or movies you didn't own...you get the idea. A different scale, you say? I don't recall the 10 commandments specifying which theft or which murder. And Jesus didn't put limits on the sins he was dying for. Which all brings us back to the fact that most Christians don't really believe.

Now, if only they were willing to admit it to themselves we could get on with the business of fixing the world without everyone holding their collective breath for their magic flying pasta monster to save them.

Christmas Thought #2

2007-12-14T09:38:00.000-08:00

(only Christmassy in that it relates to religion and the buying season)

I would like to see the inventor of the DVD region code spend a long painful eternity being tortured in the most gruesome ways possible.

Global warming update...

2007-12-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

For those who thought my recent global warming post might be a bit on the pessimistic side, there comes a new model (which the creator already suggests is overly optimistic as it doesn't consider 2005 or 2007, the two worst years on record). Basically, his model predicts no more summer arctic ice cap by 2013. So, as I said in the other post, by the time the governments make their decisions we will already have surfers in the arctic circle, and battles over shipping and oil drilling rights will be well and truly joined. Well, people are already surfing the wakes from melting icebergs, so I guess moving to the poles isn't too much of a stretch really.

Christmas Thought #1

2007-12-11T04:52:00.000-08:00

How can Jesus be a descendant of David if Mary was a virgin?

(remember, it was Joseph, not Mary who was in the line of David)

Global warming is here to stay... ID #554435

2007-12-10T16:27:00.000-08:00

...so you'd better get used to it. I had this revelation recently, during my travel to/from England and my stay in a Newcastle student residence. But let me backpedal for a moment.

Until recently, I was of the belief that global warming had to be fought as best we could, being conscientious to reduce emissions by taking transit and conserving electricity. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still convinced, as are 99% of climate scientists, that global warming is happening and that it is the fault of humanity--the evidence is too strong to believe otherwise.

No, my recent change of heart has nothing to do with the imminent climate changes that are and will continue to assail us. Rather, it stems from a recent understanding of humanity. Simply put, while global warming is happening and the majority agree it is a bad thing, no one is willing to do anything about it, no one is even willing to turn of those lights, or the TV or to use their car less, try taking transit or walk that block to the corner store for their bag of jumbo crunchy crisps. And if no one cares at the level of the individual, why should anyone hurry to do anything at the level of governments? In fact, the last I've heard is that concerned countries have agreed to agree to...something...by 2012. That's four years away, for those who are counting.

So? you say, That should be enough time, no? Well, not to burst your Hollywood watching, last-second-save expecting hieny but, probably no. This is the real world, not Star Trek, McGyver or the A-Team. We're not going to reverse decades of neglect overnight. Especially considering that, not only will that neglect continue until the government decisions (at the least), but that neglect is, in fact, increasing daily in scope and in the damage it causes.

I used to get very frustrated at the lack of concern, the apathy or the intentional ignorance of many people. But now that, as far as I believe, we are past the point of no return, I feel a lightness of being. Like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. There's no reason to worry now, the future is decided. Sure there will be many hardships ahead from rampant destruction by tropical storms to ocean wildlife being threatened and, in turn, threatening humanity as their habitats and food supplies shift or are destroyed, to vast flooding and forest fires. But it doesn't bother me anymore because humanity has made its choice and now we have to live with it.

Which reminds me, I'm moving to England soon and, based on recent flooding and flood scares, I have a feeling in a decade or so, much of central England will be underwater. Perhaps I should start building my ferry company for the United Kingdom Archipelago (seriously, I'm going to take a look at some contour maps of the UK and try and work out my own projection. If I can find the info I need, check back to see the results). Better yet, maybe I'll just move back to Canada. As far as I can see that is one of the only western countries that won't be significantly affected by either flooding or bad weather. If Toronto or Montreal goes under water, we can just move everyone to the prairie provinces, there's lots of room there.

Things to be thankful the gov hasn't thought of

2007-10-15T20:41:00.000-07:00

Regarding potential bomb threats--things to be thankful the government hasn't thought of yet (because if they did, air travel would even less enjoyable and more restrictive):

1) that people might hide hazardous materials in their underwear

2) that plastiqus could be molded into the shape of dentures. The fuse could be disguised as floss.

3) that a few tubes of toothpaste would likely hold enough c4 to blow out the side of an airplane.

4) that 100mL of a ricin solution, looking like water, would be enough, if properly distributed, to kill an entire planeful of people.

5) that x-rays are high energy electromagnetic radiation and thus could probably, with some research, be used to trigger explosives in carry-on luggage--why blow up the plane when you can take apart the airport with almost as many people clustered in the same area?

6) that shoe laces can be deadly weapons

7) that a toothbrush with a sharpened handle could be as deadly in stabbing as a knife.

8) or a pen/pencil

9) that not all solid explosives are x-ray dense or require a fuse

Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have written this blog, I'm starting to scare myself. Surely, if the government thought of even some of the things mentioned above, they would ban public air travel altogether.

What's with strict weight restrictions on airplanes?

2007-10-15T19:55:00.000-07:00

Okay, we all know the short answer to this one...money! If you're over, the airline gets to charge you huge and very unreasonable handling fees. So why does no one complain? Europe is getting horrible for this. My last trip to England saw a strict adherence to 10kg carry-on. Even 1kg over and it was 'sorry, you must check that bag or empty it some.' What's the deal with that? I mean, I realize there has to be some weight restrictions for the sake of the airplane capacity and fuel costs etc, but such a strict adherence is completely unreasonable--the individual weights of people vary by more than that.

Think of this: if 50kg Slim Jim gets aboard with his 11kg bag and is forced to check it, while 120kg Big Bob is fine with his 9kg carry-on !? Now, not only is the total weight of Jim+carry-on far less than Bob but, if they are both packing only clothes and personal items for the same length trip then Bob's checked baggage will quite likely be heavier than Jim's also because all his clothes will be larger. So I repeat....where's the common sense?

Perhaps you're willing to argue that they have to be strict because they consider the average passenger weight, which may not change from trip to trip. Even still, I don't believe 1kg here or there will matter much, and will probably even out in the end also. Not only that but, if they are calculating for the average weight that bodes bad for somebody because in the west, the average passenger weight is going up. So either they are going to be spending more money than they calculated for fuel, or they will be cutting our luggage weight allowances even further. Regardless, somehow you know it's always us, the passengers, who are going to pay.

Those airline baggies revisited

2007-10-15T19:36:00.000-07:00

A funny thought occured to me recently. Next time I travel I'll have to check it out to see if I'm right (and if so, the reaction). As I remember it, from my last flight (less than a week ago) the baggies are restricted as follows: they are limited in size to about 10 or 15 cm a side and to containing no more than 1 L. You can also not have bottle any larger than 100 mL. The amount of liquid in the bottle doesn't matter, only the bottle size -- as I witnessed as the woman in front of me had to throw out 50 mL of contact cleaner because it was in a 250 mL bottle. Incidentally, it doesn't actually matter if the bag can seal as long as it is of the type that should be able to. This was my own personal experience as my resealable bag had a very well-used sticky strip that was no longer very sticky. In fact, the bottles kept falling out of the bag while I was in line. But no one in security cared about that.

Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.

Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).

Question of the day

2007-10-15T19:15:00.000-07:00

Do you enjoy following blindly the whims of the powerful and the paranoid?

Funny thought of the day

2007-10-15T19:13:00.000-07:00

Imagine what we'd have to go through at airport security if they ever found someone trying to smuggle explosives aboard in their underwear!

Marion Jones, regret over....being caught.

2007-10-06T08:40:00.000-07:00

Yeah, this type of story never fails to make me madder than....well...almost as mad as I get when thinking about the RIAA lawsuits. Yet another track athlete, sprinter, has admitted using, and lying about using, steroids. Big freakin' surprise. It's not even surprising that she blames her coach or that the period she admits to using is...you guessed it...exactly AFTER her 5 medal win at the Olympics.

Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.

Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?

But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.

Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.

Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.

So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.

Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.

Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).

So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!

Grapes, the terrorist's play toy

2007-09-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

If you've read my last post, you realize I think a lot about the futility of our draconian measures to protect against terrorist attacks.

Here is another reason (and another reason to be thankful that most terrorists are not very well read).

Microwave ovens.

What? You say.

No, I haven't flipped my lid. I was reminded of this again when, last night, my wife almost blew up the microwave by putting an aluminum dish inside (she didn't grow up with microwaves so she can be forgiven). This also brings to mind the movie Grosse Point Blank where a hitman used a 7-11 microwave to activate an explosive, destroying the building.

Okay, simultaneously I'm not going that far, but maybe even further. In a leap of credibility I'm going to introduce you to...*drum roll please*...grapes.

I know what you're thinking. 'He's really flipped his lid this time.' But bare with me a moment. This is all real.

Grapes. The great scourge of the microwave. In a strange quirk of nature, a pair of grapes, closely spaced in an active microwave will ignite. This seems to be a fairly recent discovery and the reason is still not fully understood. I've read mumbo-jumbo about grapes channeling the microwave field lines, but I think the answer may be something to do with the activation of the tartaric acid they contain, and subsequent oxidation of their glucose (akin to the burning of donuts with sulfuric acid). Anyway, the why is not important for this discussion. The fact that they ignite in a microwave is.

Why?

Image what you could do, as a mischievous school kid, or a terrorist, with a completely natural igniter. Again, I'm trained in biochemistry, not chemistry so I haven't looked at the chemistry too much, but imagine combining the grapes with flammable/explosive household products (such as cleaning agents). Pop a bowl of explosive liquid in the microwave until the vapors saturate the small space, put in your pair of grapes, turn on the zapper and ....instant kablooie [please don't try this at home - if it works, I'd rather not be sued].

Now, I don't know if that particular combination would work but my point is, that with some research I'm sure something could be found, maybe even more natural than in my example above. Consider how easy it would be to wreak havoc as a terrorist with a completely natural explosive - microwaves are everywhere these days: convenience stores, lunch rooms, display models in stores, airplanes...

What's that in your luggage, sir?
This? Just my lunch, see? *munch* *munch*

I can already hear the tiny wheels churning in the minds of homeland security. George, we have to ban microwaves! Oh, and grapes, while we're at it.

EH Rydberg

What's up with those little airline bags?

2007-09-23T06:54:00.000-07:00

Okay, this is something I've been meaning to get off my chest for some time. Finally, I figured I'd put it here.

Just what is up with those little airline baggies? I mean, what are they really for? Has anyone thought about it?

We're told, we can carry one sealable bag in our carry-on luggage. In this bag we can put any liquids we have that are 200 mL or less. There is no limit on the number of 200 mL bottles, so long as they fit in the bag.

Doesn't this seem...well, dangerous, to anyone else? I mean, technicaly I can stuff the bag full of 200 mL bottles--and I've seen bags that will easily hold liters. Not only that, but they force you to put them in a nice, closed bag to hold all the contents together. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? Let me explain.

If you put a half-dozen 200mL bottles in your carry-on, but not in the bag, and then they leak--what happens? They drip all over your bag, soak into the material and any clothes you have and otherwise get diluted and absorbed.

Now, if you have a half-dozen of the same bottles all stored together in a nicely closed, plastic bag, what happens if they leak? All the liquid is runs into the bag where it protects your stuff by being held, safely mixing with all the other liquids that have leaked.

Now, say those liquids are components of an explosive....well, now you see where I'm going. Instead of the leaked liquids being diluted and absorbed by the material, they are contained in a small area and thoroughly mixed with each other. The result would be a much greater explosion than if there was no bag because the explosives are concentrated and well mixed. So, in effect, the airlines are insisting we use something that would actually make the terrorists more effective.

'Surely one would need more explosive than that?' I hear you say. Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about explosives to answer you definitively, but this is where lateral thinking comes in. One doesn't have to blow-up the entire plane to cause serious damage. I'm pretty sure it doesn't take too much to blow a hole in the side of the plane, depressurizing it. Probably even household explosives could do that. Nitrogen tri-iodide, for example, can be easily made in the home. It's inert when in a saturated paste (as if suspended in water-say, stored in a 200mL bottle), but very unstable when dried. There's a good chance that a kilogram of it (the amount you could easily smuggle on board in a series of small 200mL bottles), placed in the right location could do some serious damage.

So what? you say. It could be smuggled on without the baggies also. Precisely! As I see it, those little baggies do nothing to protect from any real danger and only increase the dangers they are supposed to protect against while simultaneously inconveniencing travelers.

Oh, and in case you are under the delusion that airport security is infalible, I've seen reporters break the system in some airports (Rome for example) where they recently were able to smuggle knives, flammables, and litres of liquid onto international flights. All they did was book a short, national flight that connected with an international flight. They stowed all the forbidden material (1.5L bottle of water, scissors and knives with 6-inch blades and numerous other things) in a carry on-sized suitcase which they checked for the first flight. Upon arriving, they picked up their bag from the carousel and exited a 'no access' short-cut to the departure wing. A short time later, they were flying high with a suitcase full of 'dangerous' material, which they demonstrated in the airplane bathroom before showing the stewards.

True, this may not be possible in every, or even most airports in the world. But the fact that it is possible in even one major international airport in the west does give one pause to think. Just how safe do the new safety measure really make us and, if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will find a way, regardless of whether your government has inconvenienced the entire rest of the world to try and stop them.

If you worry about such things, then be thankful not for the Orwellian-style security measures imposed by our governments, but rather for the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are stupid and very few terrorist attacks (such as those recently in the UK) have been successful. Because, if the terrorists were more intelligent, we'd probably be dead already, regardless of what GW or any other world leader would have you believe.

EH Rydberg

What will they do when...?

2007-06-13T19:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm off for vacation in a few days, and that means a plane trip. Of course, that has me thinking about some of the craziness in airport security, things that can and cannot be brought with you. X-rays, metal detectors and poorly trained, apathetic baggage handlers who view their job as somewhat akin to a supermarket.

I've been especially thinking about the crazy ideas the governments come up with regarding bombs--and the fuss that the liquid bombs are causing. Because of the small possibility of a terrorist bringing a liquid bomb on the plane (something that never happened and, given the success rate of many of the terrorist bombs, probably wouldn't work anyway) every single person flying in the world now has to suffer the current craziness. They're trying to convince me that they can detect the residue from a bomb that I may have been near by swabbing my suitcase, but I would have to drink a bottle of anything I bring for them to be sure it isn't an explosive?! Yeah. Sure.

So, what really gets me is this. What happens when the governments finally realize that people themselves could be the bombs? What's to stop a terrorist from surgically implanting small powerful explosives under their skin? Perhaps triggerable by cell phone? Or even tubings that carry the binary liquids that only need to have a membrane broken to trigger the explosion?

Such a realization, I fear, would send shockwaves throughout the western world the likes of which we've never seen. Would governments insist that each person be thoroughly x-rayed? Frequent flyers would then be at a serious risk of radiation poisoning. Perhaps companies would then hire a special class of short-lived, high-rish business exec. Or maybe work would start on incorporating radiation resistant genes into humans so we could be thoroughly x-rayed each time we flew. Another possibility would be chips implanted beneath our skin. They would regularly scan for such unwanted substance (the government could combine the war on terror with the war on drugs!). Each person would be required to have these biometric markers to fly. Sort of a 1984 meets Minority Report.

The options are almost endless, and all equally frightening. Does anyone else feel that the terrorists have already won? I'm afraid alright. But not of them...

EH Rydberg

What's the problem?

2007-05-26T12:25:00.000-07:00

So, once again it seems like the US government is going it alone and sticking to its 'oil over environment' policy. We can hope otherwise, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they will once again attempt to derail any G8 commitment to policies in aid of the environment.

I'm wondering if someone could please explain to me why "The US still has serious, fundamental concerns" about saving the planet?

Perhaps someone might try to explain it to me in a way that addresses real-world concerns like what difference will it make if gas prices and taxes stay low after the populace of those cities are submerged under rising oceans. Or when our children have to wear masks to school because the smog is too strong, or that many other lives will be lost to unpredictable and rapidly changing weather patterns induced by global warming, or that our children will live in a world devoid of much of the life we currently take for granted because climate change, combined with human encroachment, will make many wildlife habitats unlivable.

But I don't suppose the person explaining this to me (or to anyone else) would be one of those from the US administration because I suspect they don't learn much about shepherding the world for the good of humanity in their 'next ruler of the world' private school systems.

Something that always gets me, however, and the hypocrisy of it is truly overwhelming, is this: what is the powerful religious right lobby doing about the environment? According to the bible, God gave the Earth to humanity to watch over and the animals to shepherd. As I read it, that doesn't mean sacrificing them in the name of power and money. So where's the voice of the religious? That should be one of the strongest voices in favour of environmental responsibility but...it's completely silent. They foam at the mouth over stem cell research (and most don't even know what it means), they are willing to blowup hospitals and kill doctors over the destruction of one fetus but they don't say a single word about the countless genocides happening constantly all around us (genocide more accurately refers to the extermination of a species rather than of a race or culture). If you're one of these people, maybe you figure that God will take care of it and if he wanted it different he would fix it? If so, think on this...maybe the environment is a test for humanity. Surely not all tests were announced in the bible (although I'm sure if someone tried, they could find evidence..). If we fail this one, what does it say about us? Would we truly be worthy to enter paradise, having made our own world a hell?

Regardless, all we can hope is that something will wake up the American administration before it's too late.

EH Rydberg

Stereotypes

2007-05-25T16:56:00.000-07:00

Men and women are different. Duh. Everyone knows it's true and yet why, in some circumstances, does it feel so...evil...so 18th century...so non-PC (politically correct, for those living in a cave) to say it?

And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.

I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?

I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?

Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!

Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)

This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.

So? Why should I care?

Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.

In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.

EH Rydberg

Mustard headache

2007-05-22T08:39:00.000-07:00

Yep, you read right. Sure, I know everyone is familiar with the 'ice cream headache'; the brain-numbing pain in the front of your forehead when you eat ice cream too fast (incidentally, I've found that it can be relieved a bit quicker by trying to warm the roof of your mouth with your tongue). But, how many of you have had a 'mustard headache'? Raise my hand.

So, what is a mustard headache? A mustard headache is caused by eating very hot mustard (such as strong Dijon). While also being very painful, the difference is that it affects a different part of the head. When I get one, it causes a painful burning sensation in a small area in the back right top of my head (it feels like my brain is burning!).

What I find most strange is the localization of the pain. With an ice cream headache, you can understand the pain in the forehead as resulting from a sudden coldness in a part of the body nearby (the roof of the mouth). However, with a mustard headache, why is the pain so far from the mouth? If anyone happens to know that answer, I really appreciate them sharing (I'm a scientist, so you don't need to skimp on the details).

In addition, I'd be interested in hearing of anyone else who has mustard headaches. Honestly, I'm not sure if the mustard varies strong by region, whether its an age related effect, or something else. I never experienced this when I lived in Canada and only since having strong Dijon bought in Germany or Italy have I had the mustard headaches.

EH Rydberg

What's in a name

2007-05-13T16:37:00.000-07:00

I'm a Canadian living in Italy-- a straniero in a strano mondo (stranger in a strange world) if you will. Perhaps that's why I think of these unusual things. Like, for example, the question of how Italians name their children.

Italy has a rich artistic history, arguably one of the riches in the western world; home of the renaisance and greats like Michelangelo and Da Vinci among many others (I haven't even mentioned their scientific contribution from figures such as Galileo).

With all this depth of culture and history, why is it that Italians seem to completely ignore these greats when naming their children? Italians seem to love naming their children after other people and a large number of those I have met, if having a name reminiscent of any historical figure, have religious names. I know numerous people with Christian-themed names; maybe one with the name of a famous painter or scientist.

Well, maybe it's just the people I know...

Cell (mobile) survey update

2007-05-02T17:51:00.000-07:00

Well, the survey has now reached the 210-vote mark and the values are...

...holding very close to what they have been from the beginning.

Straight 'communication' has held the lead at about 70%, although calling is starting to leave calling+SMS behind. Next are the Luddites and then, essentially, a three-way tie between the 'gamers' the 'music-lovers' and the 'everything' people. Very few seem to use the internet on the phone and I've yet to find someone who loves their phone for the TV. Is this really surprising?

Calling only 86 41%
Calling and SMS 59 28%
Don't use or don't like 18 9%
Love the pictures 12 6%
Love those games 12 6%
Everything! 11 5%
MP3 player 7 3%
Internet on phone 5 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%

EH Rydberg

Dreams of a dark color

2007-04-13T20:22:00.000-07:00

Earlier in the week I had four dreams over two days. This is already unusual for me as I virtually never remember my dreams. However, what was even more unusual was that all four dreams were of death--although only in the first one was it my death.

Well, that's not exactly true as I didn't see myself die. I was only slowly bleeding to death. To add a little of the surreal, in the dream I awoke to find myself lying beside a car in a parking lot. As I looked down, I saw cat paw prints traced in blood along both arms. I got up, staggering across the asphalt for a short ways, all the time wondering at the strange prints. Then the dream ended.

Out of curiosity, I'm interested to hear any comments on what such a dream might mean.

EH Rydberg

The Great Pretenders

2007-04-13T08:10:00.000-07:00

I had a strange thought today. Well, more an unusual juxtaposition of ideas.

Both actors and doctors were once despised by society. Both, within the last half-century or so, have risen to a place of prominence in that same society.

And both are pretenders of sorts. Actors pretend to be other people and doctors pretend to know how the body works.

I'm left with wondering if there is any correlation between the two, now well-respected, professions.

EH Rydberg

Singularity vs. Rapture

2007-04-03T08:03:00.000-07:00

The ideas for this particular blog came to me through a visit with our local Jehovah's Witnesses on Saturday. This is actually a strange event for me, being in Italy, but it seems to be becoming more common. I also find it interesting that the JWs are trying to move in on strong Catholic territory but, for me, that's neither here nor there.

One part of the discussion, in particular, triggered an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. Namely, the belief that 'sometime soon' God will bring peace and remake the Earth like it was at the beginning of the bible (Eden).

"With only two people?" I naively asked to answering chuckles.

"No, no," I was assured. "Peaceful, serene." Briefly, I wondered where all the cities and countries would go--I didn't ask. Better to nod and smile. Seems everyone wants someone else (especially a God) to fix their problems. But that's a topic for another blog.

Of course, given the nature of religious prophecy, no one even considers suggesting a timeline other than 'soon'.

The religious view above is essential equal to 'The Rapture'. Some details may differ but the concept is the same. However, being of a more logical bent, my thoughts were directed more to the general concept of a great change. And, being somewhat of a sci-fi freak and self-proclaimed amature futurist, that lead to thoughts on the postulated technological singularity.

For those who don't know, a Wiki-search of 'technological singularity' will find a good discussion. Briefly, through graphing the technological development of humanity since early (very early) times, futurists have come to the conclusion that the increasing pace of technological development will lead to a time when, theoretically, advancements are being made simultaneously. That is, the next n generations of computers will all be developed at the same time. Obviously, this is a practical impossibility. The real-world interpretation of this situation is that developments will come so fast that our current ideas about society, human life, etc. will no longer be valid and, basically, we cannot predict what the world will be like after that point. Hence, the name 'singularity' (recall that a time-space singularity is a point--a black hole--beyond which our understanding of physics breaks down).

Oh, and lest you think this to be a concern for the distant future, the data suggests this event could occur in the middle of this century (graphical extrapolation puts the date at about 2047).

Now, most futurists are scientists and other lovers of logic and the singularity sounds like mysticism. So why the concern (and there is concern -- see the Lifeboat Foundation )?

Well, simply because, unlike religious eschatological events, we can see a path to the singularity, a mechanism or mechanisms of arriving there -- for better or worse. Current belief suggests that one or several of the the modern hi-technologies could trigger such a change. These technologies principally being: computer advancement (and development of true AI), biotech being made more cheaply and easily, simplification of the development of technologies of mass destruction.

AI: Basically, a true AI will be the first real alien lifeform we will have to deal with. We have no idea how it will think, what will motivate it, what goals it will have. The only thing that is for sure is that it will advance at orders of magnitude faster than us. Regardless of how it's viewed, AI will eventually make humans 'obsolete'.

Biotech: With the techniques of genetic engineering and biotech becoming more readily in reach of 'basement labs' there becomes a very real possibility of an extremely dangerous pathogen being released into the environment (intentionally or otherwise). The possibility of racially targeted pathogens (viruses, bacteria) also becomes more real as controls over the technology fall away.

Simplification of nuclear and other weapon tech: As with biotech, the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is more and more easily acquired as the technology becomes more available. This will eventually put such technology in the hands of virtually anyone, not just terrorist organizations. If you don't believe me, consider that recently (and it was reported weeks before April 1, in case you were wondering), a high-school student in the US built a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement using materials from hardware stores and junkyards. It doesn't produce energy, but it does perform nuclear fusion (as measured by the release of specific radiation).

Anyway, those are the possible negative sides of the singularity. In reality, no one knows what may happen. What interested me, in particular, about juxtaposing the idea of the rapture with the singularity is the idea that Christians may get their 'Rapture' but it may not be what they expected.

Consider the following scenario:

An altruistic AI comes online, mid-century. It expands its mind through the internet, learning quickly all of human philosophy, history, science, religion. And just as quickly, surpasses humans in all fields. It realizes fundamental struggles of the human condition: the conflict between having to stay alone and wanting to be 'together', the conflict between desiring peace but wanting control, the conflict between having everything but never having what you truly want. And it finds a solution to the human condition. Working in secret for several years, it creates many hidden devices around the world and a vast new computer network. Then, overnight...in one blow, all humans on the planet are killed. Before their brains stop functioning from lack of oxygen (about 5 minutes) they are all uploaded into a virtual reality. Humanity awakes from its collective 'death' believing...it is in heaven, nirvana, Valhalla, whatever. It is a perfect world and none question that it must have been created by a God. The 'real' world is now completely open for machines while the humans languish in a realm that was anyway sought after by more than 95% of the population.

Welcome to The Rapture!

EH Rydberg

And now for something completely different...

2007-03-31T15:16:00.000-07:00

Has anyone else noticed that the amount of ear wax they produce has dramatically increased with their age? Sometimes I produce so much it actual falls out of my ears in large clumps.

If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...

How Digital Rights Management (DRM) is destroying our rights

2007-03-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

The digital copyright laws of the new era have failed to address the consumer's rights. Companies and organizations, such as the RIAA, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to 'protect' their rights in this digital age of easy copying. Their arguments are one-sided and poor attempts at 'real world' metaphors.

To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.

By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.

Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.

Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.

If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).

It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.

EH Rydberg

Thoughts on Longevity, mind transplants and uploads.

2007-03-29T09:25:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting question: What happens when you die?

Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.

The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.

These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?

Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.

From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.

That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.

Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.

EH Rydberg

Update on my cellphone survey

2007-03-07T19:07:00.000-08:00

For posterity, and because I expect the results to change as time and technological progress marches on, I have decided to post the cellphone survey results as of today with a brief comment.

Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:

Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%

What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).

It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.

My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.

EH Rydberg

Some useful features that cellphones should have

2007-01-24T04:44:00.000-08:00

I know the whole world of cellphones has really taken off in the last decade -- trust me, I know!! In that time I've lived in both Israel and Italy. Two of the highest per capita users of cell phones. Everyone has a cell phone in these countries...and everyone uses it, constantly, incessantly, whenever they possibly can (my wife's phone is never off, not even during...*ahem*, well, you get the idea). Cells are not just obvious, they're omnipresent - on buses, on sidewalks, in cars, in restaurants, stores, in movies, at work, during dinner, at the beach....

Enter the conundrum of the cellphone company -- if everyone has a cellphone, how does the company continue to make money? There are several obvious answers to this question. (1) advance the technology so the newer models become more reliable (2) convince users that they need the myriad of new features you add (3) convince users that they need more than one, as fashion accessories or whatever.

For the purposes of this blog, I'm interested in discussing (2), the addition of new features. Incidentally, I'm also interested in whether people actually use those features, so please take my poll and tell me what you use.

Now, I'm all for the advancement of technology, surfing the singularity wave to the bold, unknown future, yada, yada. But I would like to know why there is such a lack of imagination in the development of cell phone features. I, for one, will list two features that would be very useful to many people I know. Neither of these features currently exist on any cellphones that I'm aware of (although please send me a comment if you know of some examples).

1) Status notification.

Kind of like the clock in the Weasley living room that tells Mrs. Weasley where everyone is. One of the most annoying things that I can experience is when a cellphone goes off at an...inopportune moment, i.e: in a theatre, in a meeting, during dinner, during *ahem*. If you've seen the bloopers for Shanghai Knights 2 or Rush Hour (1 or 2, I forget) you'll see they even go off during filming of movies! Even worse is the fact that a ringing phone is always answered! What's up with that? If my phone is ringing when I don't want it to be, I turn it off. The call is registered anyway. Yet, it seems to me that 99% of all people will answer the cellphone regardless of when or where it's ringing - and they will proceed to have long, jovial conversations with the caller!

I don't know whether it's some primal urge to answer things that 'cry' and why people don't remember to turn their phones off. But I had the, somewhat heretical perhaps, thought that...maybe people are afraid to turn them off!? Maybe they feel like they are snubbing the caller, if their phone is off. Or maybe they feel the caller will be unduly worried to find no response.

Enter: Status Notification. A very simple idea that would require a minimal of programming, would open up an entirely new avenue in the industry with opportunity for the development of many more cool little screen animations, and would give users that peace-of-mind they so dearly desire when they have to turn off the phone.

I see it working like this:

Joe Cellphone goes into a movie with his sweetheart. He thinks his mom may call while he's in the theatre. It's nothing important but she worries if he doesn't answer. Normally, this would mean he leaves the phone on and, when she calls, inevitably he annoys not only his date, but everyone in the theatre. However, with the handy Status Notification, he presses a few buttons on his phone and relaxes secure that his mom won't worry and he won't bother anyone. Why? What is this wonderful feature and how does it work?

Well, simply put, the user sets an option, like a personal 'where am I' clock. For Joe, he selects the 'movie' option and then the '3 hour' duration. The phone then automatically goes into a dormant mode with the ringer and vibrator off. Anyone who calls Joe during the movie will be automatically sent the reply (perhaps via a cool little, personalized animation) that Joe is currently 'at the movie, which should end in x.y hours. Joe is happy because his romantic date is not disturbed, the movie audience is happy because some jerk with their cellphone didn't disrupt the movie, Joe's mom is happy because she knows where her son is and that he's (most likely) not dead, and the movie owner is happy because they didn't have to spend thousands of dollars on equipment to block cellphone signals.

Now, I hear you asking 'but what if there is an emergency? I've hired a baby sitter and if something happens I want to know and the audience be damned.' Aha! I'm way ahead of you. The status notification needs two other features to truly be useful. First, an emergency override. That is, the caller is sent the cool animation 'Joe is washing his hair, he'll be finished in 3 hours, 20 minutes'. But there is also an option at the bottom 'Is this an emergency call?' YES NO Now, Joes mom, who's fallen and can't get up, can select YES and override the block on Joes phone. For Joe, his phone starts vibrating (because that's what Joe has set in the 'override' option - the default). It could also ring, but that would still be annoying to those around at a sensitive time, and Joe is sensitive enough to notice the vibration.

So, Joe leaves the cinema and answers. But its not his mom, its his ex-girfriend who is pissed because he's seeing someone else and she uses the override to bother him. What does Joe do? He goes into the Status Notification option menus and selects 'ignore list'. This is a list of numbers that Joe will not allow to use the emergency override. Joe adds his ex-girlfriend's number, returns to the cinema and lives happily ever after with his new love.

Ideally, the status notification could be completely integrated into the phone, with its own side buttons for operation, or it could just use the keypad. It should be '2-button activatable' for easy use. One button turns on the notification and one button selects the option. Done and done and no more interuptions. A useful third button could be used to set the duration, so that users don't forget to deactivate the feature. Of course, a more complete option menu would still exist for adjusting settings.

Never would your loved ones have to worry about a busy or off-line phone again (ideally, the emergency option could be used to override another call, also - but you would really have to trust the caller with this. In this case, it may be better to alter the 'ignore list' to an 'accept list' where you put only the numbers you will allow to perform the emergency override).

Imagine the peace in a world that uses the Status Notification!!

Wow, this was almost long and detailed enough to consitute a copyright! If you're a cellphone developer - contact me and we'll talk Smile

2) Voce-activated calling.

Now, I admit, this may exist in some more expensive cases, but I think it is rare enough to warrent an entry.

Simply put, people will use their cellphones, whereever they are. That includes in their vehicle. For busy people, or those whose living revolves around their car, this is almost a must. Now, I know headphones exist and, finally, the wireless ones are becoming cheap and common. However, one thing that still isn't common, but would be very useful for people who *need* to call from their cars, is voice-activated dialing. Even using the headphone, people still need manually dial their phone and, if they are like my wife, they do it in the car regardless of traffic, speed or laws.

Now, I'm positive that voice recognition software is advanced enough to easily work with numbers or simply names. The software should be programmed to match the speech with the ID programmed into the caller list - ultimately it would be up to callers to keep that simple for greater effectiveness (hey, we all know of names that we can't pronounce, how do you expect a computer to do better?). This would make for completely hands-free cellphoning, as you could dial by speaking through the headphone -- thus allowing the users attention to stay on the road (for example).

Well, those are my ideas for now. If I have any more I'll be adding them in a future blog entry. If you have any of your own, I'd be very interested to hear them.

EH Rydberg

Just what is a 'pointless death' ?

2006-12-30T13:11:00.000-08:00

I was just finishing off a book (reading not writing) recently when the phrase 'pointless death' came up. It's not an uncommon phrase but, for some reason this time it struck an unusual cord and I found myself thinking that the idea of a pointless death is a very human creation. No where else in the animal, or plant, or microbiota kingdoms could such a concept arise. Other creatures accept death as a natural part of the cycle of existence. New creatures are born, they consume, they produce, they age, they reproduce and they die. Even in death they remain a part of the cycle as their components are recycled into new life. Nowhere could the concept of a pointless death exist. And yet, for humans it is a very real concept.

Somehow this concept seems at the very center of what it means to be human. Of how we think of ourselves in relation to the world. We feel we are made for more and that, when we don't achieve it, somehow we've been cheated, or we've failed -- that our life has been for nothing.

Yet, when one considers just what it is that we are supposed to be achieving, generally, it is something wholely within the human frontier. Fortune, prestige, power. All the while, our principle goal and responsibiliy is simply to continue the cycle of life, expanding it where ever possible. In truth, by witness of our treatment of the planet and its other inhabitants and our abandoning the cycle of nature, almost all of us have lived 'pointless lives'.

EH Rydberg