Mitt isn't alone in thinking it's all a big joke, and that's the philosophy of people who choose to avoid confrontation or change.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Coping with Climate Change
Have you confronted the consequences of climate change? Have you coped with the idea that your lifestyle may be harming the planet in ways that could have devastating repercussions? Even if you doubt the severity of it, is it worth the risk to test mother nature?
Who determines what measures of action we need to take, and how much apathy to tolerate? There's a trade-off between how much work we should put into something we aren't even sure is going to happen, but that's just a question of risk analysis:
The answer is probably government, not corporations. Time and time again government has needed to step in to regulate corporations that were harming the balance of ecosystems. Sometimes corporations step up to the task, but it's not always enough.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Germany vs. USA
I have been to Germany many times, spent about 2 years there total. On my recent trip to Germany (and then Denmark) I took note of the major differences in lifestyle and culture. Though some of these things only occur in Germany, many apply to most of Europe as well.
- Toilets use a press-and-hold water feed, which can be very annoying and may not even save water.
- In cities, people bicycle everywhere, even while wearing business casual attire.
- Sales tax is already included in store price tags and restaurant menus.
- Tips are also included in restaurant prices (though you may still tip additionally).
- Gas costs about $7.50/gallon.
- Cars are much smaller, nearly ALL manual transmissions, usually diesel, and speed limits don't exist on many highway stretches.
- Obtaining a drivers license costs around $1000 and requires training courses/tests. Must be 18+.
- Solar panels can be seen on houses in almost any direction you look.
- Most people younger than 60 will speak English (as a 2nd language) pretty well.
- Movie theaters have restaurants in them, offering a huge selection of food/drinks for the movie. They sometimes also have assigned seating like in an airplane.
- Almost EVERY plastic/glass bottle has a deposit value on it. This encourages people to return empty bottles and/or rummage through trash to profit from recycling.
- Usually bottles are purchased in a crate of a dozen, and returned to receive around $3 back. The bottles are then washed and reused (even better than recycling).
- Garbage is collected only every other week, and the typical home only gets about a cubic foot of volume for trash (There are separate containers for compost and paper/plastic which are about 3 times in volume each.)
- Their elected chancellor is female.
- The average birth rate is 1.38 children per mother, one of the lowest in the world. They have huge incentives such as mandatory maternity leave for both parents.
- No one drinks tap water, they drink bottled water instead (sometimes bubbled), and ordering tap water at a restaurant usually costs a small fee.
- Smoking cigarettes is very common still.
- Healthcare is centralized and regulated by the government, making prices very affordable and covering everyone.
- High quality beer is almost always cheaper than soda/water.
- The drinking age is 14 for beer/wine (with adult supervision), 16 without adult supervision, and 18 for hard liquor.
- Prostitution is legal and regulated.
- Free speech is not the same, i.e. holocaust denial is illegal.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Technology
I thought this was a joke when I first saw it, but nope. It's real. Religion is still managing to infiltrate new technology mediums. And here I was hoping it'd fade away in the near future along with many of its outdated methodologies.
Monday, September 17, 2012
War against the unknown
It's becoming appallingly clear to me that humans instinctively enjoy conflict. This is an evolutionary trait, because conflict/suffering improves us, and "builds character". War (tragic as it may be), can lead to prosperity and most definitely technological innovation. However, where we choose to go to war can either be detrimental or helpful to mankind. And thankfully we learn from the past, so we are not doomed to repeat it. I'll explain where we should be focusing our instinctive nature to conquer, and what the soldiers should be fighting against.
We create sports so that we can unleash our competitive nature (which also helps improve us) in a humane and entertaining way. Unfortunately, this instinct is often unleashed through war, where many lives are at stake. I often thought if we ever went to war with aliens, this would help unite all of mankind to a common goal, as we'd see just how much we earthlings have in common. This is a recurring trend: similarities unite, disparities divide. As perspectives broaden, what we once considered major disparities become "acceptable small differences". Gender, skin color, religion, culture, sexual preference, etc. these were once a basis for segregation (to some extent they still are). What we have in common with one another is MUCH greater than any of these differences. A Caucasian may have more in common with an African American DNA-wise than with another Caucasian, i.e. race doesn't exist (fact).
I would argue that being a life form, is the greatest similarity and we should all cherish it. LIFE IS VERY RARE IN THIS UNIVERSE. On earth's surface it may seem plentiful, but think about all the "dead" rock below our feet, or the sky above you. Think about how small earth is in this vastly void universe. Living organic matter constitutes a minute amount of the total mass of the universe, and yet we continue to divide ourselves by our differences, when we have so very much in common. We can get lost in our day-to-day perspectives.
When people say "life's not fair", they're usually referring to the random outside forces of nature beyond our control/perception. Unpredictable events can happen where no person is at fault. Some refer to this as "God's Will". A family member gets cancer, or dies in a tragic accident. Instinctively we become angry that something has been taken away from us, and we want to focus that anger and blame it on something (or in the worse case, someone or group of people). Many people cope with their feelings using religion and God. Tragically, religion is often twisted into justifying actions against other people who have been blamed for something that wasn't their fault either.
My point is this: living creatures have much in common (eyes, ears, legs, emotions, DNA, parents/children), and many outside forces are at work that we cannot perceive nor predict (yet). These often cause us pain and suffering. Our goal should be to reduce suffering by preemptively seeking to understand these outside forces. The solution is not directly apparent, and often times, the solutions will be found accidentally. But they won't be found unless we make an attempt. Pain, suffering, and sympathy are usually the driver for improvements/advancements, thus suffering is a necessity for change. Change is gradual. In a sense, scientists are the soldiers fighting the "unknown", constantly broadening mankind's horizons of understanding.
I want you to imagine that the universe is a giant cage that all sentient beings are trapped in, and instead of working together to figure out why we're here, why things happen the way they do, how to "get out", or understand it better; instead we fight amongst one another, spend $ trillions on war, let millions of people starve, and place blame on each other. The real enemy is the unknown/randomness of the chaotic universe we live in. Our overarching goal should be to discover WHY we are here, help one another, and determine "randomness" by achieving an understanding of the complexity of the dynamic systems in our universe.
We are so easy to accept our existence in this universe, but HOW did we get here? We never had a choice to be brought into this world. Why are things the way they are? If you want the easy way out, religion will tell you not to worry about such things: be content and don't strive for deeper understandings, especially if they conflict with the "infallible" words of god, which just so happen to be very different in a variety of holy text versions.
In a deterministic universe, we have more control over events, we can enforce safeguards. Two centuries ago we didn't even know bacteria existed. People became sick and accepted that's how things were. Well... not everyone. A few scientists strove to understand the causes. To investigate and conquer the unknown, and that is just one example of how science has helped increase determinism in support of life forms (except maybe not for the bacteria and viruses).
It's long been a belief of mine that
species life form.
Each time we determine an unknown, a new, more complex, unknown will take its place (is there an end to this trend?). If we ever do remove ALL unknown randomness from our lives, we will eliminate an ingredient that has shaped us from the beginning, so we must tread carefully toward reaching a more deterministic understanding of the universe.
If only it were easier to get everyone on the same page, imagine what the world could be like. We'd only need a "military" to defend us against any unpredictable outside forces as a safety precaution to account for any remaining uncertainty.
Mankind would celebrate life, help and love one another, while seeking to understand our origins and the inner-(and outer) workings of the universe. I dream of that kind of society.
We create sports so that we can unleash our competitive nature (which also helps improve us) in a humane and entertaining way. Unfortunately, this instinct is often unleashed through war, where many lives are at stake. I often thought if we ever went to war with aliens, this would help unite all of mankind to a common goal, as we'd see just how much we earthlings have in common. This is a recurring trend: similarities unite, disparities divide. As perspectives broaden, what we once considered major disparities become "acceptable small differences". Gender, skin color, religion, culture, sexual preference, etc. these were once a basis for segregation (to some extent they still are). What we have in common with one another is MUCH greater than any of these differences. A Caucasian may have more in common with an African American DNA-wise than with another Caucasian, i.e. race doesn't exist (fact).
I would argue that being a life form, is the greatest similarity and we should all cherish it. LIFE IS VERY RARE IN THIS UNIVERSE. On earth's surface it may seem plentiful, but think about all the "dead" rock below our feet, or the sky above you. Think about how small earth is in this vastly void universe. Living organic matter constitutes a minute amount of the total mass of the universe, and yet we continue to divide ourselves by our differences, when we have so very much in common. We can get lost in our day-to-day perspectives.
When people say "life's not fair", they're usually referring to the random outside forces of nature beyond our control/perception. Unpredictable events can happen where no person is at fault. Some refer to this as "God's Will". A family member gets cancer, or dies in a tragic accident. Instinctively we become angry that something has been taken away from us, and we want to focus that anger and blame it on something (or in the worse case, someone or group of people). Many people cope with their feelings using religion and God. Tragically, religion is often twisted into justifying actions against other people who have been blamed for something that wasn't their fault either.
My point is this: living creatures have much in common (eyes, ears, legs, emotions, DNA, parents/children), and many outside forces are at work that we cannot perceive nor predict (yet). These often cause us pain and suffering. Our goal should be to reduce suffering by preemptively seeking to understand these outside forces. The solution is not directly apparent, and often times, the solutions will be found accidentally. But they won't be found unless we make an attempt. Pain, suffering, and sympathy are usually the driver for improvements/advancements, thus suffering is a necessity for change. Change is gradual. In a sense, scientists are the soldiers fighting the "unknown", constantly broadening mankind's horizons of understanding.
I want you to imagine that the universe is a giant cage that all sentient beings are trapped in, and instead of working together to figure out why we're here, why things happen the way they do, how to "get out", or understand it better; instead we fight amongst one another, spend $ trillions on war, let millions of people starve, and place blame on each other. The real enemy is the unknown/randomness of the chaotic universe we live in. Our overarching goal should be to discover WHY we are here, help one another, and determine "randomness" by achieving an understanding of the complexity of the dynamic systems in our universe.
We are so easy to accept our existence in this universe, but HOW did we get here? We never had a choice to be brought into this world. Why are things the way they are? If you want the easy way out, religion will tell you not to worry about such things: be content and don't strive for deeper understandings, especially if they conflict with the "infallible" words of god, which just so happen to be very different in a variety of holy text versions.
In a deterministic universe, we have more control over events, we can enforce safeguards. Two centuries ago we didn't even know bacteria existed. People became sick and accepted that's how things were. Well... not everyone. A few scientists strove to understand the causes. To investigate and conquer the unknown, and that is just one example of how science has helped increase determinism in support of life forms (except maybe not for the bacteria and viruses).
It's long been a belief of mine that
"Nothing is random; the pattern/model is just exceedingly complex."This is not to say that we will be able to comprehend the complexity of the universe overnight, but in the long term this must be our goal as a
Each time we determine an unknown, a new, more complex, unknown will take its place (is there an end to this trend?). If we ever do remove ALL unknown randomness from our lives, we will eliminate an ingredient that has shaped us from the beginning, so we must tread carefully toward reaching a more deterministic understanding of the universe.
If only it were easier to get everyone on the same page, imagine what the world could be like. We'd only need a "military" to defend us against any unpredictable outside forces as a safety precaution to account for any remaining uncertainty.
Mankind would celebrate life, help and love one another, while seeking to understand our origins and the inner-(and outer) workings of the universe. I dream of that kind of society.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Bible Storytime
This conversation took place on Skype:
Alsehr: Why do people think Jesus was white?
Alsehr: If he did exist (which there is no real proof of) why would he be white?
Me: Did you see that pic I posted yesterday?
Me: considering they were also famished/fasting in a hot desert
Alsehr: Lol...
Me: They told stories, which were spread by word of mouth for a thousand years before anyone could write them down. Yup, I'm sure the story is perfectly accurate to actual events.
Alsehr: besides, most of the stories in the bible aren't even about jesus.
Alsehr: They're just allegories about moral lessons. And some asshole tried making a geneology of them.
Alsehr: like if you took red riding hood and tried to prove she was related to rapunzel.
Me: It's like merging the comic book heroes into the same fictional plotlines.
Alsehr: You get a ton of plotholes, and when it comes right down to it, none of them exist anyway.
Me: It's a perfect analogy
Alsehr: I wonder if in another 2000 years, if people will claim that spiderman was real
Me: Possibly, there'd be no eyewitnesses left.
Me: Nowhere in the comics does it say it's a fake story, it's supposed to be thought of as real, even if common sense shows it's not possible.
Me: I'm thoroughly convinced that the bible was basically a comic book
Alsehr: Then you'd have the Superman Saints of Latter Day Marvel
Me: LMAO
Alsehr: and the Southern Spideys
Alsehr: They'd all argue about whose plotline was true, because in 1978, the world was nearly destroyed by Lex Luthor, and we dont owe our lives to spiderman for that
Me: In the end, the stories might still have some useful lessons in them, but they should not be taken as fact.
And ironically I just saw this meme with Stan Lee today:
Friday, July 27, 2012
Gun Control
Take a deeper look at what the 2nd amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Ok, so militia men may protect the security of our nation-state from threatening armies. Sounds great. How has this been misconstrued to allow anyone the right to carry weapons for any purpose?
I think most people who own guns keep them for their own personal protection (almost always from other citizens too). I'd like to point out that Switzerland requires all men between the age of 21 and 32 to enroll in military training, where they are given an M-57 assault rifle and sometimes a handgun as well. These government issued weapons are ONLY to be used during a national crisis/war. Since Switzerland has NO military, they rely solely on this standing army of militiamen, and it is "well regulated." However, Swiss gun control laws for recreational guns are even more strict than they are in the US, particularly laws regarding concealed handguns.
If you ask me, THAT is an identical representation of the rights our 2nd amendment should be granting. However, many Americans have misinterpreted it to simply "the right to bear arms" ignoring the condition preceding it.
Another useful tad of info: Under USC, Title 10, Chapter 13, Sect. 311, every male citizen of the US between 17 and 45 years old, is in the Militia whether they realize it or not.
In conclusion, firearms for personal protection or recreation should NOT be covered by the 2nd amendment. It clearly states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the context was in the sense of protection against armies (whether foreign or civil). Besides, if the Chinese did attack us, I'm not sure a concealed pistol would be very useful defense. If you wanted to be a REAL modernized militiaman, you'd need a Hummer or an AH64 Apache helicopter in your backyard.
That being said, I am not against the prospect of citizens bearing arms, but I don't believe the 2nd amendment covers that right. A new law would need to be enacted to allow private/recreational firearms for the public.
I also strongly agree that background checks should be performed during sales, to prevent felons and mentally unstable citizens from purchasing them. As it stands now, about 40% of gun transactions in America require no background check whatsoever. Furthermore, America has one of the leading gun homicide rates in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence, just under countries like Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.
Banning guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining them, and it won't remove the desire to do harm either. The gun is just a tool which can be used for good or bad. I don't know what the best solution to decreasing violence is, maybe investing in mental health/ education, helping feed the poor, etc.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
SMS Texting - One of the biggest scams
Just FYI, phone SMS texting prices are such a huge scam. It's ridiculous. It makes me angry. I want to sue the phone companies for allowing such an oligopoly. Why else would they all be raising their prices for something that should cost almost nothing?
An SMS text message can store a max of 150 characters, and they're not even 8-bit characters, they're 7-bit. So that's about 1050 bits, or just about 1kb (132 Bytes) in total per full-length message. If the message is longer than 150 characters, it's just spliced into multiple messages and sent in sequence. Voice calls, on the other, hand use around 28kbps I'm estimating...that's per second when you're talking to someone!!! So if I talk for just ONE minute, I'm sending 1680kb, which is equivalent to sending about 1600 text messages... To bring things into perspective, if I paid the same rate to send data for voice calls as I did for texting, that would be a price of $40 per minute to talk with someone!!
Here's the calculation if you pay $5/month for 200 texts:
An SMS text message can store a max of 150 characters, and they're not even 8-bit characters, they're 7-bit. So that's about 1050 bits, or just about 1kb (132 Bytes) in total per full-length message. If the message is longer than 150 characters, it's just spliced into multiple messages and sent in sequence. Voice calls, on the other, hand use around 28kbps I'm estimating...that's per second when you're talking to someone!!! So if I talk for just ONE minute, I'm sending 1680kb, which is equivalent to sending about 1600 text messages... To bring things into perspective, if I paid the same rate to send data for voice calls as I did for texting, that would be a price of $40 per minute to talk with someone!!
Here's the calculation if you pay $5/month for 200 texts:
($5/200texts)*(1600texts/minute) = $40/minute
So why does SMS texting even cost ANYTHING? It should maybe be $5 per month maximum, for UNLIMITED texting, if not FREE. Furthermore, when you receive an SMS, you have no control over whether you want to receive it or not. Plus, both the sender AND recipient are automatically charged. I believe it's possible to block entire phone numbers from sending you texts, but that's the only method. In India and many other countries, recipients of SMS texts are not charged.
Wow, with the 4G network it looks like you can download at 50-60Mbps. That is INSANE, that's wifi speeds. That's comparable to 50,000 text messages per second. I can only imagine the speeds will get faster in the future. Also, if you have one of those internet plans, and you text through an Instant Messaging app like yahoo, MSN, Skype, Google Voice, etc., you're saving yourself tons of money, because then you're being charged a much cheaper data rate to send those "text messages".
MSN for years now has let me send SMS text messages for FREE from my computer to someone's phone. I just have to pay for my home internet connection.
Remember a few years back when texts messages cost 10 cents each, then 20, now 30? Why is it going up?
Also here's an article claiming the same thing:
http://www.college-startup.com/rants/oligopoly-a-rant-against-the-cellphone-industry/
but there's plenty more of this to be found online with a quick google search.
I highly recommend reading this link http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/wireless-oligopoly-is-smother-of-invention/ we continue to allow the wireless carriers to limit us.
/end_rant
So why does SMS texting even cost ANYTHING? It should maybe be $5 per month maximum, for UNLIMITED texting, if not FREE. Furthermore, when you receive an SMS, you have no control over whether you want to receive it or not. Plus, both the sender AND recipient are automatically charged. I believe it's possible to block entire phone numbers from sending you texts, but that's the only method. In India and many other countries, recipients of SMS texts are not charged.
Wow, with the 4G network it looks like you can download at 50-60Mbps. That is INSANE, that's wifi speeds. That's comparable to 50,000 text messages per second. I can only imagine the speeds will get faster in the future. Also, if you have one of those internet plans, and you text through an Instant Messaging app like yahoo, MSN, Skype, Google Voice, etc., you're saving yourself tons of money, because then you're being charged a much cheaper data rate to send those "text messages".
MSN for years now has let me send SMS text messages for FREE from my computer to someone's phone. I just have to pay for my home internet connection.
Remember a few years back when texts messages cost 10 cents each, then 20, now 30? Why is it going up?
Also here's an article claiming the same thing:
http://www.college-startup.com/rants/oligopoly-a-rant-against-the-cellphone-industry/
but there's plenty more of this to be found online with a quick google search.
I highly recommend reading this link http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/wireless-oligopoly-is-smother-of-invention/ we continue to allow the wireless carriers to limit us.
/end_rant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)