mathjax

Friday, October 31, 2014

Could Jesus do this? Science can.


Science doesn't need the approval of Church



Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand' 

It's great the Church is coming around to accept the physics-based explanation of the Universe and origins.  But this approval or validation is not necessary.  Science doesn't care what the Church thinks about it.  The Church is a participant in science as demonstrated by their astronomical interests.  But Science ignores praise over the cold criticism of peer review.

Of greater importance is the acceptance of evolution.  Now that's an admission that will have far reaching consequences for the Christians that still hold onto the belief the Earth is 6000 years old.

On the other hand, it's not cool that he's decided that God isn't a magician and that there was a genesis of the Universe from the Big Bang.  He's offering an alternate theory as to the universe's creation.  Unfortunately, he is not authoring a paper and submitting it for review by scientists.  If he did that, he would have to submit all the proof of his postulates along with his theory.  That would be the true test for the existence of God.

The arrogance of the Church, as cool as Pope Frank may be, is that they decree their views and do not submit to examination.




I think Russell Brand owes Stephen Harper an apology





+Russell Brand  was completely wrong on +Stephen Harper 's speech to the nation and Michel Zehaf-Bibeau.  He claimed that the Canadian government would immediately clamp down on civil liberties and impose laws similar to the UK and USA. The parliamentarians didn't knee-jerk impose a police state. There was dissent and alternate viewpoints on how to change the laws for security.  Everything carried on without hysteria.

Michel Zehaf-Bibeau was motivated by jihad.   Another false claim in that video.

For using Fox-News like drive-by tactics: playing loose with the facts, jumping to conclusions lacking evidence, and using emotional opportunism to hike his own viewership, I think Russell Brand needs to apologize for his Trews vlog: ▶ Ottawa Killings: Who Wins? Russell Brand The Trews (E174) - YouTube

Russell Brand, if you do hold to your beliefs about fairness and compassion for all human kind, then I believe you owe Stephen Harper an apology. 

The internet is the forever machine.

All your data ends up swirling the planet until the end of humanity.....

Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face - Mike Tyson


http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/jian-ghomeshi-allegedly-attacked-another-woman-more-than-10-years-ago-1.2817582

 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/8-women-now-accuse-jian-ghomeshi-of-violence-sexual-harassment-report-1.2078421


Jian Ghomeshi  thought he could put his decades-old sexual depravity problem behind him by suing his former employer and getting out first denying his perversion - and that's a defamatory statement he can sue me over if he wishes - and demanding the media be careful or they would be sued as well.

Like the beating of these women he sought to dominate people ahead of their attacks against him. The true nature of a gutless bully.  Unfortunately, like that quote from Mike Tyson, he had a clever plan until he too was punched in the face. He is now feeling like those women that thought they were going to have a night of fun, instead they were choked and punched by a deviant.

He has suffered a humiliating and demeaning setback as the closet of abused people spills out before the public to refute his claims that he always has consent for punching women in the face. Or choking them.

There is nothing just in his position and he will soon face the shunning of the public his perversion deserves.



NB:

I did have a picture on here of Jian Ghomeshi, and I took it down because I had a moment to think about it.  Here is my reasoning:

I did not take it down because:
A. I am afraid of getting sued. He has plenty of people ahead of me to deal with.
B. I am afraid of Jian Ghomeshi: I'd love it if he tried his "tough love" on me, for I'd give him such an ass-stomping that might just scare him straight. Please, I invite him to try his tactics on men.

I considered the teaching of Buddha:
A. The internet is the forever machine.  If Jian mends his ways and becomes a better person, then that haunting image will resurface again and again to torment him.  That image decreases global happiness. That is against Buddhism, so I took it down.
B. This blog is a receptacle for my stream of conscious thinking. The point of this article was to point out the irony of having a plan to combat accusations that gets turned over like his victim's plans of having a night of fun.  I don't try to be sensational nor evil. I'm not doing this for a cheap punchline.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Emotional Opportunism in Politics

Politicians know how to energize followers with emotional trickery.  There is a mid-term election in the United States so this is topical.


If you watch an ad, or hear a politician speak and you are filled with emotional engagement then you are being played. 

If a politician is appealing to your emotions they don't want you to think about what that politician says and does. They are turning off rational frank debate towards issues that should be important for you. Why would you trust that politician?

Oil-based Economy versus Research-based Economy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/this-is-the-path-of-innovation/article21300489/

Most countries possess economies based on the amount of resources in the ground that can be extracted and sold.  I would like to call them oil-based economies although that could also include mining gold and so on. They should be called commodity-based economies but I want to make the distinction that the vast majority of commodity-based economies and the ills they give society are oil-based.

The basic dynamics of these economies are simple: the vast majority of investment, trade, and support business feeds the oil extraction, production, and shipping to resource users.  This is an economy based on how much resource is left in the ground and the current price vis a vis the supply and demand.  There is always doubt and deception used to prop up the value made from the resources; meaning that the supply is unknown and limited and those that make their living from the buying and selling of a resource bias the outcome in their own favour. So what? Well there is a limited amount of resource for the country to tax and exploit so the cheating in the capital system is like a loss to the overall good of the people.   Supplies are presumed to be limited, although there are some that claim fossil fuels might be made in the lower regions of the crust through massive pressures and temperatures.  To say that there is a limit on the amount of gold and silver this is also true. To say that building massive production plants takes years and billions of dollars to do so.


Now contrast this with an economy that bases its economic forecasting, investing, and activity on the value extracted from the creative minds in the economy. The vast majority of investment, trade, and support to the creation of new knowledge, the extraction of that creativity, the production of the products based on that knowledge, and the shipping to product users.  In this case, the supply of knowledge is infinite.  The problem space for mankind, from space travel to nanotechnology, to make products is infinite. The creativity produced is a by-product of a society that is designed to cultivate young minds and the extract and exploit the ideas that curious people offer society.  This economy would not be bound by the ebb and flow of commodity supply and demand.  There would still be losses to society by the middlemen that make their living biasing the supply and demand economy, but since the supply of research resources in question is far greater then the loss to society by ratio is negligible.  As referenced in the article, the flow of an idea from basic research to development to production would also take billions of dollars and tens of years.  So there would be no difference to the overall economy if a country adopted a research-based economy.

At the end of the day, where would you rather your government spend your tax dollars?  Today, most governments won't tell you how much they support the oil-based economy that they could redirect to other industries.

On the whole, any country could change from one to the other, but will the people understand they have the options? Will people see a new way to do business?

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Pending economic collapse

Here is how I predict an economic crash might start. Lower oil prices trigger unemployment and then gradual layoffs in sectors that rely on oil and gas business. That will trigger lower government revenues that will further lead to layoffs of government employees. Mortgages come due and people need to downsize their dwellings. House selling will trigger panic selling and that will deflate the asset value and balance sheets. The governments can't afford to loan any more they would lose their credit ratings. They spent their imaginary extra funding the TARP bailout. There would be no way to stop the slide in prices.

It may just wipe out the bankers that started this mess. Along with most of us. The bright side is we could start over.

I would recommend bitcoins as an alternative to impending doom.


Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Corporations act like sociopaths and why enlightened self-interest is better.



DiGiorno Used a Hashtag About Domestic Violence to Sell Pizza

"Late Monday night, a tweet on the DiGiorno Pizza account said, "#WhyIStayed You Had Pizza."

It must be made plain that many corporations act "as if" they are sociopaths - meaning that they would act as if there are no consequences personally/corporately for breaking societal norms and the corporate interest is paramount.  I am not claiming the people are psychopaths, although the higher echelons gain a disproportionate number 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_Suits of people that would score high on the sociopath test by Dr. Hare.

Somebody paid to get cheap results from mass marketing using Twitter just coughed up a mental furball as it were, trying to do the companies bidding.

This is a reality of economic behaviour. Companies need to do things like advertise to get the word out. So they continue to make money.  But what is dangerous is that it exposes the rift between self-interest - doing something for your gain and enlightened self-interest - considering your actions in the wider economics of everyone's gain - and how raw sociopathy makes a mess of it. This is why mediation, Buddhism, and more peaceful thought processes are so important, they widen the user to better ways of achieving the same thing.

People acting without considering the consequences is a threat to their shareholders.  And it doesn't have to be like that.

What would the reaction have been if DiGiorno had acted with a little pre-thought and consideration, like this:
 

 "Late Monday night, a tweet on the DiGiorno Pizza account said, "#WhyIStayed What a testing time for all these brave people sharing intimate crises. For the next 24 hours, DiGiorno Pizza will donate a dollar from every pizza sold to http://www.safehorizon.org/"

What would the reaction have been then?  See? You don't have to act like a sociopath and get only what you want.  The best companies are in it for everyone. And if your company acts like a sociopath then you should be concerned - very concerned.



Monday, October 27, 2014

America: The Schizophrenic Empire


Gwynne Dyer  once described the United States of America (USA) as "The Schizophrenic Empire".

For those trying to understand what the USA looks like to the rest of the world this is a very insightful comment.

Bill Maher called his country imperial last week on Real Time with Bill Maher.  He's pretty honest about everything.  How many Americans think they have an empire?

As a nation, it both denies it wants to interfere with others, yet has more bases worldwide than all other countries together.  It denies it has imperial inclinations, but it gets sucked into every regional dispute.   It promotes the cause of peace, yet Department of Defense spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined:






It has a policy that changes every four years, or every two years, or every time it is politically expedient to do so.  Getting the picture?

So the black box analysis of what the USA thinks, says, and does becomes less about what their long-term philosophical beliefs are but which USA are we talking to at this moment? And which personality will be around for the foreseeable future?





Watch a Grown Up Discussion by Two Grown Up Ideologues



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU


If you want to see a real debate amongst intellectual equals using FACTS rather than emotions.  Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur disagree on issues but they explore the whole truth of the matter.

This is as close to a Socratic Method as you will find.


Elon Musk is starting to branch out into metaphysics

Ok I was thinking of investing in Tesla the company because I think the electric car industry is a growing part of the next generation vehicle market.  There is a greater need for electric vehicles and it is a growing market. 

Then I read this:

Tesla battles Google in race to get driverless cars on the road: Elon Musk says company will produce self-driving vehicles by 2016

When Elon Musk, who is not an expert in artificial intelligence and autonomy, claims to know we are 90% towards full autonomous cars.  But even Toyota and Daimler Benz predict the actual horizon is maybe 10 to 15 years out.  Maybe.  Claiming an unrealistic timeframe makes me think he doesn't give care to understand a business area.  People have been working towards artifical intelligence since 1970's.  I've been working in this area since 2000.  I predicted the failure of the US Army's FCS - Future Combat Systems back in 2009.  I know more about autonomy than he does. And I wouldn't stake my money nor my reputation on a megalomaniacal statements.

And then I read this


Elon Musk Compares Rogue Artificial Intelligence to Demons. Yes, Really


For those that don't know all the science jokes, when a physicist comments that a colleague is dabbling in metaphysics - that's an insult of the highest variety.  Metaphysics - is uncounted or counted philosophy. It doesn't have anything to do with natural law. So may or may not have anything  to do with physics. When Elon started to make an analogy using demons and autonomy then I realize he's not acting in a most rationale manner. 

I don't think I'm going to invest in Elon Musk anymore. He's a loose cannon. His almost failures were a warning sign. 





I think they should rename CNN.

They should call it what it actually does.

CNN Catastrophic Needling Network

Sunday, October 26, 2014

The Last Nail in Stephen Harper's Coffin



Ford scraps potential $2-billion investment in Windsor, Ont.

If there was one belief in the Conservative party, one that made a lot of people hold their noses and vote for them, was the theory that Conservatives know how to kickstart the economy and bring in jobs.  Now Ford will move a key engine plant to Mexico and those downsized jobs will be lost forever.

Whatever happened to "Canada's Economic Action Plan"?  Where's the jobs?

Instead, he's just tried to gain favour by whipping civil servants, and that hasn't given any real boost in popularity. Or the economy. People thought the economy would be in better hands with a smaller government philosophy apart from the Liberal "let's build a bureaucracy to solve a problem" strategy. But what has he done for Ontario?

Ontario is still hurting from the downturn in 2008. I know, I was just there. Losing this work will not be forgiven nor forgotten.


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Lone wolf attacks are society's problem



Kevin Vickers says a lesson he took away from the incident is that safety is community-based:
“This is not an issue just for security, this is everybody’s issue and how we deal with this is by everybody, all the citizens, working together with their local police, their national police to ensure we have a safe society,”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-israel-sergeant-at-arms-vickers-given-heros-welcome/article21552888/

We expect the government not to pry into our minds but also to predict transient unforeseen behavior. Really?

The fact is the threat is adaptive and distributed. We all play a part if we ignore the warning signs. Everyone that came in contact with Michael Zehaf-Bibeau could have made a simple one time alert to police. At least make them aware of your worries. Don't avoid the problem. Report it.


What would really help the cause of finding and turning young people on the brink of radical terror is a Facebook / Google+ / My space "report a radical" button.

Breaking Bad Season 6

Here is my posited season 6 for Breaking Bad, the beloved AMC TV series:

Skyler White types the last few words of her novel.  She stops, takes a last drag of her cigarette and sighs. She pulls the finished page from the vintage typewriter and places it face down on the stacked ream.

She stares out the shabby window of her first floor apartment.  Nothing but cool bleak Albuquerque. She looks at the wall clock, there is time before she needs to pick up Holly at the daycare.

Skyler decides to start editing her book.  She turns over the stack to reveal the book title:

My Life with Heisenberg: a story of Meth, Death, Betrayal, Chemistry, and Hubris.

She flips to the Foreward, written by a man claiming to be the former-Saul Goodman, entitled "The Worst Meeting of My Life", and the memories come rushing back.  She feels differently, all of the self-pity and denial are gone and left with a cathartic sense of relief. 

No one has seen Heisenberg in years.  But for Skyler, the story is over.

Russell Brand is approaching Demagogue Status



▶ Ottawa Killings: Who Wins? Russell Brand The Trews (E174) - YouTube

I admire a lot of what Russell Brand stands for, his compassion for all people, the willingness to hear people of counterviews, and his wide lexicon.

Unfortunately, there is evidence of his conversion from a concerned thoughtful citizen into a demagogue.  His personality and need for attention are starting to get the better of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from French "demagogue", derived in turn from the Greek "demos" = people/folk and the verb "ago" = carry/manipulate thus "people's manipulator") or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives.

In the video above  he takes a template assumption - that the Canadian Conservative government is trying to steal liberties using the shootings / car assaults as the excuse.  He points out there is no proof that the crimes were radicalization-related.  He makes the comparison to other incidents that were used to justify the government-industry "hegemony" encroaching your civil liberties.

Except it's not what he thinks.  And he provides no proof to back up his claims.

 There is no rapid escalation in surveillance, sure they are rushing changes to make this particular case less likely.  But there are two opposition parties that are not going to rubber stamp an extreme legislation.  And what Russell gets wrong ("Canadians hate Stephen Harper") is that there is an election next year and Harper wants to get elected.  He knows any controversial laws will make his reelection less likely.  So there is no evidence he will risk his career on more controversy.  As Russell says, lots of Canadians hate Harper.  So why would he take the risk? On the other hand, an armed intruder got into Parliament.  Shouldn't the government do its job and review its security plan and crack down?

What Russell missed in his rush to judgment was this person was trying to get a passport and leave for Libya which is a Muslim battleground as much as Syria.  He made statements hating Canadian soldiers for war crimes overseas. And he was kicked out of a mosque for bad behaviour.  Even Muslims didn't want this guy around. Why does Russell Brand think we are claiming Zehaf-Bibeau is just another Muslim?

Russell didn't check his facts.  Muslims are forbidden from drugs use.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics   Zehaf-Bibeau used $160 per day heroin and crack cocaine.  So he wasn't really a Muslim was he, Russell?  Did you check that before you concluded what happened?

Gunman prepared video prior to Ottawa attack.  In fact, police have found a video. From that report:

In a statement released Sunday evening, RCMP said they have identified “persuasive evidence” that show Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack was “driven by ideological and political motives.”

So wrong again Russell, you didn't know what you were talking about.

While Zehaf-Bibeau was mentally ill, he was a pawn of the caliphate. He thought he could make an impression wasting his life based on a call to kill infidels from caliphate (http://philosophical-ranting.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-true-nature-of-war-in-age-of-jihad.html).

No this wasn't a Muslim attack, this was a mentally-ill jihadi encouraged by the people that are in fact raping and killing, beheading infidels, exterminating religious minorities inside the Islamic State.  Does Russell Brand want to side with the caliphate?

Russell Brand, slow down the popularity train to make sure you know what you are talking about.  You are starting to sound like the anti-Fox News.  That doesn't sound very Trew-sy.

Proof by counter example: The case against gun registries



Low-tech weapon probably limited Zehaf-Bibeau’s damage

Fact: Ottawa shooter Zehaf-Bibeau was forbidden to possess a firearm;  he acquired one in any case.  It was a 1890's pump action rifle: Winchester 30-30.  No one has come forward to admit losing this hunting rifle.

So this is what is clear: a gun registry would not stop a criminal looking for a weapon.  A person that sells crack cocaine can trade that for a weapon from someone that would rather have the drugs.  There would be no reporting of the "loss" - so having this firearm registered would have solved exactly nothing.

Friday, October 24, 2014

The preponderance of evidence disfavours your position.

Or in other words, you are full of shit.

Christopher Hitchens at his best

If you are religious, or religious leaning than I recommend that you take an open mind into the following video to consider a critique of religion:


Christopher Hitchens: god is Not Great


Christopher was both eloquent and learned about his area, he does not make a claim without facts to support his viewpoint.
 
He is easy to listen to, his British accent is faint, and his points are clear.

So if you feel your faith/belief can survive an attack, please consider his ideas.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Stability in the time of economic collapse.

Economic stability in a collapsing market.

The world's economic health is poor and the outlook is uncertain.

This bleak assessment makes me challenge the assumptions on which people are participating.

One, quantitative easing is a lucrative scheme for the bankers and banks that caused the economic uncertainty / collapse in the first place. But it's not being leant out to industry so production can increase, new companies can expand and more workers can go back to work.

Two, given that the same US Dollar and crude oil system is the only market system these same bankers offer there seems to be one choice for investment.

Three, these same bankers are accused of manipulating the value of every investment they offer, including more of the same behaviour that caused the collapse then they haven't learned their lesson. It seems they have learned to cheat the system to remain rich and beyond justice. Their corrupting influence has driven honest investment out of the market. Banks selling toxic loans as credit default swaps to pension funds will backfire twice with average people losing pensions and bankers avoiding risk. This is counterproductive.

Four, it is being said by credible economists outside New York and London that the system is ready to collapse again because it can only go so far with trickery over real economic growth.

In this situation it seems clear to me that competition and the true value are lost in the US dollar and crude oil system. That is the reason they can continue a rigged game is that it's the only one we have to play. They assume we will keep coming back to them and they can continue wrecking average peoples finances.

To me, what people should do is not consider strategies that use the same rigged game but start investing in alternatives. That gives you some stability when the inevitable crash happens and it may provide honest returns better than the current system offers.

If we want the bankers to suffer they should lose their access to your paycheck and eventually they can't finance our destruction. Even real estate is dangerous because it relies on untrustworthy estimates made by bankers trying to get rid of bad assets. If your home is the only asset you own you are not immune from collapse of value. Governments can't step in like they did in 2008 because they rely on income tax and that's still anemic.

So I would argue don't buy gold and oil. Buy bitcoins. Invest in small companies that use alternate currencies as part of their finances. Use digital currencies that are not controlled by those same bankers. Take a portion of your money and move it to a new financial system.

To me, a new and unproven investment like bitcoin is better than a proven old economy sociopath. The risk and reward are honest and connected to real value. Unlike the old system. The more we take away the less they can cheat and the more competitive they are forced to be.

Today I bought my first bit quarter. 0.25 bitcoins. With that I bought 100 Startcoins.  It is scary but at the same time full of possibility.  Which is exactly what the old system used to be 100 years ago.

Do not doom yourself giving money to bankers that return it worthless. Give yourself a life line when the Titanic hits the iceberg. Perhaps become the nouveau riche when those New York bankers are out on the street? Getting in on the ground floor before every one else jumps ship gives you that potential outcome.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

The Atheist is not defined by a god or gods; that is the point.

Taken from Stanford University Philosophy Talk

"Granted all of that, doesn’t it still seem strange to define one’s life by a negative claim, by the non-existence of something."

I was reading the Stanford University Philosophy Talk describing what an atheist is and what they believe.  It seems that philosophers - of all people - should be the ones that understand the basic concepts under discussion.

It is wrong to define an atheist as someone that believes in the nonexistence of god/gods.  Atheists doubt the existence of supernatural forces of any kind, goblins, unicorns or gods. What atheist really means is someone that refutes the claims and can't see any point in wasting time on the issue.  Period.

Atheists are quite happy that you waste time debating nonsense. 

What you meant was an antitheist.  Against God.

An Antitheist is someone that is against the idea of God.  Think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.  These are scientists that realized that all the work they can do in a lab helping one field of research is meaningless compared to the unthinking religious masses torquing society towards silly purposes.  They chose to make a real contribution by attacking god belief as wrong headed and counter productive.

What you will find if you listen to Dawkins or Harris, or even Christopher Hitchens when he was alive, is that they understand the scripture, the Quran, and so on BETTER than the foolish religious people that attempt to confront them!  If people weren't so emotional about their religious programming then they would see how lacking their religious belief was.

Philosopher, be ashamed of your ignorance for what you seek to discredit/ malign.What does your Ph.D. mean if you don't understand what you are talking about?

The true nature of war in the age of jihad.




Response to :
War, Sacrifice, and the Media


I was reading this Philosophy blog from the Stanford University and it struck me that neither of these philosophers - being in California - had been in New York or Washington on September 11, 2001.


Well as a foreign visitor, attending a course at Johns Hopkins University, I was there on that fateful day. I have a picture of the Pentagon one day earlier.  I watched the news, saw the attacks, and marvelled with our professors at the ultimate depravity of that fateful turning point.  Lawrence Klein had flown in to teach us and he was the most upset of all. It was a horrible day filled with doubt, fear, panic, and confusion.

It is nice to sit back in comfort and consider the deeper meanings of things from a tempered viewpoint.  But on that day in September it was no laughing matter and still isn't to be taken lightly.

People may look back and accuse George Bush of all sorts of buffonery. He deserves his share to be sure. And we can argue in circles about the reasons over Iraq but that attack on Afghanistan was in my view light compensation.  Frankly, I think most of the world would have understood had the Pentagon nuked Kandhahar. It would have been a heinous act but no less fitting the depravity that started it.

What people who have not been in the military do not grasp, and perhaps now that Islamic State has begun the Caliphate they can see, is that the people we are fighting do not see this as a fair contest between two nations locked in a struggle.  They see us as vermin for not heeding the will of Allah.  We are nothing more than condemned men awaiting final judgment. Ignore all the failings and misdeeds. There is a reason that the struggle is better over there than over here.

We are locked in a mortal struggle that will continue until one side is victorious.

On this level, there is no moral high ground,  there is no greater good, and the human rights of those savages that reject society should not be a consideration.  There will be no quarter for you or your family if these psychopathic mindless religious zombies win.  

Why do you think there was no surrender by the Taliban? Because they only need to bide their time and we leave.  They are not stopping to reevaluate they are stopping to reload and make ready!

In this context, there is a reason why you are in fact in more danger than in 1911.

Example,  in 1911 no Prussian farmer was inclined to board a cruiseliner, sail to New York, find his contacts, strap on a crude suicide belt, and walk into Grand Central Station and detonate himself crying, "God is great!".  There was no collateral threat from splinter groups or insurgent cells.  A Prussian farmer had no Youtube to learn how to attack mass gatherings.  Or blow up tanks.

In this day and age it would be a local kid that falls for the nonsense that is jihad, goes to Syria and learns all he needs and then returns to carry out a lone wolf attack.  Killing 500 people would not be unreasonable.

We must not allow ourselves to "humanize" an enemy that is essentially running on autopilot and is not moral. Rules of society should not hold against anti-society sociopaths.


Friday, October 17, 2014

Anders Rasmussen Blog: Review of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Anders Rasmussen Blog: Review of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

I encourage you to read this blog if you are interested in Richard Dawkin's seminal scientific work.   Before he was a spirited athieist / antitheist he was a scientist conducting meritorious work.

The Caliphate must be eradicated

Who amongst you wants to go back to medieval laws and customs?

Christopher Hitchens reminds us not to turn our back on Jihad



Who blows up a perfectly good building that even poor people could use for a house just to make a point? A completely irrational and anarchistic person. In his speech, he claims that his fellow fighters are not concerned with boundaries on the map, but clearly by pointing out Sykes-Piccot he knows the symbol of a guard post on a line.  He's lying the whole time.  He does want to control the whole world.  He does want you to follow his beliefs. There is no middle ground here. There is no negotiation. Even if he negotiates its from a position of waiting to leverage the situation and not a concession.

These people are the product of lies, hatred, and war. They have no pity nor even human decency left. They are programmed robots at this point. You would get a better conversation from Sarah Palin.

If you have no idea what the punishment looks like in "modern" Islam looks like just listen to this lady:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwtYe0xxC28

Since there is no negotiation and no future in letting them have a territory then we, society, must do everything to eradicate them. They are biding their time before they attack the next country; until they have converted and programmed another generation of robot fighters. 

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Scars vs. Tattoos

There is a lot of popular myths surrounding the relative value of tattoos and by exclusion, scars.  Here's my attempt to compare and contrast them from a semi-biased perspective

Tattoos
  1. Tattoos are a personal expression.
  2. As tattoos become mainstream, they lose their mystique and individualism.
  3. Tattoos are perceived to mean something. 

 Scars
  1. Scars are a remnant of personal history.
  2. Scars are unique.
  3. Scars mean something.

Scars are considered ugly, tattoos considered beautiful.  I disagree. 

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The Ultimate Oxymoron of Capitalism: Big Banks don't compete for Federal Reserve windfall.

If every other person or company must compete for business, then why do the biggest banks get access to the largest sums of money without competition?

Should it not be that the largest financial institutions must compete to get the loans, to show that they are improving, to demonstrate how they are benefiting the people in order to remain in the position to get the biggest loans?  If not, why would they change?

Even a policy of higher interest rates for the worst offenders would punish the worst run banks. That would punish those at the centre of the worst abuses.

Eschew the one true way


Monday, October 13, 2014

Walter White to Heisenberg. Descent of a tragic hero.

I enjoyed the TV series Breaking Bad and it's single minded protagonist, Walter White.

Walter White is a tragic hero. Some people think he's a monster.  He was never a monster, all his decisions were rational and for the greater good. He only deceived himself as to the depths he sunk to achieve his ends. What people forget is that Walter is doomed. His whole life is a suicide mission.

All humans decide to act in their own interest, even if they are sacrificing themselves. Heisenberg is a drug dealer persona. But Walter White is calling the shots.

Walter is smart enough to know that, right or wrong,  once you commit to an action there's no way to stop without more consequences. Every action is thought through. Every action is consistent. Does he kill Jesse when he gets the first chance?  No. He reasons he can turn him back over.

Does he call off the Aryan hit men when he knows Hank is there?  Yes. But only because he would rather go to jail than kill his family. There are moral lines he won't cross.

Does he save Jane when he can and risk Jesse's life overdosing?  He's not partners with Jane he's partnered with Jesse. He acts in his own interest keeping his friend and partner.

Does he allow Gus Fring's men to talk when their money supply runs out? No, he assassinates them.
Mike Ehrmentraut lures away Jesse so he tricks Jesse back to his cause.

Walter White is a tragic hero because he starts a one-way mission to help his family and he does not deviate despite the fortunes and losses he suffers on the way. His one mistake was to turn away the help he was offered out of pride. It was the admission of his one time partner of the debt he was owed. 

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Maximum Wages - Defeat Sociopathy that ruins Capitalism

Capitalism survived because it works better than every other system.  But what we are seeing now is the less fettered capitalists are, the less they use the system for society's benefit and the more they appeal to their own baser needs.

The whole point of capitalism is it accepts that people are both greedy and lazy - to greater or lesser degrees.  We get people to get out of bed by working for a living and contributing at the blue collar levels.  Basic survival and trying to make a better life for their kids. All workers work for a few dollars more.

Everyone's involvement in capitalism comes down to how lazy and how greedy they are.

Unfortunately, at the highest wealth levels, people are prone to take total advantage of the system they now own by taking full advantage of all the perks.  They play dirty to win a few billion more.


Society owns capitalism, not the wealthy. The social contract is we all agreed to play by the rules in everyone's favour.


When you combine extreme wealth with sociopathy that's not in everyone's best interest. 

How do you combat that?  Make a maximum wage. Or increase taxes over that limit on an exponential scale.

If we cap total income per year at say $10 million dollars then we reduce the incentive to be a sociopathic wealthy person. 

If you can't make any more, then you don't have the incentive to go to extreme measures to make more.  You can be more lazy and less greedy. 

Laws can fix capitalism.  If we invoked a global maximum wage we would solve captialisms ills more than any bailout or legal proceeding.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Open Letter In Case I Contract Ebola

Hello;

If I contract Ebola, then here's what you can do for me:

Assuming there is no simple cure at the time, then please heed these instructions:

If I slip into a coma, critical condition, or my prognosis is not good then:

1. Kill me: do not allow the infection to slowly take over my body as a virus generation platform. Viral catastrophes are not won by thinking in territory but in terms of invaded viral platforms. The less resources we give a virus the more chances we have to end a plague.

2. Incinerate me: our bodies are vessels and this one is only part of me.  It's not me so think of society over my personal rights.  Eliminate the possibility that I could be used as a beachhead to infect other people. I won't mind, I'm dead remember?




Thursday, October 2, 2014

The invasion of English into Europe.

I travel to Europe periodically. Not very often sometimes every year and sometimes slower. My travel rate is approximately the same as glacier recession. Slow and steady. When I return I visit new parts and go through familiar ones like Germany and England.

Speaking of German and English

This is a sign outside the Vienna International Flughaven. Or should I say airport.

English, the language not the people, is ever marching into every corner of Europe. I have written about this phenomenon before. And this slow pace experiment - the observation of English into other cultures - is a demonstration of the hypothesis.

Not to worry, English and England are not the same thing. The English lost control of English language when they taught the language to the empire.

The hypothesis why all cultures are adopting English is simple: it is easier to learn, more people speak it, it is open source and modular, it is the language of law banking and science, and can change to meet any need instantly. No large character sets. No complex rules.  No college de la langue francaise (no governing body).



Meanwhile, the discussion about England divesting of Europe or the other way around goes on in political circles.  The fact is, once your citizens have adopted ESL - English as a Second Language - you have really changed your culture in any case. English has a beach head in Europe without Britons.  Borders are symbolic names as placeholders. 

English  is the original open source language.