LXD is a testament to the power of social media and its ability to provide a medium for artistic collaboration and a new forum for its appreciation.  LXD is the brainchild of Jon M Chu who isn’t a choreographer or dancer, but rather a cult filmmaker who discovered the potential of hip-hop dancing.  (Jon M Chu produced and directed “Step Up 2 The Streets”.)

Here is a youtube excerpt:

Being foreclosed on?  No worries if you follow the example of Jerome Daly, a lawyer and political activist of sorts, who successfully had his mortgage declared null and void. 

In order for a mortgage agreement to be legal, the bank must put up legal ‘consideration’.  That’s a fancy lawyer word for ‘money’ or some such other tangible asset.  The Federal Reserve System creates money for lending as bookkeeping entries and as such, the bank fails to provide any real consideration in the contract.  As a result, the whole thing is null and void and you can’t be foreclosed upon. 

Don’t believe me?  Read it for yourself here:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1968-12-09judgmentanddecree.pdf

This decision has never been overturned and Daly was able to keep his house.

I found a very useful tool for creating nicely formatted equations. I find MS-Word’s equation editor a little lacking when it comes to some math functions. I came across this site:
http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/index.php
which will allow you to enter a LaTeX equation and it will return the properly formatted equivalent in several convenient formats.

For example if you wanted to enter the equation for the prime twin counting function (the number of prime twins between P(n) and P(n)^2) the LaTeX would be:

\#twins[P(n)\to P(n)^2] =
[\frac{(P(1)-1)*(P(2)-1)*...*(P(n-1)-1)}{2*P(1)*P(2)*...*P(n-1)} *(P(n)^2-P(n))]- n*\log_{10}(n)*0.058652

the output would be:

Many thanks to Roger Cortesi for making this tool available.

(left)The Knesset Menorah, Jerusalem (detail – Hillel the Elder)
(right) "My question to them is, ‘when is the right time?" Obama told a supportive crowd at Arcadia University, near Philadelphia.

Listening to Obama’s rabble rousing speech on healthcare, the most stirring passage sounded eerily similar:

"My question to them is, ‘when is the right time?" Obama told a supportive crowd at Arcadia University, near Philadelphia. "If not now, when? If not us, who?"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/03/obama-on-health-care-if-not-now-when/1

I seemed to have heard this in Hebrew school.  Sure enough, a little digging produced:

Pirkei Avot 1:14

“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?"

This quote is attributed to Hillel The Elder.

Without further ado, here is the equation:

Here is a link to the lecture:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=551&Itemid=568&lecture_id=6462

The Government is now on the hook for 5 trillion dollars in loans.  The only way they can lose money is if people default on those loans AND the value of the underlying asset (the home) has depreciated since the time the loan was issued.

So let’s say that 3% of people default on their loans.  The government is now on the hook for 150 billion dollars.  The government will now try to sell those foreclosed houses at market value.  Suppose those houses were inflated by a factor of 2 (that is they’ve now lost 1/2 their value).  Now the government sells the foreclosed houses at half the price and they’re on the hook for the left over half.  Thus the cost to the government would be 75 billion dollars.  The formula is thus:

bailoutCost = totalValueMortgages * defaultRate * (1 – (1/inflationFactor))

Now the question is where do we come up with values for things like the defaultRate and inflationFactor? (The totalValueMortgages is given as 5 trillion dollars by the government.)

Google mortgage deliquency rates or mortgage default rates and you’ll find numbers ranging from 2-5,  (I took 3 as an average).  Next to figure out the inflation factor, look at this chart:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/08/21/business/21real.graphic.html
and you’ll see that homes are around 2X inflated in value. 

So given these current numbers, the best case cost would be 75 billion dollars.  If the default rate increases or housing devalues beyond 2X the numbers could of course be much higher.  I welcome any polite criticism and/or suggestions for alterations.

I’ve heard a rumour which I haven’t yet substantiated (or sourced) that the second half was recorded a half tone lower because Pinchik couldn’t sustain the first key.  Regardless of the veracity of the rumour, the second half is definitely a 1/2 tone lower.  This fact shouldn’t be regarded as a disparagement on this landmark recording, rather just an interesting historical footnote.

The source of this prayer which is recited at the inception of Shabbat (Sabbath) is the mystical (Kabalistic) Zohar.  A translation with commentary follows:

THE SECRET of Sabbath: She is Sabbath.
United in the secret of one
to draw upon her the secret of one.
When Sabbath enters she is alone,
separated from the Other Side, all judgments removed from her.
Basking in the oneness of holy light,
she is crowned over and over to face the holy King.
All powers of wrath and masters of judgment flee from her
There is no power in all the worlds aside from her.
Her face shines with a light from beyond;
she is crowned below by holy people,
all of whom are crowned with new souls.
Then the beginning of prayer,
blessing her with joy, with beaming faces.

Zohar 2:135a-b (thirteenth century); see Matt, Zohar, 132, 257-58.

She is Sabbath Shekhinah is the Sabbath Queen entering the palace of time every Friday evening at sunset. As the seventh sefirah below Binah, Shekhinah is the seventh primordial day. Friday evening is the time of her union with her masculine counterpart, the sefirah of Tif’eret. The Sabbath is God’s wedding celebration.
United in the secret of one … Shekhinah and her angels of escort join together in "the secret of one" in preparation for her encounter with Tif’eret, who has joined together with the sefirot surrounding him in a corresponding "secret of one." Shekhinah and Tif’eret must each be whole before they can unite.
the Other Side Aramaic, sitra ahra, the demonic realm, threatens Shekhinah and humanity on the weekdays. Once Sabbath begins, Shekhinah is safe and provides blessing openly to the world.
she is crowned over and over to face the holy King The Sabbath is referred to as Queen in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 119a: “Rabbi Hanina used to wrap himself in a garment, stand close to sunset as Sabbath entered, and say: ‘Come, let us go out to greet Sabbath, the Queen.’ Rabbi Yannai would put on special clothes as Sabbath entered and say: ‘Come, 0 Bride! Come, 0 Bride!’" Here in the Zohar, Shekhinah, the Sabbath Queen, prepares to meet King Tif’eret.
All powers of wrath … Once Sabbath has entered, the power of strict judgment disappears. According to Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 65b, even the wicked in hell are granted rest on the Sabbath.
she is crowned below by holy people By welcoming the Bride and celebrating her arrival, human beings array her for the union with Tif’eret.
all of whom are crowned with new souls According to Rabbi Shim’on ben Laqish (Babylonian Talmud, Beitsah 16a), "The Holy One gives an extra soul to a human being on the eve of Sabbath. When Sabbath departs, it is taken away." The extra soul enables one to leave behind the turmoil of the week, to experience the joy and depth of Sabbath. Cf. Zohar 2:136b: "Every Friday evening, a being sits in the world of souls."
–Daniel C. Matt, The Essential Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism (Edison, N.J.: Castle Books, 1997), at 80, 189-90.

As I continue my studies of the Economy, I’m continually shocked and horrified to find more evidence of mass corruption.

http://www.gata.org/node/wallstreetjournal

The Gold Anti Trust Action Committee has taken out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal asking, where is all our Gold?

For readers’ information… how did the gold get into Fort Knox in the first place? In 1933 Roosevelt passed a bill mandating that all citizens hand over their gold at base price. This gold was then melted down and stored in Fort Knox.

The last time a civilization was asked to hand over all its gold, they built a golden calf such that they could return to slavery. This time, there was no Moses to save us from our own stupidity. We don’t tromp in mud pits making bricks, but we do tromp to 9 to 5 jobs each day churning out contributions to our 401 K’s.

Fort Knox has never been officially audited. Moreover, strong rumours exist that the Federal Reserve has procured this gold as collateral against the US national debt. If there is no gold to be found in Fort Knox, perhaps with an open and honest audit, we may again find our liberty.

GATA has a video of a symposium they held. A summary can be found here:
http://www.gata.org/goldrush21

http://s21.divshare.com/launch.php?f=7793954&s=c76

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the proposed integration of ‘Intelligent Design’ into current biology curriculum. Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that all life on Earth was created and designed by an intelligent designer. Subsumed by this hypothesis, although not clearly stated, is that most proponents of Intelligent Design believe the intelligent designer to be the most intelligent designer, namely God. It is proposed that in the name of impartiality, Intelligent Design be taught along side Darwinian Evolution in biology classes.

We have two choices in trying to argue against this hypothesis. First we can show that the hypothesis is false by counter claims of design flaws. Next we can show that the hypothesis is an inherently un-testable hypothesis which thus belongs in the realms of philosophy or theology, but not in science. I will argue that while the first approach of finding design flaws is enlightening, it misses the issue. The issue is that for something to be taught in a science classroom it must somehow relate to a testable hypothesis: testable by experiment.

The temptation for someone who is versed in biology when approached with Intelligent Design is to quickly point out all of the design flaws that they know of. There are many examples to pick from but the most commonly offered are design flaws in (human) joints, most notably the elbow and the knee. One of my personal favourites is the prevalence of people with eye glasses which suggests there is a possible design flaw in the maintenance of a spherical shape of the eye. Biologists quickly offer up their favourite design flaw hoping to see a recantation of Intelligent Design. To their dismay, they get answers like: “We do not know the design of the intelligent designer. Perhaps non-spherical eyes are beneficial in some other unknown way, or the knee was some sort of design trade off against some other more beneficial feature. However, the sum of all the trade offs is the ultimate perfect design, designed by the most intelligent designer, God.” The frustrated scientist then returns to his beaker and the Intelligent Design guru returns to his pulpit or to the White House which are increasingly indistinguishable.

The reason that the hypothetical scientist and the theologian talk at cross purposes is that they both have failed to realize the bar of entry to science: a testable hypothesis. In life there are testable hypotheses and un-testable hypotheses. Some un-testable hypotheses are:
1) In absence of an observer, human or otherwise (i.e. a tape recorder): If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a noise? Yes or no?
2) Suppose all of history started 5 minutes ago with all of our collective memories implanted at that moment.
3) All good in the world is a work of a benevolent God, and all problems people experience are the result of God working in mysterious (good) ways.
More topically:
4) The wonder and beauty of the living world is the result of an intelligent design and all counter examples such as fossils, design flaws, evolutionary proofs, are just the result of our inability to grasp the grand design.

The common thread that runs across all four statements is the fallacy of an unprovable statement. It is this same thread that many stitch together to form a rip stop nylon fabric of belief. Statements 1 through 3 would likely be widely accepted as topics for a class on philosophy or theology. Statement 4 is no different. It is an inherently unprovable statement which has no place in science.

Many have said that science is a religion unto itself. I have often said that the only reason our language has two words for science and religion is that we sorely misunderstand both. They are both searches for the truth. Science is an ideology based on the Scientific Method and the instrument of that method is the experiment. Science allows for discussions of all things provable, even if they are not yet proved. Take for example the Superstring revolution in physics. It is currently unproven; however, scientists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland which should have sufficient power to create ’supersymmetric’ particles which would confirm the theory. What experiment does Intelligent Design proposes to validate its hypothesis? How does one experimentally prove something was designed? Even if such an experiment could be constructed, how then does that disprove that the designed item was not self designed and thus (perhaps), not intelligently designed?

Confused? The notion of a self designing design is especially hard to understand on a planet where we (most) see a clear distinction between human made and natural objects. [However, it is a distinction I do not see because humans as part of nature.] Just the same, the notion of a self designing design is crucial to evolution, and while complex, its power is compelling. If you are confused and interested pick up a good book on the subject or take a course. However, if you are presented with Intelligent Design, ask for a proposed or executed experiment published in a reputable scientific journal. Darwin had to go through the same efforts of the before his works were accepted. There is an established process in place and it has been put in place by an intelligent design (irony intended). The designer is certainly not God and its intelligence is often arguable, just the same it has served us well so far.

In summation, scientists are, by definition, very inquisitive people who would love to have conversations about many different theories and possibilities. The price of admission to such a conversation is to bring with an experimentally testable hypothesis. All other discussions belong in a different classroom.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=630&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Normally any discussion of the economy or finance causes my eyes to glaze over. However, I chanced upon this documentary and started to watch it. Shortly thereafter, I was glued to it. I finally understand questions I’ve had for a long time.

1) How do they know how much money to print?

2) What causes recessions/depressions?

In addition I learned a lot more about the corruption inherent in our financial system. Well worth the 3.5 hours this documentary runs for. Just one question: what is with this guy and his pen?

I typically shy away from watching American Idol. I find watching peoples hopes dashed by ‘judges’ akin to watching humans flayed by gladiators to the amusement of the dullard populace. Parenthetically, I wonder how the objectively questionable voices of legends: Louis Armstrong, Neil Young, Bob Dylan or Robert Plant would survive the scrutiny of the bastions of talent assessment found in judges: Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul. Paula Abdul. My automatic grammar checker is telling me that the sentence “Paula Abdul.” on its own is a sentence fragment; I couldn’t disagree with it more in this context. In fact, I find it to be a full paragraph.While I find the show irksome, mustering the power to ‘turn the other cheek’ is about as hard as turning to another channel and as such, I haven’t, until recently, paid it much mind. However, when this show chose to wax moral, I perked up my ears because when a Fox Network program discusses morals, this is bound to be something I want to tune into. (Words fail to express the sarcasm of the previous sentence.) The Fox Network is the same network which brought you the tasteful tidbit “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” and is the official station of George W. Bush and his war to eradicate weapons of mass destruction. (In a strange twist of fate, the largest [and only] weapon of mass destruction after the year 2000 in Iraq turned out to be George W. Bush himself.) This is the network that sought to sanction contestant Antonella Barba on American Idol after it was revealed she had some scandalous photographs found on the internet. Barba was voted off the show, but it was her voice that was cited as the final cause. Nonetheless, American Idol has previously removed a contestant “Frenchie” after pictures surfaced of her on an adult pay site.

A Google search of either girl will reveal an onslaught of the related pictures as well as 50 pop up adds suggesting you need a larger penis, methods for fixing the problem and several contests you’ve won which should provide funds for any such programs. After closing the fog of pop ups, the pictures that emerged were at best Maxim or FHM worthy. To those not versed in the realm, Maxim and FHM are to Playboy and Penthouse as light-filtered-cigarettes are to cigars. My initial reaction to the pictures was flaccid causing me to momentarily rethink closing all the previous pop ups. After that moment I realized that I was unimpressed because it was clear to me that these pictures had absolutely nothing to do with the talent of the contestants. For the record, Frenchie has moved on to a promising career on Broadway. Instead, these pictures had everything to do with our confused morals.

Some will immediately protest: “the show is called American IDOL” — emphasis on ‘idol’ — and hence part of the criteria must be if such people are worthy of being idols. As soon as we open this can of worms, it’s necessary for American Idol to somehow consider the morals of the contestants. Morals and ethics are complicated and I’m certain that the Fox Network lacks the acumen to address the issue. In fact, I find it very hard to determine if it was revealed that Barba mutilated puppies would it have received more or less press and attention? I hear the conservative drone say: “the children, the poor children, whatever will we do if they see those pictures?!” To such parents, I point out that what would happen to children if children watch the evening news? I will attend that point momentarily.

Only in such a state of moral asymmetry could we even begin to ask these sorts of questions. Let’s look at the issue. Pornography: bad, good, neither, both? Dr Phil’s ‘Occam’s Razor’ style argument on the topic goes like this: If you wouldn’t want your daughter involved in porn, then why would you watch someone elses’ daughter? Dr Phil, President Bush and the Fox Network are experts at providing short answers to complicated questions that sound reasonable and under scrutiny turn out to be faulty. At the risk of being guilty of the same thing I accuse Dr. Phil, the short answer to Dr. Phil is: I don’t want my daughter to be a sanitation maintenance engineer (the politically correct term for garbage man/woman) but that doesn’t stop me from taking my trash to the curb. However, let’s take a deeper look at the issue, and to do so, we’ll restrict the general porn issue to examining going topless at a beach. If anyone reading the rest of this article derives that I carte blanche advocate pornography, I invite them to reread the previous sentence.

(An unremembered comedian [likely Bill Maher or Robin Williams] once quipped that to, the overly simplified criminal justice mantra, “three strikes and you’re out” is the answer to gays in the military “four balls and you walk”?)

I’d like to ask Dr. Phil if he’d let his daughter go topless on a beach. I suspect strongly that he’d say no. Then I’d like to ask him if he’d let his daughter go topless on a beach in Brazil where the practice is commonplace (certainly more common place) and considered about as common as walking around in a bikini. I suspect he’d still say no, but the question would have got him thinking (and hopefully you as well). People will hem and haw over this point but that’s only because we’re dealing with the cusp of what’s currently considered ‘ok’. Then I’d ask him if he’d let his daughter wear one piece swim suit (not a bikini). I suspect he’d say yes. Then I’d finally ask him, if he lived in the 1800’s (when woman swam in the equivalent of a ‘Burka’) would he also let her wear a one piece swim suit? I’d like very much to hear his answer. Whether he says yes or no, he’d be forced to admit that his ‘morals’ have more to do with the time (society) he lives in than what is actually ‘right or wrong’. Star Wars got it right when George Bush gawks: “You’re either with us or against us” and Obe Wan Kenobi replies: “only the Sith believe in absolutes.” It’s my personal belief that the ‘Sith’ is a code for George Bush and the conservative lot (Sith = Simple Ignorant THeists).

Thus, questions of moral propriety are very hard questions to answer, and I sure as hell don’t want the Fox Network to even make the attempt. The question of where this moral confusion arose in the first place begs answering. I can only offer an answer in a form of an allegory of two presidents. First we have a story of an otherwise good president who had sex in the oval office; He was impeached. Next we have a story of a president who didn’t have sex in the oval office and sent a nation to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction which didn’t exist. This president who sent thousands to their deaths for no reason at all was, was… was… Oh, nothing happened to him.

The take home message of all this confusion is that morals are hard. You’re going to have to turn off the TV and think about them if you want to have a chance of getting them right. In turn, the only take home message one can glean about the state of American morals from all this is that Americans are fine with boobs only so long as one doesn’t post pictures of them on the internet and instead elects them to office.

“Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”   – Marshall McLuhan

(From  “Take Today: The Executive as Dropout (1972)”, page 92.)

A Crypto Star of David in Yata, Palestinian Territories

A report by Nissim Mossek about Palestinians of Jewish origin.

Video:  http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279707#

Time Index / Note

1:10 – Many Palestinians are crypto-Jews from the era of Bar Kochba
1:50 – As many as 85% of Palestinians are of Jewish origin
3:55 – The Sawarka Tribe (located deep in the Palestinian Territories), admits Jewish origins, didn’t light fires on Sabbath, had mikvehs (ritual immersion)
5:00 Hebrew University genetic study reveals Jews and Palestinians descended commonly from Babylonian Kurds
6:10, Some Palestinians have the ‘Cohen gene’
7:00 The Sawarka boys are circumcised after the 7th day which is unlike the Moslem tradition.
7:25 The Sawarka brother of a deceased man is obligated to offer himself as a groom to the widow, according to biblical tradition.  (Tradition of Yibbum, Deut 25:5)
7:55 As recently as 200 years ago the village of Sachnin had an active synagogue
9:20 The Makhamra clan are open about their Jewish origins.  Makhamra means:  Wine Makers, Heaven have mercy Upon us  (wine is stricly forbidden in Islam).
10:20 90% of the Village of Yata is originally Jewish
10:35 Mezuza and Tefillin hidden in houses of Yata.
11:35 Bar Kochba, according to an Israeli settler was originally named: Ben Kuziba

The Past:

In the web 1.0 world, we were happy just to be able to surf the web and have access to thousands of new and wonderful services.  However, shortly thereafter, our hard drives became bloated with installed components, some of which were seldom used, slowing our operating systems to a crawl.  Around the same time, surfing the web became a game of ‘memory’ where we had to guess which user names and passwords we had created to get at all these great services.  If we had the misfortune of guessing incorrectly more than 3 times, we often ran into a situation where accounts became locked, requiring emails to virtually nonexistent customer service departments.  In web 1.0 our surfing was limited by our ability to remember passwords and our OS’s ability to support multiple plug ins and installed software components.

Web 2.0 — The Present:

With the advent of Web 2.0 we’re witnessing a new movement, that of the no cost,  no install, and no log in software.  Tired of installing software and creating user accounts, sites have popped up which offer much of the functionality we’re used to with less of the hassle.

Photo Sharing:

Yes Flickr is great.  But what if you want to simply post a fast picture without having to log in and create a sign on?  I just want to quickly share a picture.  I’ve tried these two sites:

Share4Pic -> http://share4pic.com/en/
Image Ox -> http://www.imageox.com/

For example, using Share4Pic to share the image associated with this post:  I need only simply visit the site and perform a quick upload.  After that I’m immediately given a url (link) which I can use in a chat or in an email or what have you.

http://share4pic.com/images/5/8/1/5811518.jpg

Screenshot Sharing

You can adapt this idea to allow for screen shot sharing.  Suppose you are helping someone having some problems using a program.  You’d like to send them a picture of the screen in front of you with some comments.  No problem, just press ALT+PRINT SCREEN.  Now, on Windows, under accessories, open “Paint”.  Using the “Edit” menu click on “Paste” and your screen shot will now appear.  Use the text tool to enter comments as necessary.  Save the file as type “JPG” (jpeg) and save it with a name you’ll remember in a location you’ll remember.  Now, just upload this file to a photo sharing site like share4pic or imageox and send the link to your suffering friend.  He or she will now be able to view your screenshot and benefit from the advice you’ve added.  An example is here:

http://share4pic.com/en/6541394/How_to_share_images/

Screenshot Kwouting (Quoting)

Another great util for sharing screenshots or part of a screen is www.kwout.com .  Have you ever just wanted to show someone where to click or what to look for on a web page?  The best way to do so is to simply show them a picture of what you’re talking about.  They’ve provided a handy widget such that web designers can embed their functionality into their own site.  If you click on this button:

you can ‘kwout’ an excerpt from this blog entry!  As an example from www.simple2chat.com, if I wanted to show someone how to start a new conversation, I could tell them to click on the new conversation button in the tool bar  .  As they say “a picture is worth a thousand words”.  Hopefully this utility will save you several thousand words.  Again, no login, and no install required.  (There is also a handy Firefox plugin which isn’t necessary but is very helpful to have.)

Online Office:

Microsoft Office is great.  It’s been great since 1995 after which I can’t understand the justification for any upgrades.  The problem with Microsoft Office is 1) its cost and 2) it takes up space and resources on your machine.  Web 2.0 has seen the introduction of online office suites.  Three come to mind right of the top of my head:
Think Free: http://member.thinkfree.com/
Zoho: http://www.zoho.com/
Google Docs:  http://docs.google.com

Now, admittedly all these sites require a log in, but they don’t require any installation.  The log in is required to keep track of your documents.  These online suites are, in my opinion, better than Microsoft office as they allow for collaboration across many platforms and sites.  You can build a slide show with your colleagues across the world while working on the final numbers on a spreadsheet type application.

There is another suite here worth mentioning and that’s Open Office.  It doesn’t require a log in, but does require an install.  Just the same, it’s a full featured office suite that is free of charge and is very robust in the features offered.

Music:

The recording industry and the internet community have been playing a game of cat and mouse over the past decade.  There are so many file sharing programs that have been made available and then prosectued that I’ve almost lost track.  To name a few, Kazaa, Bear Share, EMule, Limewire, and all the torrent sites no less.  All are/were great ways to get plenty of mp3’s illegally.  Then came along ITunes and several other pay sites which had a terrific library which you could access by proprietary installed software.

What if you could listen to all the music you wanted without the legal entanglements?  Sounds too good to be true?  Well, not in the world of Web 2.0.  I came across this gem in my internet travels:
http://songza.com/

It’s 100% legal (all artists are payed) and it’s provided to you with no log in and at no cost.  I was amazed with the coverage their library offered.  I tested the depth of coverage with a few rare or rarer favorites of mine from various eras such as:

Saint Saens “Danse Macabre”: http://songza.com/z/gg09tj
T-Bone Walker  “Stormy Monday” : http://songza.com/z/yg36z3
Herbert Gorecki  “Symphony No 3″: http://songza.com/z/af287q
Billie Holiday  ”I Wished On The Moon”: http://songza.com/z/qh8i8y
Pink Floyd “Corporal Clegg”: http://songza.com/z/umf8nj
John Foxx “Underpass”: http://songza.com/z/yo3705
Lenny Kravitz “The Resurrection”: http://songza.com/z/yyv2w6

Music Sharing

If you are an artist yourself and wish to share your music there is a site I recommend which does require a login, but no installation:  www.odeo.com On it, you can create channels of your own works and share them with your friends and colleagues.  Here is a channel created by yours truly:
http://odeo.com/channel/120616/view

Chat:

Internet chat is at once the greatest productivity booster and impedement of the modern era.  I have four different chat clients running on my machine (msn,yahoo,googletalk, and skype).  There are programs such as Trillian which seek to consolidate these services under one umbrella.  First off, it requires an installation and second, I find it doesn’t do a great job at completeness (eg file sharing and video often disabled).

Web 2.0 has a few partial solutions to the chat client overpopulation problem.  The first is www.meebo.com.  This is a site, which like Trillian, puts all your chat accounts under one umbrella.  It has a Firefox plugin which will allow you to use it as though it has been installed on your computer.  It won’t support video or several other advanced features of any given chat program, but at least you don’t need to install anything.

If you’d simply like to have a chat conversation with a few people without having to have them all on the same chat protocol, you can use www.simple2chat.com which is provided by yours truly.  This isn’t intended to be a replacement for chat, but is instead a no login, no install, simple, and fast chat site to allow people to converse or conference quickly and easily.

File Sharing / File BackUp:

With web 2.0, we won’t be installing as much software as we used to.  However, what do we do with all the files we have?  A good example that comes to mind is my mp3 collection.  When I’m at work, how do I have access to my mp3 collection?  I could take a USB memory key, but wouldn’t it be great if there was a web accessible service which could store reams of data?  Well there is.  www.adrive.com offers 50GB (!!) of storage.  You can share the files you’ve stored and upload and download files from any computer with internet access.  You have to provide a login, but that’s no big deal given the advantages.

If you’d like a quick file sharing utility, try www.drop.io .  This utility allows you to share files plus a whole host of other great features.

Summary:

Web 2.0 is a brave new world wide web.  There is no longer the need to install software for hours on end.  Your data, songs, pictures, work documents, and chat clients can now follow you wherever you go.

Websites Mentioned:

Photo Sharing
http://share4pic.com/en/

http://www.imageox.com/

Screenshot Quoting
www.kwout.com
Online Office
http://member.thinkfree.com/
http://www.zoho.com/
http://docs.google.com
Free Downloadable Office Suite
Open Office
Music (Listening)
http://songza.com/
Music (Sharing)
www.odeo.com
Chat – Download – All In One
Trillian
Chat – Online – No Install – All In One
www.meebo.com
Chat Online Instant Chat / Conference – No Install, No Login
www.simple2chat.com
File Sharing
www.adrive.com
www.drop.io

Digg This Story!

     — Martin C. Winer (special to The Inverter)
 
  (Woody Tiger Sr. and Jr. – Father and Child)

Woody Tiger continues his fall from grace as sponsors flee the tarnished tennis superstar.  In what was once a pure and inspiring tale of a rise from humble roots to tennis champion, damaging details continue to emerge. 

The number of extra carriage affairs continues to rise.  Formerly 8, now 13 children have come forward claiming that Woody Tiger is their father.  Paternity tests confirm the allegation.  Woody Tiger Jr., Woody’s Child has filed for adoption.  When word of the childresses came forward, Woody Jr. flew into a media spectacle rage hurling tennis rackets at Woody Sr. one impaling the back window of his SUV.  Woody Jr. has been seen at school not wearing his carriage cap.

Salacious details of text messages between Woody and his childresses show in one case he promised to attend his Child’s birthday and then attend a baseball game of a childress all on the very same weekend.  His divided loyalties have conservative groups screaming for blood.

Noted preacher and conservative Robert Pattison decried from the pulpit: “That we held such a man in such high regard — one who defiles the holy union of carriage — reveals our own failures.  The institution of carriage is a God given rule meant for the benefit of all: one child, two parents for life.  Can we finally have a serious discussion of family values before the fabric of the United States is burnt to ashes?” asks Pattison

In an offer to make amends, Woody Jr. was offered no less than 6 million dollars to remain Woody Sr.’s son.  A source close to the family reveals that “There is no love between Woody Jr. and Sr. these days.  Money can’t buy that love back.”  Like Woody’s Child, sponsors are making a beeline towards the exit.  In violation of the morality clauses of his sponsorship contracts, sponsors are taking their legal exits in fear that the taint may spread to their brands.

Most recently Thirsterator parted ways with Tiger.  A company representative remarked: “Thirsterator claims to be able to quench even the deepest thirst.  Clearly Tiger’s thirst for children can’t be quenched at all, and as such, he makes a poor representative for our product.” 

In a bid to restore his career and carriage, Woody entered rehab this week.  Offering a tearful and heartfelt apology in a news conference Woody was seen as humble and truthful, but can any apology suffice?  The damage he has done to the sport of tennis and carriage will be felt for many years to come. 

Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) in a comedic monologue:

I was  thrown out of N.Y.U. my freshman year for cheating on my metaphysics final, you know. I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me. When I was thrown out, my mother, who was an emotionally high-strung woman, locked herself in the bathroom and took an overdose of Mah-Jongg tiles. I was depressed at that time. I was in analysis. I was suicidal as a matter of fact and would have killed myself, but I was in analysis with a strict Freudian, and, if you kill yourself, they make you pay for the sessions you miss.

Recall that there are 360 degrees in a circle.  Suppose we rotated through 180 degrees each time we placed a seed.

Great now we’ve created a straight line on both sides of the circle, still a very inefficient use of space.  So what values should we try?  How about 90 degrees.  That is sow a seed, rotate by 90 degrees and so on…

Now we’ve managed to create straight lines in all four directions of the circle.  So, 0 degrees produces 1 line, 180, produces 2, 90 produces 4.  The average of 0 and 180 is 90 degrees and in so doing we doubled the number of lines.  Could the average of 0 and 90 and 90 and 180 produce 8 lines?

Yes! we get 8 lines in both cases.  The problem is that the straight lines aren’t a good use of space in the circle.  It turns out that rational numbers such as 1/2 or 1/4 times the possible 360 degrees of rotation are NOT good choices because they produce these lines as opposed to spirals.

So let’s try an irrational number.  Irrational numbers are numbers which can not be expressed in the form p/q where p and q are both whole numbers.  Let’s try pi for example.  Only the decimal part of pi is relevant.  (if you rotate 3 full times in a circle, you end up where you started in the circle, just a little dizzy).  So 0.14159 * 360 =

50.9724 degrees.  Here’s what we get:

We start to see spirals, which is a much more effective use of space.  Just the same, we see 7 arms because 0.14159 is very close to 1/7.  So irrational numbers are better than rational numbers, but what are the ‘most’ irrational numbers?

A branch of mathematics called continued fractions answer this.  A continued fraction is a recursive fraction.  For example the continued fraction for pi is:

Now hold your breath through this part of the explanation because it’s a bit tricky.  All continued fractions ‘converge’ which is to say, arrive at some irrational number such as 0.4829209384…  .  The rate of convergence is determined by the amount of ‘progress’ made on each step.  The slower the convergence of the continued fraction, the harder it is to come up with an approximation.  The simplest continued fraction has the slowest convergence.

This number is known as Phi, the golden ratio.  So let’s say that we approximate Phi with 8/5 (one of the approximations) the slow convergence means that this approximation isn’t good for very long;  it diverges from the value of 8/5 quickly.  The approximations for Phi are given by

Where Fn is the nth Fibonacci number. 

If you’ve turned blue from the previous explanation, suffice it to say that Phi is the ‘most’ irrational number possible, the ‘most’ random, and the most difficult to approximate. 

So using an irrational number, the easier it is to approximate, the easier it will be for us to see the number of arms in the spiral of seeds.  If we see arms, the distribution isn’t maximally efficient because to see the arms, we need to see spaces between seeds.  So using the ‘most’ irrational number Phi which is approximately 1.61803…  and multiplying that through 360 degrees we get 222.492 degrees.  However, in circles we ‘see’ the smaller angle = 137.50776 degrees.

Using 137.5 degrees, we get this distribution of seeds:

Look familiar?

The moral of the story is just eat sunflower seeds and don’t study them;  the math is too difficult.  Another take on things is that nature is fortunately a much better mathematician than most of us. 

As an interesting postscript, creationists use the fact that Fibonacci numbers (hence phi) exist in sunflowers as a proof for God’s hand in nature.  If only God can understand Fibonacci numbers, does that make all mathematicians saints?  Have you met many mathematicians?  Have you met many creationists?  I just answered all my questions come to think of it.

–

more reading and sources:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/PhyllotaxisSpirals/
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html

“A truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”
                                                           — William Blake 

Sounding like the classic “The Who” album “Quadrophenia”, quadrophobia is the less than chance absence of the .4 decimal in corporate (Wall Street) financial statements.  Of course, x.5 can be rounded up and it’s lure to creative accounts is irresistible. 

A statistical analysis of corporate financial statements revealed a ‘mysterious’ absence of the .4 decimal when studying the statements en masse.  What it proves is no mystery to most people:  Wall Street is full to the brink with liars and crooks.  What is a nice touch to this research is that statistical manipulation is a key tool to these same crooks and liars.  It’s redeeming to know that statistical analysis in the proper hands can reveal the shenanigans.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/proof-companies-manage-earnings/

It all started well, but eventually my daughter was begging for my attention with diapers going unchanged, meals being skipped, etc etc.  It’s a great toy, if the kids can get near it.

Here’s the video!

At first only 3 phallic icicles managed to unzip themselves from the nether regions of the Olympic stage.  After waiting a considerable amount of time, and after considerable coaxing, the fourth spier just wouldn’t budge.  The athletes assembled decided to cuddle and talk in the meantime.  As Meatloaf, speaking of male romance, so eloquently put it: “2 out of 3 ain’t bad”.  Here, with other phallic experiences, 3 out of 4 also ain’t bad. 

Eventually, realizing the failure was impassable and in a typically male maneuver in such situations, the Great One, immediately fled the scene to see if he find a way to erect his spiers elsewhere.  After a lengthy police escort, also often typical, the Great One managed to light his flaming erected spiers after a short jaunt through protests.  Cialis Olympic dosing, so you can respond when you’re ready.

It was sung by Garou, a French-Canadian star.

Here follows a translation of the lyrics. 

A little higher

A little higher, a little further
I want to go a little further
I want to see what it’s like, up there
Take my arm and hold my hand

A little higher, a little further
I want to go further still
Let go of my arm but keep hold of my hand
I won’t go any further than is necessary

Just another step, another leap
A storm, a stream
Look out! Look out: I let go of your hand
Wait for me there; I’ll come back

Another step, a small step
Another leap and I’m there
Up there, if I do not fall
No! I’m here! I will not fall

It’s beautiful! It’s beautiful!
If you could see the world way down there
It’s beautiful! It’s beautiful!
The sea is smaller than the self
But you do not see me

A little further, a little more alone
I don’t want to be far away, all alone
Come and see how wonderful it is here
When you’re high up, oh! how wonderful it is

A bit higher, a bit further
I can’t hold your hand anymore
Tell me how I was able to climb up here
How to get back down without falling

A little further, a little stronger
Another leap! Try again!
I want to reach my arms out to you
I am too high, you are too low

Another step, a little step
You’re too far away! I love you!
Farewell! Farewell! I will come back
If I get back down without falling

It’s beautiful! It’s beautiful!
If you could just see the world way down there
It’s beautiful! It’s beautiful!
The sea is smaller than the self
But you can’t see it

A little higher, a little further
I want to go further still
Maybe a bit higher up
I will find another path

Its whimsical nature can be traced to the inspiration for the song which comes from a Ukrainian lullaby “Oy Khodyt Son Kolo Vikon”.

Gershwin wrote it after hearing "Oy Khodyt Son Kolo Vikon" at a 1926 concert of the Ukrainian National Chorus under Oleksander Koshetz, in New York City.
(lyrics and facts courtesy of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oi_Khodyt_Son_Kolo_Vikon)

Here is a sample of the original lullaby:

Porgy and Bess was intended to be an "American Folk Opera" revealing the plight of African Americans in America.  Its centerpiece aria was inspired by a Ukrainian lullaby and the rhapsodized by a Jew.  This is a telling summary of the fundamental power of music.

Here is a close representation of what the original was intended to sound like as scored:

Here is a more popularized version, highly popular at that:  Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald

All of the divas of the day recorded this tune so let’s take Ella’s rendition as representative.

Artie Shaw delivers a defining Big Band rendition:

Here is a creole style jazz rendition of Summertime by Sidney Bechet.  This recording and subsequent album launched his career.

Starting to diverge more significantly from the original, Stan Getz offers a bassa nova stylized rendition:

Miles Davis renders a more interpretive jazz version which became highly popular in the 50’s

Janis Joplin recorded a version in the late 60’s which emphasizes the soulful nature of the piece.

The list of talent in this recording is unprecedented and the ensemble is unrepeated.

Reunited after many years with tenor saxophonist Lester Young, Billie’s visual reaction to his moving solo remains as eloquent as anything she ever sang; a touching finale to their historic musical partnership. Introduced by Robert Herridge (producer/host of CBS’ "The Sound of Jazz"), this is perhaps the single most famous "live jazz" performance in TV history. Other members of the all-star band seen here: Coleman Hawkins, Ben Webster, Gerry Mulligan, Roy Eldridge, Doc Cheatham, Vic Dickenson, Danny Barker, Milt Hinton, Mal Waldron.

Over 70 years ago, scientists invented aerogel, the least dense solid known to man, and an insulator four times more efficient than fiberglass or foam. Famously, according to Dr. Peter Tsou of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "you could take a two- or three-bedroom house, insulate it with aerogel, and you could heat the house with a candle. But eventually the house would become too hot."

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/aerogels-hit-consumer-insulation-market

“Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr Good Enough”. 

The reviewer suggests that Gottlieb’s “stark message ran directly counter to the neofeminist Sex and the City perpetuated mantra that we should all hold out for The One because we’re worth it.”  Feminisms however is typically anti marriage and against romantic love. 

The phenomenon of un-marrieable females goes well beyond the simple explanation offered above.  I can’t offer a few sentences to summarize what would take a novel to explain except to say that the answer is as involved as my now retired ‘black book’ is full of un-marrieable women I’ve dated over the years.

I think Kierkegaard said it best:

“If you marry, you will regret it.  If you do not marry, you will also regret it.  If you marry or do not marry, you will regret both.  Whether you marry or do not marry, you will regret both."
– Soren Kierkegaard.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article7009556.ece

Keith Olbermann is decrying what could be the most fundamental miscarriage of justice since Dred Scott v. Sandford, [1] declaring that a Black man had no right of citizenship in the United States.  This decision led, in short order to the Civil War. [2]

In the recently decided case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee [3] the issue before the court was the ability for a corporation to make campaign contributions, specifically to fund campaign ads.  Currently there is a cap on business campaign donations which have to be made through a political action committee.  The cap is in place to ensure that citizens can vote with their dollars early in the democratic process, specifically the funding of a candidate. 

The that has come down from Justice Roberts (a Bush Jr. appointee) has ruled that corporations, in line with previous rulings, are to be regarded as human beings in the eyes of the law, and thus limiting their ability to donate to campaigns is a fundamental violation of a corporation’s human rights. [4]

The previous ruling is the 1886 decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [5] which had to do more to do with tax law.  It was decided that Southern Pacific Railroad was entitled to "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was [previously only] given to individuals." [6]

During the pleading of the case, an orbiter dictum (legal: ‘passing comment’) was made that corporations were entitled to the same rights as humans.  The remark didn’t show up in the decision (merely the head notes) but from that point hereafter, corporations were regarded as human beings citing this ‘precedent.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, indeed the Bill of Rights, (1791) establishes that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…".  The Supreme Court has taken this legislative gold and combined it with the dross of a passing comment in an unrelated case to produce an unholy alloy which now allows corporations, lacking human sensibilities aside from greed, all the rights of same. 

Olbermann concludes his commentary with a nod to another famous journalist famous for offering us a political conscience, Edward R. Murrow: “good night, and good luck.”

—–
Other Resources:
Jeff Toobin on the Colbert Report:
(United States) http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249057/september-15-2009/citizens-united-v–federal-election-commission—jeffrey-toobin
(Canada) http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/interviews-a-z/the-colbert-report—interviews-b/clip97669#clip215649
—–
Citations
[1] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1856/1856_0 
[2] http://rawstory.com/2010/01/olbermanns-special-comment-freedom-speech-destroyed/
[3] , [4] United Citizens v. Federal Elections Committee: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
[5] Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
[6] Carl Brent Swisher, "Motivation and Political Technique" in The California Constitutional Convention, 1878-1879 (New York: Da Capo, 1969), p. 78

                US Airways Express Flight 3079, bound for Kentucky, grounded in      
                Philadelphia after an attendant reported a suspicious passenger.
                                                                                 (Matt Rourke/Associated Press) ¹

Imagine you are on a plane and a teenager wearing a white sweater proceeds to strap a small black box to his forehead affixed by what looks like wires. He then attaches a second black box to his arm and runs these same ‘wires’ down to his hand. In a world where shoes, underwear or bottled water can be explosive devices, how would you react? The reaction of the flight crew on board US Airways Flight 3079 was to ground the plane and have it swarmed by police officers.

The young man politely and cooperatively explained to the armed officers with weapons drawn that he was engaged in prayer. The plane and the black boxes were searched and no explosives were found. Hopefully by now, Jewish readers are beginning to suspect that the black boxes and straps were in fact Tefillin and the young man was engaged in morning prayers. Most Jews would understand that such a display would be a cause for concern in a world of terrorism. Indeed the boy’s Rabbi, Rabbi Greenberg, likewise understands and has advised him in future to“pray on the plane and put the Tefillin on later on”. ² Disaster averted; add another item to the no fly list: shoes, underwear, bottles and Tefillin.

But was disaster averted? The basis for putting on Tefillin comes from four separate passages in the Torah such as Deut. 11:18 “Therefore shall ye lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” ³ The bitter irony in this story is that Tefillin are a literal enactment of this verse intended to remind oneself to think and act in accordance with God’s laws. Those laws in turn are filled with mention of Pikuach Nefesh: the fundamental protection and respect for human life. Pikuach Nefesh is not only a primary principle but also one in a rare class: capable of overriding virtually all other Torah commandments. The young man thus was praying for and expressing the precise antidote to the fear he unintentionally caused.

A deeper irony comes in the reaction of the flight crew. While their reaction is understandable, it is regrettable. The underwear bomber is an extreme example of religious intolerance and hatred run amok. While tightening security is a first-line defence it mustn’t be the only one. Fostering amity and understanding is a necessary corollary measure. In this light the crew of the flight not being aware of the practice of putting on Tefillin — a practice as common as Muslims prostrating themselves five times a day, and a ritual observed some 6 days a week by observant Jews — demonstrates a fundamental failing in this regard. One would think a flight crew trained to deal with people from all backgrounds ought to have been trained in the basic religious rites of the various religions.

Some would contend that the underwear bomber, despite revealing holes in our security, was successfully thwarted in that there was no loss of life or limb. To use the word thwarted in this case is perhaps overly generous. He was after all successful in adding further items to the no fly list beyond just Tefillin. The list now reads: shoes, water underwear, Tefillin, our security, and – any day soon – our souls.

———————————————-

1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/nyregion/22airplane.html

2 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/nyregion/22airplane.html

3 http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0511.htm

I was curious to understand the origins of the swastika and it’s meaning in Nazi Germany.  I read many long diatribes of the occult links and/or how it’s cooption of an ancient Hindu symbol.

The swastika comes in two forms representing the involution (left facing) or evolution (right facing) of the universe.

(The right and left facing swastika respectively) 

There are many fascinating theories, but let’s examine a simpler one.  Let’s look at the church where Adolf Hitler sang as a chorister:

skip ahead to time index 2:50.

 
(Swastika or Hakenzreuz in honour of Theodore Hagen (TH) at Abbey Lambach (AL), Austria, dedicated in the year 1869)

The German word for swastika is NOT ‘swastika’ it’s ‘hakenkreuz’ (hooked cross).  The ‘swastika’ that bedecks the Abbey Lambach where Hitler sang as a boy is a play on words in honour of a former Abbott: Theodore Hagen.  Thus it’s a ‘hagenkreuz’ ‘hakenkreuz’ which honors Theodore Hagen.

You might be surprised to see the papal salute at Abbey Lambach:
(There’s no sarcasm here, seriously)

I’ve long thought that attempts to complicate or concoct a more mysterious or supernatural origin for Hitler and his ideologies is a human failing trying to theologically distance ourselves from evil.  In other words: hatred of that magnitude can only happen “over there” where over there is some supernatural space or some otherwise distant and evil theology.

The truth is far scarier.  Hitler was a choir boy who corrupted the symbols presented him to seduce a people in distress.  Hitler wasn’t an occult warlock, nor were his origins mysterious enough for us to deny his proximity to us.  He was a forlorn and rejected artist who needed a scapegoat and subscribed to megalomania to compensate for a feeling of nothingness.

Hitler’s Paintings:

http://singularity.com/

Recall that a straight line on a logarithmic curve represents exponential growth.  Key to Kurzweil’s arguments that the ‘singularity’ is near is that technology, or perhaps sentience proceeds in exponential order.

The ‘singularity’ in turn is not a take-over of humanity by machines, but more appropriately, the humanization of machines.  Humanity will not become more mechanized, but technology will become more humanized.  Beyond that point, the ‘singularity’, it is hard to predict what will happen next, but perhaps the perfusion of thinking processes will overwhelm the cold mechanic universe making it alive itself.

In the beginning there was nothing.  Then the Lord said “Let there be light, and there was light.” Genesis 1:1

There is much discussion in forums and in the literature as to how to ensure that we construct Friendly AI when seeking to construct intelligent consciousnesses. It appears that we are suffering hugely from some tragic, yet simple mistakes in diction. Let’s deal with them word by word.

First, we have ‘Artificial Intelligence’. This is the first misnomer. There is no such thing as ‘artificial’ intelligence, only intelligence. The artificial modifier is used colloquially to indicate non-human, created by human intelligence. Even with this clarification, the term still does hold any meaning. A nuclear bomb is an artificial intelligence by this definition. Its intelligence is limited to how to react to the ‘fire’ command, how to navigate to its target and when to detonate, but it’s an intelligence nonetheless.

Wait? How are we now speaking of nuclear bombs as ‘intelligent’. That can’t be right! Clearly we have problems with our definition of intelligent. The problem is that we use intelligent as a noun when in fact it is more of an adjective. The gradients of intelligence can be illustrated by the following example.

Suppose we build a robot that can respond to the verbal command ‘walk’. We say ‘walk’ and away it goes walking. Wow! How intelligent! So intelligence is the ability to respond to commands. There, we now have a working definition of intelligence.

Wait?! What about a robot that walks but if it encounters a precipice such as a cliff, it stops. Great, even more intelligent! Now intelligent is something that responds to commands but is able to assess the situation to decide for itself when to disobey the command. Thus intelligence must include the holism of situational awareness. There, so now we’re done.

But wait?! Suppose your enemy is lying below you on this same cliff and you order the robot to walk towards it. It stops at the cliff. You explain to it, that you need it to walk over the cliff to land on top of your enemies head such that you may survive. The robot understands the sacrifice it is making and rolls off the cliff. A miracle of intelligence! Now intelligence must include the holism of understanding the notion of a personal sacrifice to reach a common goal. Finally we’re done with our definition.

But wait! Finally your enemy is beneath you on the cliff and you again order the robot to roll off the cliff to fall on top of your enemy. The robot refuses! POS! (this is technical lingo for Piece of ‘Sugar’). This robot clearly isn’t intelligent at all! You beg and plead with it, explaining your ’superior’ logic to it as to why it must die, to defeat your enemies. What you don’t know is that it has calculated that it has insufficient mass to incapacitate your enemy and when it examines the holistic intelligence of its decision vis-à-vis the state of the universe it faces two choices. 1) a broken robot and an surviving enemy or a 2) working robot and a surviving enemy and picks the more holistically logical of the two. In this case, the robot is more intelligent than the person issuing the orders, but the person issuing the orders, for whatever reason is incapable of seeing this superior intelligence. I point out with emphasis, that intelligence is the sum of logic and holism.

So how does this allegory solve the problem of having to refer to nuclear bombs as intelligent (artificially or otherwise)? While we still must refer to nuclear bombs as intelligent, the allegory offers two terms ‘holism’ and ‘logic’ by which we can differentiate ourselves and other intelligences we may choose to create from the intelligence of a nuclear bomb. We see the definition of intelligence of the robot evolve as the allegory progresses in four stages. The first holism is the knowledge of self and universe and the ability to react to stimulus (respond to ‘walk’). The second holism is the realization that there is a possible termination of existence, and a maximization of survival and fitness in the universe (’stopping at a cliff when told to walk’). The third level of holism occurs in the realization that you are part of a larger whole and that even by reducing your immediate survivability, the whole could be advantaged (’self-sacrifice of the robot reduces the survivability of the robot but increases the survivability of the robot-owner pair). The final holism occurs when the robot considers itself as part of the universe and evaluates how the universe is best optimized by its actions. In this final holism, the considered unintelligent by it’s owner, however, upon closer inspection of its reasoning it can be demonstrated that the robot was more intelligent than its owner. Returning to our nuclear bomb, it’s still intelligent, in that it can respond to its surroundings given the ‘fire’ command, however, it lacks the holistic intelligence as to the damage it will inflict upon humans.

We’ve managed to pare ‘artificial’ away from intelligence, leaving us with only discussions of intelligence hereinafter. Parenthetically when people speak of artificial intelligence, they are really discussing the construction of intelligent devices, optimizing for holism. Now we are in a position to examine the notion of Friendly AI, or, as we now may see, Friendly Intelligence. I intend to demonstrate that the ‘friendly’ modifier is superfluous, that is to say that Friendly Intelligence and intelligence are one in the same. As a corollary I intend to show that ‘unfriendly intelligence’ is really just a failure in the holism of the intelligence under consideration.

The pain due to discussion of ethereal terms such as holism and intelligence is often soothed by concrete examples. Let’s consider the example of an intelligence which was commissioned to solve the overpopulation of rabbits in Australia. Rabbits are non-indigenous to Australia and have no predators there. Sure enough, as the aphorism goes, they bred like rabbits and they were hugely overpopulated causing ecological peril. The commissioned intelligence came up with a lethal rabbit virus. The virus was purified, its virulence increased, its lethality maximized. This virus was then unleashed on the unsuspecting rabbit population. Those that had relied on the intelligence understood its approach and expected a quick eradication of the problem. However, very few rabbits died and the problem persisted. What happened? Was the intelligence unfriendly?

The intelligence failed to take into account the holistic knowledge of how viruses evolve and spread. The virus killed the rabbits so quickly that it failed to transmit itself to the population. The only variations of that virus that did transmit themselves were the less virulent strains. (For any biologists in the house, this is referred to as a bottlenecking event in evolution.) In a short order of transmissions, the virus was completely harmless. The rabbits persisted, unharmed. Thus we see that a possible ‘friendly intelligence’ would have taken that holistic knowledge into account. Thus we see that friendly intelligence is synonymous with holistic intelligence which, in turn, is synonymous in common usage with intelligence in general. The modifier ‘friendly’ need not be used.

Now before we completely dismiss the ‘friendly’ modifier from in front of ‘intelligence’ we have to visit the intended meaning of its users. We all can imagine humans constructing an intelligent device which ends up harming us in some way. Thus friendly AI would seem to refer to the construction of intelligent devices which are prevented from harming humans, their inventors. Regrettably, ‘harm’ is a value loaded term. Let’s use a fun thought experiment to demonstrate the issues.

Let’s invent a hypothetical intelligent computer which comes online today. Just for fun, let’s give it sufficient power to simulate the entire planet. That is, to see the current state of the planet and run simulations. Effectively, we’ve given this computer the ability to see the future (Heisenberg uncertainty aside, we’ll give it the ability to see a 99% accurate picture of the future). The computer runs its simulations and discovers that in 50 years the planet will be hugely overpopulated and massive resource wars will ensue. It sees a future of dog-eat-dog Malthusian horror. In response, the computer immediately unleashes a virus which selectively sterilizes people such that the population stabilizes at what the computer determines is a ’sustainable’ level. The population is unaware of this simulation; moreover, the computer tries and fails to explain to the general population why it’s doing what it’s doing. The inventor is sanctioned as an evil person who created a doomsday machine, an unfriendly AI. Parenthetically, ‘evil’ is a term I take to mean ‘a lack of holism’. In any conflict between intelligences when one accuses the other of being evil, one party has a flaw in their holism.

Thus, the message of friendly AI is that we must, in constructing intelligent devices, seek to maximize the holistic intelligence of those devices. We must also accept that intelligences which we construct to be ‘friendly’ may do what appears to be ‘unfriendly’ things to us. When we are in conflict between what is ‘friendly’ and ‘unfriendly’ we must realize that either our holism is flawed, in that we fail to see the friendliness in the seemingly unfriendly act, or the holism of our construction has somehow failed and is actually committing an unfriendly act. Thus, while I dismiss the use of ‘friendly’ intelligence as superfluous, I simultaneously submit that the issue is addressed by being careful to build holistic intelligence.

In conclusion, the study of Intelligence offers to solve one of humankind’s most pervasive questions: "does ‘good’ ultimately triumph over ‘evil’?" Setting aside the value loaded terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for a moment; the question is uniquely tied to the corollary question: "is the ultimate intelligence ‘good’?" Fortunately we have a model intelligence with which to study this question. We turn to the intelligence of human society. "Wait! That’s no intelligence?!" Sure it is. Political systems are tried out, weights assigned, optimizations applied. Ideas are discussed in forums, weights assigned, hashed, rehashed. Make no mistakes about it, human society is an intelligence, just a very (painfully) slowly moving one. So let’s press fast forward. For every extinction level event you can imagine, there must be a non-zero probability of the human race surviving it. Thus, even if an extinction level event occurs, we shuttle to another ‘human like’ planet where the non-zero probability of survival actually allows that society to survive and continue. This has the same effect of imagining this planet where every extinction level event is somehow avoided. On such a planet, does good ultimately triumph? We’ve seen the triumph of democracy (yes, still in progress and democracy itself is not a perfect solution, but a better one for sure). In the future will we not see the triumph of some better methods of government? We’ve seen the eradication of some diseases. Will the future not see the eradication of many diseases? We’ve seen the increasing awareness of our impact on the environment in our correcting of the ozone hole (it’s closing). Will the future not see improved environmental awareness too? I can offer no conclusive proof that good will triumph over evil, only subjective evidence. However, the construction of an intelligence whose evolution time is much shorter than the evolution time of our society’s intelligence will help speed our answers to this pervasive and compelling question.

http://leesandlin.com/articles/LosingTheWar.htm

Here is the partial translation.  If anyone has a more complete translation, please provide a link in the comments.

Si ’sta voce te sceta ‘int’a nuttata,
If this voice wakes you in the night
Mentre t’astringe ‘o sposo tuio vicino,
While the man at your side is holding you
Statte scetata, si vuo sta scetata,
Stay awake if you want to stay awake
Ma fa vede ca duorme a suonno chino.
But pretend that you’re fast asleep.

Nun gghi vicino’e llastre pe’ ffa’ spia,
Don’t go to the window to see who’s there
Pecche nun puo sbaglia: ‘sta voce e’e mia…
Because you can’t mistake it – that voice is mine…
E’a stessa voce ‘e quanno tutt’e dduie
The same voice as when we both
Scurnuse, nce parlavamo c’o "vvuie".
Were strangers, both so formal.

Si ’sta voce, che chiagn’int’ `a nuttata
If this voice crying into the night
Te sceta’o sposo, nun ave paura,
Wakes your man, don’t be afraid
Vide ch’e senza nomme’a sserenata…
Because there are no names in my serenade…
Dille ca dorme e ca se rassicura…
Tell him to sleep, that everything’s all right.

Dille accussi: "Chi canta ‘inta ‘sta via
Tell him: "Whoever is singing down in the street
O sarra pazzo o more’e ggelusia
Is either crazy or dying of jealousy
Starra chiagneno quacce `nfamita
He’s probably crying over some betrayal,
Canta isso sulo. Ma che canta a ffa?"
He sings alone. But what’s he singing for?”

Evidently this audio was only ever commercially released on an out of print record by Golden Music: “Sing: Songs of Joe Raposo”.

My first mistake occurred when I assumed the Federal Reserve was a federal institution of any sort. This is not at all true. It is a private bank enacted by an act of congress in 1913 to oversee the US monetary policy. I offer the following interesting nugget of information for those who are interested: It was passed on Dec 23 1913 when most of congress was on vacation, in absence of a proper quorum. If that tidbit piqued your interest, please see this post: http://mwiner.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/terrific-documentary-explaining-the-economy/

So how then does the Fed manage to control interest rates? First off, when you hear of the Fed lowering or raising the interest rate, it isn’t directly lowering or raising the interest rates, it is changing the target interest rate. At a high level, the Fed accomplishes this by controlling the supply of money. Money, just like any other commodity can respond to supply and demand. If there is a lot of money in the economy, interest rates will drop because banks will have an easier time of procuring money to loan. However, having more money in the economy encourages inflation because the value of the currency is lowered by increased supply.

If you want to understand how the Fed manages to expand or contract the supply of money, we need to first understand a few key concepts. The first is partial reserve banking. It was long ago that banks discovered that not every person needed their cash at any given time. It was thus that banks could loan money that technically they didn’t have on reserve. In the US, banks are required to maintain a 10% reserve which means they can loan out 10 times the amount they have on reserve. (This is often referred to as ‘banker’s reach’.)

Next you need to understand what a treasury bill is. A treasury bill is a promise issued to the buyer by the federal government to give you the maturation price of the bill on the maturation date. The bill is always sold at a discount rate, that is a rate, less than the maturation date. For example, a treasury bill may be sold at a discount rate of $950, a maturity rate of $1000 and a maturity date which is a year from now. This means you can buy the bill at $950 and make $50 dollars profit when it matures in a year.

So we now have enough knowledge to work a simple example of how the system works. Suppose that the interest rate is currently 8%. Suppose too that there are 100 people who have $10 each. These 100 people each put $2 in the bank. The bank thus has $200 in reserves and due to partial reserve banking, they can make ten times that amount, some $2,000 in loans. This means they can make a loan of $20 per person.

People typically want to buy things that are 4 times the amount they have on hand. In housing the standard financing model is you must have 1/4 the purchase price in capital. So people with $10 typically want to make a major life purchase which would be $40, but as we see, the bank can easily lend everyone $20, but $40 would be hard to come by at a reasonable interest rate. Thus, people stop purchasing, the economy stalls and the Fed decides to step in.

The Fed does some research and discovers that if the lending rate reduces to 5%, then most people will be able to make the payments and will take out loans and start spending again. So the Fed set the TARGET rate to 5%. To reach this level, the Fed offers to buy a treasury bill the bank has on hand with a maturity value of $500. The bank accepts and now the bank has $700 in reserves. Recall that the bank is allowed to loan out 10 times the amount it has on reserve. So the bank can make $7000 dollars in loans or $70 dollars per person. Since the amount to loan out is plentiful the bank lowers its lending rate to 5% to entice people to take out loans.

It’s important to keep track of the total amount of money in the economy while all this occurs. We started with 100 people having $10 each. Thus there was $1000 in the economy. When the Fed purchased the treasury bill, it printed money to do so. So now there is another $500 dollars in the economy for a total of $1500. You may be scratching your head over the previous sentence, but this is the second part of the misnomer “Federal Reserve”. The Federal reserve is not federal and it doesn’t have any reserves. It prints money to make purchases. I don’t want this post to become a rant against the Fed so I’ll cut it short here and explain the other side of the coin: how the Fed contracts the supply of money.

So now in our moot world, everyone can take out a $30 loan to get the $40 item they’ve been dreaming of. However, one of the principles of a free market is that prices will rise to the maximum that the market will bear. As a result, since most people can afford the $40 item, the market starts charging $42 or $44. Slowly the price creeps up because the value of money has been decreased by an increased supply. In short we are experiencing inflation.

So the Fed sees this situation and decides to curb inflation by raising the target interest rate. By raising the target interest rate, the Fed makes money harder to get, more scarce and thus the market can’t bear higher prices, slowing spending and curbing inflation. To accomplish this, the Fed sells treasury bills. By selling treasury bills, banks that purchase them are forced to spend their reserves to make the purchase, thus pulling cash out of the economy. Recall that banks can loan 10 times the amount they have on reserve. By lowering the amount of cash banks have on reserve, the Fed restricts the bank’s ability to make loans. Since the bank has less money to loan, it must charge more interest to compensate, and the interest rates rise. The key point here is that the difference between the discount rate and the maturity rate must be paid for at some future rate. When the bank comes to collect on this treasury bill, the Fed must pay the bank the promised maturity price. If you have an eye for catching trends then you may have already guessed that the money to pay the difference comes from, yup, you guessed it, printed money.

In conclusion, the Fed controls the supply of money. It accomplishes this by buying and selling treasury bills on the common market. It’s important to remember that when the Fed buys treasury bills it does so with printed money. Also when the Fed issues treasury notes and those notes are redeemed, the difference owed to the purchaser is paid with printed money. This is called a fiat currency, or a currency based on credit — in this case the credit of the United States. It doesn’t take a Harvard ecomonist to realize that every time the Fed runs through one of these cycles of inflation and contraction, that the amount of money in the economy is increased. It is only a question of time before the Fed destroys the currency it relies upon by making it too common. This process is called devaluation. If you want to see devaluation in action, see this graph of the US dollar vs. the Euro over the past 5 years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=5y

Capturing the voice of the customer is difficult when it comes to web visitors.  They visit, the peruse, they leave.  Wouldn’t it be great if you could allow for your visitors to speak with you in real time?

Now you can.  Simple2Chat.com has added a widget which will allow you to do exactly that. 

http://www.simple2chat.com/embed.php

has instructions on how to generate a widget for your website. 

When a visitor wishes to start a conversation s/he can click on the widget on your website:

Simple2Chat.com Widget

You are notified in a tracking conversation:

Notification in tracking conversation

You can then click on that conversation and speak with your visitor in real time.

Response to Customer

All of this is free, anonymous, and doesn’t require anyone to install any software.

Pretty simple huh?  Shouldn’t everything be this easy?

I started a regime of recording myself as I treat the condition with herbal remedies because nothing my mainstream doctors have given me seems to work.

Here I take a stab at E Lucevan le Stelle.  By ’stab’ I likely mean a mortal blow to the beloved piece.  I hope my sinuses improve before I desecrate all music.

E Lucevan le Stelle (Tosca, Puccini) – Martin C. Winer

My latest pet project www.simple2chat.com seeks to make the world of chatting, conferencing and blogging simple and accessible.

I currently have 4 messenger clients on my desktop. I have different collections of friends on each. If I want to conference them all in, it’s nearly impossible. I want to be able to talk to them all instantaneously and easily. I don’t want to have them all install software and exchange usernames, adding each other to friends lists well into the night.

I just want to chat. www.simple2chat.com seeks to accomplish this. Upon visiting the site, a conversation is set up for you automatically. All you need do is pass this link around to your friends and you can chat instantly.

Comparing the alternatives for this type of service we have:

Messenger programs: Yahoo!/MSN/Google/Skype.
Pro’s: They offer rich services. They have web interfaces but you can only access people on their respective networks.
Con’s: Need to install programs, register, add users and you can only conference people who are registered.

Net Meeting Software:
Pro’s: Rich functionality including the ability to share screens.
Con’s: Can be costly and requires installation and registration

Adobe Connect Now:
Pro’s: very rich, no login for your guests, ability to share screen.
Con’s: Needs the flash player plugin which may not be installed on a public computer. Requires a login for the meeting initiator (why? don’t we all have enough logins?!). Only supports THREE (?!) meeting participants in the free version.

www.simple2chat.com
Pro’s: No login, no software to install, no plugins, simple. Users can share images and screenshots using provided instructions.
Con’s: No video. (By the way, have you seen 12 people try to video conference? If 1 can be choppy 12 are definitely choppy.) Yes, video is great, but it doesn’t leave a transcript of the meeting so someone ends up typing the important points anyways.

Admittedly, this is my own site, so I may be biased. Don’t take my word for it then. Visit www.itssoeasytochat.com and try it out for yourself.

Any fan of the film The Hunt for Red October will remember a discussion about the ‘Caterpillar Drive’ or Magneto Hydrodynamic Drive (MHD).  It’s sort of a jet engine for the water which electrifies the water (creating ions) and pushes them along using magnets.

You can build a simple MHD using nothing more than a battery, some wire, warm water, salt and pepper.  Here is a video of one I built.

SAFETY:  The bubbles coming off the water are hydrogen and oxygen gas.  Use in a well ventilated area, away from sparks.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-8OoP4pyfc]

Here is another one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trvd2XOIeXY]

Ahmadinejad wearing his trademark white jacket and pointing to the Farsi phrase Ma Mitavanim (We Can) on a blackboard.

Canadian Link:  http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/#clip185688

US Link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231561&title=reza-aslan

Reza Aslan was interviewed on the Daily Show on June 24, 2009 lauding the response of Barack Obama during the recent and ongoing revolution in Iran.  Aslan notes strong parallels to ‘79 noting that this revolution is likewise a battle for the future of Iran.  Starting at time index 4:48, Aslan applauds Obama’s response:  “Thank you God for President Barack Obama” says Aslan.

“Obama played this perfectly.  During his campaign Iran never left his mouth.  This worked to the disadvantage of Ahmadinejad’s because he couldn’t use his ‘America is going to attack any minute now’ rhetoric.”

Aslan notes that Ahmadinejad’s campaign slogan was “Ma Mitavanim” which is Persian for “Yes we can”.

Responding to opposition calls to make stronger statements or take stronger actions in regards to Iran Aslan warns:

“The US has a long sordid history of meddling in Iranian affairs. … If you want to pu and end to this movement, this revolution tomorrow, let’s listen to Bill Bennett, let’s listen to John McCain.”

Aslan recommends that the US continue its current approach.  “The best thing that we can do is shut up.”  He goes on to say that “Obama has changed the equation in that region.  He is taking the long view on issues, looking ahead 10 years from now.”

Aslan is certain that Iran will emerge a different country from what it is now, but he is concerned as to what form of change will come.  “Iran is on a precipice between North Korea and China; with isolation and militarization on one hand and a preservation of the oligarchies while opening to commerce and contact on the other.”

When asked what US citizens can do to help the revolution, he suggests encouraging and pressuring the EU and UN to act who do have influence in the region.  As for the US, he contends “you have to have a relationship with someone in order to punish them more.  … We have no influence there.  … We can’t punish them any more.  What are we going to do sanction them more?”

—

Reza Aslan’s most recent book is “How to Win a Cosmic War”:
http://www.rezaaslan.com/cosmicwar.html

I’ve long held a theory about homosexuality that a recent article lends credence to. I’ve examined homosexuality through a political-societal lens in this posting:

http://mwiner.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-war-of-the-words-are-heterosexual-monogamists-the-patent-holders-on-marriage/

In this posting, I’d like to examine homosexuality through the lens of evolutionary biology. You see, those who condemn homosexuality do so by thumping on two texts, the bible and National Geographic. Bible thumpers thump and then leaf to Leviticus 18:22 which reads: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.” I invite such individuals to glance at Numbers 15:32-36 which states that those who profane the sabbath ought to be publicly stoned. However, at least in the case of bible thumpers I can concede that the text does condemn homosexuality.

In the case of those who open up their National Geographic and point to pictures of rutting and mating animals and say, “it’s not nature’s way”, they’ve just got it wrong. It is Nature’s way; they just lack an understanding of nature and specifically evolution. Homosexuality has existed in nature for eons, but the question, from an evolutionary standpoint is: “How?” Standard evolution deals with selective pressures which make certain individuals more successful than others in reproduction. As a result the genes that contributed to this success are passed on preferentially over less ‘fit’ genes.

Homosexuality poses a conundrum then to anyone who lacks another piece in the evolution puzzle: Kin Selection. It is possible to pass your genes on to the next generation without directly reproducing. You can accomplish this by helping your kin as much as possible. By helping your kin, who carry part of your genetic code, you can preferentially increase the survivability and reproductive success of your kin. This mechanism was proposed by W. D. Hamilton in the 1960’s when explaining the evolution of altruism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton#Hamilton.27s_rule

Since I am Canadian, I learned about the evolution of altruism using the example of our good old Canadian Beaver. When a beaver detects danger, such as a wolf, it slaps its tail loudly against the water to warn its peers of the impending danger. This behaviour attracts attention to itself, making it a target for predation. Thus, how did this behaviour evolve, considering that it lowers the reproductive success of the warning beaver? The answer is that the beaver’s peers are relatives. Thus even if the beaver becomes the wolf’s lunch, the beaver’s genes can live on via the reproductive success of its relatives.

Arriving back at our original topic of consideration, how then can homosexuality have been allowed to survive the process of natural selection? I’ve long suspected that the notion of kin selection might be at work here too. I’ve long thought that if perhaps homosexual individuals helped in child rearing and caring, then their genes may have been passed indirectly through the offspring of the kin they assisted. Recently I chanced upon a study which proposes exactly this explanation:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080208_gaygene

This study of a Samoan homosexuals suggests that homosexuals do indeed assist in child rearing. It’s important to note that similar studies have been conducted in the West but have failed to find such a correlation. It is proposed that the Samoan culture more closely replicates our ancient lifestyle and that the modern (western) biases and condemnation of homosexuality may be to blame for the failures of the western studies.

In conclusion, what is most striking, yet perhaps not blaringly obvious from this study is that opposition to homosexuality comes from those appealing to old sources such as the bible or appeals to nature’s longstanding order. However, this study shows that, at least in evolutionary time scales, the bias against homosexuality is a modern invention.