Here it comes, the Inconceivable Prime Number
I learned today that the largest prime number ever discovered was discovered recently. A prime number is an integer that is not -1, 0, or 1, and has no factors other than itself and 1. Examples are 2, 3, 5, 7, and 97. The newly discovered prime number is 220,996,011 - 1. This means multiply 2 by itself 20,996,001 times and subtract 1. The result has 6,320,430 digits. This is getting to be really huge.
When I was a child, I learned about prime numbers such as 2127 - 1, which can fit on a single line of print, as being the biggest. This is a scientific number. If you click on that link, you get my classification of numbers into six categories: counting, statistical, scientific, literary, inconceivable, and indescribable. In addition, I subdivide literary numbers into poem numbers, novel numbers, and encyclopedia numbers. As I grew older, the largest prime number became a poem number, and once computers got into the act, the largest prime quickly became a novel number. The prime that was discovered today is on the verge of becoming an encyclopedia number, which means, printed out, it could fit a small encyclopedia.
The number was discovered by 200,000 or so computers acting in parallel. Many people have connected their computers to a site that computes these numbers, using the people's own computer to do the computations. The technique has been used before to discover what would be much more earth-shaking, namely extraterrestrial Life, by analyzing the data from Aricebo.
As computers get better and faster, and more and more people are willing to get involved, the day may come when the largest prime number will be inconceivable. When that happens, they can't print it out or count it out; there is not enough time in a lifetime to do it. This happens when it exceeds 20 billion digits. So here it comes! The Inconceivable Prime Number.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/12/11
Hyperflu Emergency
I had blogged yesterday that the hypermedia is hyping up the flu epidemic too much. This has resulted in some interesting results today. First of all, the authorities now say the flu season will not be much different than in past years, even though it has been reported in all 50 states (well, so has the common cold). Secondly, in the Richmond area, it has caused an "external emergency". Specifically, so many people have arrived in hospitals sick with flu that it has filled every bed in the Richmond area! They are canceling all but emergency surgeries, and using a system by which a hospital is selected for a person based on whether that hospital has room. To me this is serious. What if Isabel wood should hit a tree chopper and cause him to have serious injuries? Where does he go? Does he just lay there and die? And guess what is also happening now? The hypermedia is now hyping the other way! They are urging those only moderately sick and under 65 (not 50) now to go to the hospital.
I think a "lessons learned" review of this crisis could contain a recommendation to forbid the media from reporting on any illness except those which have been approved by a hospital board. The media need to act more responsibly.
I had blogged yesterday that the hypermedia is hyping up the flu epidemic too much. This has resulted in some interesting results today. First of all, the authorities now say the flu season will not be much different than in past years, even though it has been reported in all 50 states (well, so has the common cold). Secondly, in the Richmond area, it has caused an "external emergency". Specifically, so many people have arrived in hospitals sick with flu that it has filled every bed in the Richmond area! They are canceling all but emergency surgeries, and using a system by which a hospital is selected for a person based on whether that hospital has room. To me this is serious. What if Isabel wood should hit a tree chopper and cause him to have serious injuries? Where does he go? Does he just lay there and die? And guess what is also happening now? The hypermedia is now hyping the other way! They are urging those only moderately sick and under 65 (not 50) now to go to the hospital.
I think a "lessons learned" review of this crisis could contain a recommendation to forbid the media from reporting on any illness except those which have been approved by a hospital board. The media need to act more responsibly.
Nader won't do as well this time
I see that Nader is again running for President. The last time he did that, in 2000, he could be said to have thrown the election from Gore to Bush. Nader took only 2% in Florida, but that was much greater than the margin of difference between Gore and Bush. Nader threw Florida from Gore to Bush, and threw the whole Presidency that way as well.
So now he endangers the Democrats' 2004 challenger to Bush, probably Howard Dean. Or does he? What happens if he were to make a major run for the President and get at least 5% of the vote? According to the Lichtman key theory, it would hurt Bush, as it would cost Bush the third party key (3DP). But it would also help Bush, as Nader would take almost all of his votes away from the Democratic candidate. That's a contradiction. This contradiction shows that my "what happens" above can't happen, and so therefore Nader will have little effect on the upcoming election. In my view, he may be lucky to get 1%. There is more of an imperative to stop Bush now than there was in 1999 and 2000, and so I expect that many in the Nader camp in 2000 will vote for the Democrat this time.
I see that Nader is again running for President. The last time he did that, in 2000, he could be said to have thrown the election from Gore to Bush. Nader took only 2% in Florida, but that was much greater than the margin of difference between Gore and Bush. Nader threw Florida from Gore to Bush, and threw the whole Presidency that way as well.
So now he endangers the Democrats' 2004 challenger to Bush, probably Howard Dean. Or does he? What happens if he were to make a major run for the President and get at least 5% of the vote? According to the Lichtman key theory, it would hurt Bush, as it would cost Bush the third party key (3DP). But it would also help Bush, as Nader would take almost all of his votes away from the Democratic candidate. That's a contradiction. This contradiction shows that my "what happens" above can't happen, and so therefore Nader will have little effect on the upcoming election. In my view, he may be lucky to get 1%. There is more of an imperative to stop Bush now than there was in 1999 and 2000, and so I expect that many in the Nader camp in 2000 will vote for the Democrat this time.
2003/12/10
Abercrombie and Fitch Advertising
I had heard that Abercrombie and Fitch, an old prestigious catalog apparel company, was advertising its products with "sex". They would show pictures of young men and women with no shirt or no clothes on lying next to each other, and one case they show a group nude scene, with the title "group sex". The idea that they had is that would help sell their products to young people. Many people object to that way of involving sex in their catalog. That's really up to the viewer. Sex is a part of nature, of our nature. The problem I have with Abercrombie and Fitch's using sex in their advertising is that sex has nothing to do with the clothes they sell. They are bringing up something irrelevant.
Actually, they are bringing up something that defeats their purpose. They sell clothes, so why do they show people without clothes on? That makes as much sense as a laundromat in a nudist colony. If you want to sell a shirt, you need to show someone wearing a shirt, not a shirtless hunk. So they should show people wearing clothes, and not just any clothes. They should show them wearing Abercrombie and Fitch clothes. That's how they sell their product.
I had heard that Abercrombie and Fitch, an old prestigious catalog apparel company, was advertising its products with "sex". They would show pictures of young men and women with no shirt or no clothes on lying next to each other, and one case they show a group nude scene, with the title "group sex". The idea that they had is that would help sell their products to young people. Many people object to that way of involving sex in their catalog. That's really up to the viewer. Sex is a part of nature, of our nature. The problem I have with Abercrombie and Fitch's using sex in their advertising is that sex has nothing to do with the clothes they sell. They are bringing up something irrelevant.
Actually, they are bringing up something that defeats their purpose. They sell clothes, so why do they show people without clothes on? That makes as much sense as a laundromat in a nudist colony. If you want to sell a shirt, you need to show someone wearing a shirt, not a shirtless hunk. So they should show people wearing clothes, and not just any clothes. They should show them wearing Abercrombie and Fitch clothes. That's how they sell their product.
Flu Hype
It's flu season and some flu bugs are going around that are different from usual. So what does the media do? They hype it up. But this is a case where the hypermedia could be doing harm.
Some flu bugs are around early this fall. This is a potential danger, so perhaps people should be given the option of taking flu shots. The media hypes it up, however, and says that everyone should get one as soon as possible, even though the most dangerous strain is so recent that the vaccine does not protect against it. So what happens? A huge herd of people stream into doctors' offices and clinics and request the flu shots. So what happens? Naturally. It runs out. Now the people who may need it now won't get it. And there is another danger with this hyping it up. Many people are getting flu shots that probably don't need it. They don't get the flu often or they will have only mild or moderate symptoms if they do get it. I remember back in the 1970s that the hypermedia hyped up the Swine Flu to the level of a Major Scare. Everyone went out and got the swine flu shots, including myself. Turns out the epidemic was a bust. Only two or three people got the swine flu, and many more than that got a really dangerous side effect: Guillian-Barre syndrome, an inflammation of the nerves that can cause paralysis.
So I am both skeptical and apprehensive about this hypering of the flu this season. I hope we don't have any Guillain-Barre syndromes this time around.
It's flu season and some flu bugs are going around that are different from usual. So what does the media do? They hype it up. But this is a case where the hypermedia could be doing harm.
Some flu bugs are around early this fall. This is a potential danger, so perhaps people should be given the option of taking flu shots. The media hypes it up, however, and says that everyone should get one as soon as possible, even though the most dangerous strain is so recent that the vaccine does not protect against it. So what happens? A huge herd of people stream into doctors' offices and clinics and request the flu shots. So what happens? Naturally. It runs out. Now the people who may need it now won't get it. And there is another danger with this hyping it up. Many people are getting flu shots that probably don't need it. They don't get the flu often or they will have only mild or moderate symptoms if they do get it. I remember back in the 1970s that the hypermedia hyped up the Swine Flu to the level of a Major Scare. Everyone went out and got the swine flu shots, including myself. Turns out the epidemic was a bust. Only two or three people got the swine flu, and many more than that got a really dangerous side effect: Guillian-Barre syndrome, an inflammation of the nerves that can cause paralysis.
So I am both skeptical and apprehensive about this hypering of the flu this season. I hope we don't have any Guillain-Barre syndromes this time around.
2003/12/09
Bloggerrhea
I am using a benefit of Blogger right now, namely the mailback feature. When I submit an entry on this blog, Blogger will send me an email containing the text of my blog. I thought that would be helpful. But Blogger is doing it too much. I submitted only three blogs tonight, but Blogger responded with seven emails! Why do I need so many emails after I blog something. I send something, I get an email; OK, that confirms that I blogged successfully. I get another email, alright already, Blogger. I get the message.
I am using a benefit of Blogger right now, namely the mailback feature. When I submit an entry on this blog, Blogger will send me an email containing the text of my blog. I thought that would be helpful. But Blogger is doing it too much. I submitted only three blogs tonight, but Blogger responded with seven emails! Why do I need so many emails after I blog something. I send something, I get an email; OK, that confirms that I blogged successfully. I get another email, alright already, Blogger. I get the message.
Earthquake in Virginia
Today I felt the strongest earthquake I have ever experienced. It happened at 2003 December 9 1559. I was at my office, and was preparing an email to send to the other members of my branch. I got the email ready, and hit "Send". Instantly the entire place started shaking back and forth. It did so for about five or six back and forth movements, and wondered what was shaking the building. My office is above the loading dock, so I wondered if something heavy was unloaded from a truck on the dock. But it seemed too heavy for that.
Others in my office noticed it, too, and I wondered if htose in the far side of my office had felt it. I went outside and saw nothing unusual. I had thought several; possibilities: earthquake, terrorist attack, ordnance exploding (I work near where military weapons are discharged occasionally), or a major accident below on the loading dock. The trip outside showed that it wasn't something at the dock, and the sky was clear except for normal clouds, eliminating the ordnance, which would have to be as strong as a MOAB to cause what I felt. I called my wife and found out that she had not felt anything; she had just arrived home from the grocery store. I wanted to call someone to see if this was local or widespread.
I went inside and saw a TV screen on a local Richmond station. They were reporting a mysterious shaking. If it were a terrorist attack, the national stations would be playing. To be felt here with nothing unusual looking here, it would have to have been a nuke, and the TV would be reporting national news. I therefore concluded that it was an earthquake. I looked earthquakes up on the Internet and found that what I experienced was IV-V on the Mercalli scale, and hence R4.5 on the Richter scale. Sure enough, later news reports said that it was indeed an R4.5 quake, and it was centered near Provost, Virginia, near the Powhatan wildlife refuge.
This was by far the most powerful earthquake I have ever experienced. I had experienced only one other earthquake, on 1968 November 9 in Evanston, Illinois, when I was a graduate student at Northwestern University. I was lying on my bed then and felt a floating sensation, and thought that was caused by my being somewhat drowsy. I found out several hours later that it was an R5.3 earthquake with an epicenter in southern Illinois, and that it had caused numerous reports of damage in Missouri and southern Illinois. I also was in an R4.0 earthquake in the Los Angeles area on 1991 July 9 or so, but did not feel it because I was in a car at the time.
But this one was the strongest I have ever felt. This year has really been one for natural disasters: Hurricane Isabel, a tornado five days later, and now an earthquake, plus huge quantities of rain. I suppose next will be a huge snowstorm.
Today I felt the strongest earthquake I have ever experienced. It happened at 2003 December 9 1559. I was at my office, and was preparing an email to send to the other members of my branch. I got the email ready, and hit "Send". Instantly the entire place started shaking back and forth. It did so for about five or six back and forth movements, and wondered what was shaking the building. My office is above the loading dock, so I wondered if something heavy was unloaded from a truck on the dock. But it seemed too heavy for that.
Others in my office noticed it, too, and I wondered if htose in the far side of my office had felt it. I went outside and saw nothing unusual. I had thought several; possibilities: earthquake, terrorist attack, ordnance exploding (I work near where military weapons are discharged occasionally), or a major accident below on the loading dock. The trip outside showed that it wasn't something at the dock, and the sky was clear except for normal clouds, eliminating the ordnance, which would have to be as strong as a MOAB to cause what I felt. I called my wife and found out that she had not felt anything; she had just arrived home from the grocery store. I wanted to call someone to see if this was local or widespread.
I went inside and saw a TV screen on a local Richmond station. They were reporting a mysterious shaking. If it were a terrorist attack, the national stations would be playing. To be felt here with nothing unusual looking here, it would have to have been a nuke, and the TV would be reporting national news. I therefore concluded that it was an earthquake. I looked earthquakes up on the Internet and found that what I experienced was IV-V on the Mercalli scale, and hence R4.5 on the Richter scale. Sure enough, later news reports said that it was indeed an R4.5 quake, and it was centered near Provost, Virginia, near the Powhatan wildlife refuge.
This was by far the most powerful earthquake I have ever experienced. I had experienced only one other earthquake, on 1968 November 9 in Evanston, Illinois, when I was a graduate student at Northwestern University. I was lying on my bed then and felt a floating sensation, and thought that was caused by my being somewhat drowsy. I found out several hours later that it was an R5.3 earthquake with an epicenter in southern Illinois, and that it had caused numerous reports of damage in Missouri and southern Illinois. I also was in an R4.0 earthquake in the Los Angeles area on 1991 July 9 or so, but did not feel it because I was in a car at the time.
But this one was the strongest I have ever felt. This year has really been one for natural disasters: Hurricane Isabel, a tornado five days later, and now an earthquake, plus huge quantities of rain. I suppose next will be a huge snowstorm.
We know what we don't know what we don't know what we know
I heard recently that the most abstruse language used by a politician award was given to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for this comment: "Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." I have a feeling that there is a lot that Mr. Rumsfeld does not know that he does not know about. Or maybe I don't know what I am talking about, or that I know that there is something I don't know about what Mr. Rumsfeld says, but maybe I really don't know that and maybe I know something that he does not know about what I don't know about how much people in Mr. Rumsfeld's department really know or don't know about each other. But I know this for certain: Mr. Rumsfeld's comment certainly had some people going about dizzy with knowing circles running above their heads.
I heard recently that the most abstruse language used by a politician award was given to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for this comment: "Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." I have a feeling that there is a lot that Mr. Rumsfeld does not know that he does not know about. Or maybe I don't know what I am talking about, or that I know that there is something I don't know about what Mr. Rumsfeld says, but maybe I really don't know that and maybe I know something that he does not know about what I don't know about how much people in Mr. Rumsfeld's department really know or don't know about each other. But I know this for certain: Mr. Rumsfeld's comment certainly had some people going about dizzy with knowing circles running above their heads.
He did it again
Update on the phone-spamming Delegate. I got a call from a woman in his office explaining to me that he was trying to find out from the electorate how they felt about taxes. Then, incredibly, at 1933 this evening, he did it again. I got a computer call from the same 703 area code. If he wants input from me on taxes, he needs to do it by US Postal mail or by a call from a human on the telephone, not a computer call on the telephone. If I get the call again, I will block the 703 number using Call Block if I can. In the meantime I will consider this incident the next time an election comes around in deciding who I will vote for.
Update on the phone-spamming Delegate. I got a call from a woman in his office explaining to me that he was trying to find out from the electorate how they felt about taxes. Then, incredibly, at 1933 this evening, he did it again. I got a computer call from the same 703 area code. If he wants input from me on taxes, he needs to do it by US Postal mail or by a call from a human on the telephone, not a computer call on the telephone. If I get the call again, I will block the 703 number using Call Block if I can. In the meantime I will consider this incident the next time an election comes around in deciding who I will vote for.
2003/12/08
Computer Call from State Congressman
This evening, at 2003 December 8 7:28 pm, I received a call from a computer saying that he was my State Delegate taking a survey of the people in my district. He has thereby used the same tactics that spammers and telemarketers use. To me, when a political candidate resorts to computer calls for any purpose, he degrades his candidacy, and when an elected official does the same, he earns my disrespect for him. If he or his staff wants to talk to me, then he should call me in person, not by computer. Contacting by computer shows he does not care about me. This is even more so since the telephone number he called from was from the 703 area code; his district is in the 757 and 804 area codes
It is possible the call did not come from his office. If that's the case, then there is someone out there stealing his identity and impersonating him, and that someone needs to be stopped.
I have emailed him about this matter, and have emailed his Democratic opponents as well. I hope that he discontinues the practice of trying to phone me by computer without talking to me by person.
This evening, at 2003 December 8 7:28 pm, I received a call from a computer saying that he was my State Delegate taking a survey of the people in my district. He has thereby used the same tactics that spammers and telemarketers use. To me, when a political candidate resorts to computer calls for any purpose, he degrades his candidacy, and when an elected official does the same, he earns my disrespect for him. If he or his staff wants to talk to me, then he should call me in person, not by computer. Contacting by computer shows he does not care about me. This is even more so since the telephone number he called from was from the 703 area code; his district is in the 757 and 804 area codes
It is possible the call did not come from his office. If that's the case, then there is someone out there stealing his identity and impersonating him, and that someone needs to be stopped.
I have emailed him about this matter, and have emailed his Democratic opponents as well. I hope that he discontinues the practice of trying to phone me by computer without talking to me by person.
2003/12/07
Blogger Trouble
This morning I composed the blog "Religion in Computers", and I tried to blog it but couldn't. Instead, I got "this page cannot be displayed" when I tried to go to the Blogger site. So I waited until I got home from church, but still "this page cannot be displayed". I tested all combinations of ISP and computer and found that there was most likely something wrong with Blogger. Later on in the day, it came back up, but it would not let me blog anything. Finally now I can blog. There have been problems with Blogger before. I hope Google can do something about it - Google is reliable. If they can't and the difficulties increase, I may find another place to blog.
This morning I composed the blog "Religion in Computers", and I tried to blog it but couldn't. Instead, I got "this page cannot be displayed" when I tried to go to the Blogger site. So I waited until I got home from church, but still "this page cannot be displayed". I tested all combinations of ISP and computer and found that there was most likely something wrong with Blogger. Later on in the day, it came back up, but it would not let me blog anything. Finally now I can blog. There have been problems with Blogger before. I hope Google can do something about it - Google is reliable. If they can't and the difficulties increase, I may find another place to blog.
Religion in Computers
Today I found on the Internet an article about this device, a "3dfx Voodoo 1 4mb PCI w/o Cable 3D Accelerator" It is a graphics accelerator card. But note that the brand name has the name of a religion in it. Why did they do that? We don't have Christian hard drives, Islamic monitors, Buddhist RAM or Wiccan mice. So why do we have Voodoo Accelerators? Voodoo is the name of a valid religion, one of the original religions in western Africa. There is a lot of hype in our culture about Voodoo, and maybe that is what got this card manufacturer to call its accelerators Voodoo. But if they would not call a hard drive Episcopalian or a CD-ROM drive Unitarian, then they should not call a graphics accelerator Voodoo. 3dfx should find another name.
Today I found on the Internet an article about this device, a "3dfx Voodoo 1 4mb PCI w/o Cable 3D Accelerator" It is a graphics accelerator card. But note that the brand name has the name of a religion in it. Why did they do that? We don't have Christian hard drives, Islamic monitors, Buddhist RAM or Wiccan mice. So why do we have Voodoo Accelerators? Voodoo is the name of a valid religion, one of the original religions in western Africa. There is a lot of hype in our culture about Voodoo, and maybe that is what got this card manufacturer to call its accelerators Voodoo. But if they would not call a hard drive Episcopalian or a CD-ROM drive Unitarian, then they should not call a graphics accelerator Voodoo. 3dfx should find another name.
2003/12/02
OO Programming Language Developers need to learn English
One of the principles of English is that proper nouns and adjectives are capitalized. For example, "car" is not capitalized for it is a common noun. It describes a car in general. However, "Toyota #137245" is capitalized because this is a specific instance of a car. It is a proper noun. The word "person" is not capitalized because it is a general word for any person. The words "George Walker Bush" are capitalized because they describe a specific person.
Object Oriented programming language developers have come up with a similar concept, namely that of a class. A class is a type of structure that is defined and generic, representing any old thing in the class. An instance of a class is a specific example of the class. An example of a class would be "cat". It would have attributes such as weight, breed, and the pitch of its meow. A specific instance of this class might be Boots. His attributes would then be 15 lb, tuxedo kitty, and high-pitched. I suppose you recognize this as exactly the same concept as that of common noun and proper noun in English.
Well if so, then why do OO programmers do it the other way around? In English we would say:
My cat is named Boots.
But in an OO language such as C# or Java, we would say:
Cat boots = new Cat;
That's just the reverse of how English does it! All of the books I have seen capitalize classes and lowercase instances. Why? Why can't we be consistent and why can't we notice OO programming in our everyday language when it exists? When I program, I am going to write
cat Boots = new cat;
and that will be that.
One of the principles of English is that proper nouns and adjectives are capitalized. For example, "car" is not capitalized for it is a common noun. It describes a car in general. However, "Toyota #137245" is capitalized because this is a specific instance of a car. It is a proper noun. The word "person" is not capitalized because it is a general word for any person. The words "George Walker Bush" are capitalized because they describe a specific person.
Object Oriented programming language developers have come up with a similar concept, namely that of a class. A class is a type of structure that is defined and generic, representing any old thing in the class. An instance of a class is a specific example of the class. An example of a class would be "cat". It would have attributes such as weight, breed, and the pitch of its meow. A specific instance of this class might be Boots. His attributes would then be 15 lb, tuxedo kitty, and high-pitched. I suppose you recognize this as exactly the same concept as that of common noun and proper noun in English.
Well if so, then why do OO programmers do it the other way around? In English we would say:
My cat is named Boots.
But in an OO language such as C# or Java, we would say:
Cat boots = new Cat;
That's just the reverse of how English does it! All of the books I have seen capitalize classes and lowercase instances. Why? Why can't we be consistent and why can't we notice OO programming in our everyday language when it exists? When I program, I am going to write
cat Boots = new cat;
and that will be that.
Oil Shortage Jokes
Today I hit upon an interesting picture on the Oil Crisis site. It shows the next two models of SUVs. The first is one that comes with its own portable drilling rig. The other is the DonCar. You need to click on that to see what a DonCar is. I also like the couple coming into a back to ask for a loan to fill the SUV's gas tank. What other Oil Shortage jokes can we come up with?
The Oil Shortage Traffic Light. A policeman at the center of an intersection yelling "Red!!", "Green!!", "Yellow!!".
The Oil Shortage Traffic Cop Uniform Fashion. A suit that is one-third bright phosphorescent red, one-third phosphorescent yellow, and one-third phosphorescent green. Four such police officers form a square and turn at appropriate times to show the appropriate color to the bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies that want to cross.
The Oil Shortage One-Person Airliner. A long-necked swan. You just hop on him, tell him "fly", and you're on your way!
The Oil Shortage Gasoline Price Sign. Each day the price goes up by zero. That's right, zero. They just add a zero onto the end of the price. Today's it's $3, tomorrow it's $30, the next day, $300 and so forth.
I suppose you can come up with other possibilities. We all like to laugh at ourselves at times, and we need some levity while considering the impact of the future shortage of petroleum which we know will come sooner or later, maybe around 2011 or so.
Today I hit upon an interesting picture on the Oil Crisis site. It shows the next two models of SUVs. The first is one that comes with its own portable drilling rig. The other is the DonCar. You need to click on that to see what a DonCar is. I also like the couple coming into a back to ask for a loan to fill the SUV's gas tank. What other Oil Shortage jokes can we come up with?
The Oil Shortage Traffic Light. A policeman at the center of an intersection yelling "Red!!", "Green!!", "Yellow!!".
The Oil Shortage Traffic Cop Uniform Fashion. A suit that is one-third bright phosphorescent red, one-third phosphorescent yellow, and one-third phosphorescent green. Four such police officers form a square and turn at appropriate times to show the appropriate color to the bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies that want to cross.
The Oil Shortage One-Person Airliner. A long-necked swan. You just hop on him, tell him "fly", and you're on your way!
The Oil Shortage Gasoline Price Sign. Each day the price goes up by zero. That's right, zero. They just add a zero onto the end of the price. Today's it's $3, tomorrow it's $30, the next day, $300 and so forth.
I suppose you can come up with other possibilities. We all like to laugh at ourselves at times, and we need some levity while considering the impact of the future shortage of petroleum which we know will come sooner or later, maybe around 2011 or so.
Abstract Wars
I read that the official national military strategy of the US includes the principle, "The enemy is terrorism." Whaaa??? How can our enemy be an abstract concept? There are no guns, no grenades, no rocket launchers, no artillery shells, and certainly no weapons of mass destruction that are effective against an abstract concept, for such does not exist as material objects in our world. It's like holding a non-abelian group up at gunpoint. Or holding the number 666 up at gunpoint.
Let's stop warring against terrorism and see if we can control these violent acts by (3) defending ourselves against terrorist acts, (2) getting rid of terrorists, and especially (1) ensuring by our behavior and cooperation with other nations and people that there are no terrorists in the world to begin with.
I read that the official national military strategy of the US includes the principle, "The enemy is terrorism." Whaaa??? How can our enemy be an abstract concept? There are no guns, no grenades, no rocket launchers, no artillery shells, and certainly no weapons of mass destruction that are effective against an abstract concept, for such does not exist as material objects in our world. It's like holding a non-abelian group up at gunpoint. Or holding the number 666 up at gunpoint.
Let's stop warring against terrorism and see if we can control these violent acts by (3) defending ourselves against terrorist acts, (2) getting rid of terrorists, and especially (1) ensuring by our behavior and cooperation with other nations and people that there are no terrorists in the world to begin with.
2003/11/30
A song a day
I came up with a new idea for journaling today. Call it songaling. This is that of composing a song each day. It is only about 16-32 measures long or so. The idea is that I would meditate briefly to get the songs that keep playing in my mind all the time and would influence what I would play out of my mind. Then I would play whatever comes up. Some interesting things have come up. After eight days, I have three rather pensive pieces, a Latin dance, a majestic composition sounding like a graduation song or a national anthem, a really weird piece, a blues number, and a 5/4 jig. The Latin number was inspired by my seeing a news segment on people who visit Cuba. Perhaps I could call it "What's so bad about Cuba?" or "¿Cuál es tan malo sobre Cuba?" I have put the anthem-like song on line because it is so inspiring; it is my Song of 2003 November 26. Click on the name to play it.
I don't know how long I can keep this up, but it provides a wide repertoire of my own music, some of which can serve as preludes at my church for instance, and if I continue it over a year, I will have written 366 compositions.
I came up with a new idea for journaling today. Call it songaling. This is that of composing a song each day. It is only about 16-32 measures long or so. The idea is that I would meditate briefly to get the songs that keep playing in my mind all the time and would influence what I would play out of my mind. Then I would play whatever comes up. Some interesting things have come up. After eight days, I have three rather pensive pieces, a Latin dance, a majestic composition sounding like a graduation song or a national anthem, a really weird piece, a blues number, and a 5/4 jig. The Latin number was inspired by my seeing a news segment on people who visit Cuba. Perhaps I could call it "What's so bad about Cuba?" or "¿Cuál es tan malo sobre Cuba?" I have put the anthem-like song on line because it is so inspiring; it is my Song of 2003 November 26. Click on the name to play it.
I don't know how long I can keep this up, but it provides a wide repertoire of my own music, some of which can serve as preludes at my church for instance, and if I continue it over a year, I will have written 366 compositions.
2003/11/25
My Choice after the Debates
Well, it looks like the Democrats are at it again. They debated each other in Iowa over the weekend, with Lieberman absent, and Kerry and Edwards in Washington, ready to vote anytime on the Medicare bill. I watched the replay of the debates to determine which I like best. There were some good moments.
Ramsey Clark named incident after incident where George Dubya Bush turned off people both in this country and out and concluded that "He has not learned how to get along with others."
Dennis Kucinich emphasized that if it was illegal to go in there in the first place then it is illegal to stay there, and he pulled up a Washington Times (a Republican-leaning newspaper!) and showed four whole pages of pictures of servicemen that have lost their lives in Iraq.
Howard Dean said it was time to slow the tempo of the debates after Kerry kept hammering him on the Medicare theme and how Dean pushed through cuts in the Vermont legislature when he was governor.
Carol Moseley Brown said it was time to take the "Men Only" sign off the White House Door.
So which ones do I like now? Keep in mind that I would prefer even last place on this list to Bush and that if it came to a last-place to Bush contest for the Presidency, I would vote for last place easily. With that in mind, here is my preference:
1. Dick Gephardt. He is one of the older candidates, and it shows. He shows the best experience of any of the candidates. He has been through it all and apparently knows how to use that knowledge to help improve the lot of us all.
2. Tom Kucinich. He looks like one of these scrappy young candidates, but I like what he has to say. He voted against the war in Iraq, even while other Democrats were voting for it, and he expresses a world view rather than a parochial American view.
3. Howard Dean. I have seen some flaws in him, but he may be the best chance to defeat Bush next November. He was my choice earlier, and clearly expresses a choice separate from the President.
4. Joe Lieberman. He, like Gephardt, shows a lot of experience with the government. However, his being Jewish may be a liability. He will need to be careful not to show any favoritism for Israel and to show to Arabs that he is on their side as well as the side of Israel - a hard act to pull off. From what I have seen, he will be able to do this.
5. Al Sharpton. This candidate gets points for being more expressive with his beliefs, more so than with the other candidates. He expresses the same points as the others, which I mostly agree with, but he does it more forcefully. I think if he gets elected he will get things done but may have to tone down some of his passion.
6. Ramsey Clark. He expressed a belief in God in these talks, making me think he may not support such issues as taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance before allowing it in the schools. His initial waffling on the Iraq war concerns me a little. His background is that of a military general, which may not go well as the chief executive of a civilian government. He may have some charisma but not enough to topple the challenger-charisma Lichtman key.
7. Tom Edwards. He does not seem to offer anything unique that the other candidates don't have, and so as President he may be more cautious than some and let his Cabinet and Congress have more of a say than they would with a stronger President. He is said to have charisma, but in my opinion not enough to topple the challenger-charisma key.
8. John Kerry. I didn't care for his pressing Dean on the Medicare issues, and his initial support for attacking Iraq concerns me.
9. Carol Moseley Braun. She alone of the candidates would keep the soldiers in Iraq simply because we have them there. Al Sharpton offered a contrasting viewpoint.
And so there it is. I hope that Dean or Gephardt gets it, and that whoever it is will defeat Bush next November.
Well, it looks like the Democrats are at it again. They debated each other in Iowa over the weekend, with Lieberman absent, and Kerry and Edwards in Washington, ready to vote anytime on the Medicare bill. I watched the replay of the debates to determine which I like best. There were some good moments.
Ramsey Clark named incident after incident where George Dubya Bush turned off people both in this country and out and concluded that "He has not learned how to get along with others."
Dennis Kucinich emphasized that if it was illegal to go in there in the first place then it is illegal to stay there, and he pulled up a Washington Times (a Republican-leaning newspaper!) and showed four whole pages of pictures of servicemen that have lost their lives in Iraq.
Howard Dean said it was time to slow the tempo of the debates after Kerry kept hammering him on the Medicare theme and how Dean pushed through cuts in the Vermont legislature when he was governor.
Carol Moseley Brown said it was time to take the "Men Only" sign off the White House Door.
So which ones do I like now? Keep in mind that I would prefer even last place on this list to Bush and that if it came to a last-place to Bush contest for the Presidency, I would vote for last place easily. With that in mind, here is my preference:
1. Dick Gephardt. He is one of the older candidates, and it shows. He shows the best experience of any of the candidates. He has been through it all and apparently knows how to use that knowledge to help improve the lot of us all.
2. Tom Kucinich. He looks like one of these scrappy young candidates, but I like what he has to say. He voted against the war in Iraq, even while other Democrats were voting for it, and he expresses a world view rather than a parochial American view.
3. Howard Dean. I have seen some flaws in him, but he may be the best chance to defeat Bush next November. He was my choice earlier, and clearly expresses a choice separate from the President.
4. Joe Lieberman. He, like Gephardt, shows a lot of experience with the government. However, his being Jewish may be a liability. He will need to be careful not to show any favoritism for Israel and to show to Arabs that he is on their side as well as the side of Israel - a hard act to pull off. From what I have seen, he will be able to do this.
5. Al Sharpton. This candidate gets points for being more expressive with his beliefs, more so than with the other candidates. He expresses the same points as the others, which I mostly agree with, but he does it more forcefully. I think if he gets elected he will get things done but may have to tone down some of his passion.
6. Ramsey Clark. He expressed a belief in God in these talks, making me think he may not support such issues as taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance before allowing it in the schools. His initial waffling on the Iraq war concerns me a little. His background is that of a military general, which may not go well as the chief executive of a civilian government. He may have some charisma but not enough to topple the challenger-charisma Lichtman key.
7. Tom Edwards. He does not seem to offer anything unique that the other candidates don't have, and so as President he may be more cautious than some and let his Cabinet and Congress have more of a say than they would with a stronger President. He is said to have charisma, but in my opinion not enough to topple the challenger-charisma key.
8. John Kerry. I didn't care for his pressing Dean on the Medicare issues, and his initial support for attacking Iraq concerns me.
9. Carol Moseley Braun. She alone of the candidates would keep the soldiers in Iraq simply because we have them there. Al Sharpton offered a contrasting viewpoint.
And so there it is. I hope that Dean or Gephardt gets it, and that whoever it is will defeat Bush next November.
2003/11/23
The Greatest Decision
I heard documentaries and other stories about President John F. Kennedy's life and his assassination. What struck me about it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looking back at what Kennedy did, I conclude that he made one of the best decisions ever made by a US President. Further, in so doing, he turned back demands on him that could have likely meant my early death at age 17 - and maybe yours, through a nuclear holocaust.
The problem started when Nikita Khrushchev wanted to counteract the presence of missiles in Turkey and Europe that were pointed at his country, the Soviet Union. He made the impetuous decision to put missiles in Cuba with the intent of rectifying that balance, knowing full well that the US would react strongly to such an incursion. It turned out to be his biggest blunder. But he went ahead with it, and started building missiles in Cuba.
This was soon discovered by US spy planes - satellites were up but not the type that could take aerial photographs of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported this to Kennedy and said that there was only one way to handle this - invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. Kennedy did not want to do this. He felt that this could cause the Soviet Union to retaliate with nuclear missiles. In fact, there already were missiles in Cuba that could have hit US targets. He did not want to do something which might cause the world to explode in thermonuclear holocaust.
But he did not want to back down. To allow Soviet missiles in Cuba would have seriously damaged our security. So he wanted to stand up to the Soviets but not cause a nuclear showdown. An invasion was not the way. Neither was doing nothing. He found a way of standing up to the Soviets that had the best chance of dealing with the situation. He ordered a blockade of Cuba. This did two things: it told the Soviets to stop building missiles in Cuba or else; and because it took time for Soviet ships with equipment to get to Cuba, and this is what made the decision so great, it gave Khrushchev plenty of time to think about what he was doing. Just as the ships got to the brink of the blockade, sure enough, Khrushchev backed down, allowing a treaty to be formulated and signed. I feel it was one of the most brilliant decisions ever made by our Chief Executive. Another fine point of this decision is that Kennedy rejected the advice of his military. In his previous endeavor with the military, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the brand new President listened to the Joint Chiefs and created a big fiasco.
The decision also humiliated Khrushchev and exposed to the world his mistake. He paid for it a year later when the Kremlin threw him out as Party Boss. The decision by Kennedy was a courageous one to make. There still could have been a nuclear holocaust. But by doing what he did, he took the best chance of preserving the existence of our civilization, and it still exists in part because of him. Hope that we have more leaders and decisions like his in the future.
I heard documentaries and other stories about President John F. Kennedy's life and his assassination. What struck me about it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looking back at what Kennedy did, I conclude that he made one of the best decisions ever made by a US President. Further, in so doing, he turned back demands on him that could have likely meant my early death at age 17 - and maybe yours, through a nuclear holocaust.
The problem started when Nikita Khrushchev wanted to counteract the presence of missiles in Turkey and Europe that were pointed at his country, the Soviet Union. He made the impetuous decision to put missiles in Cuba with the intent of rectifying that balance, knowing full well that the US would react strongly to such an incursion. It turned out to be his biggest blunder. But he went ahead with it, and started building missiles in Cuba.
This was soon discovered by US spy planes - satellites were up but not the type that could take aerial photographs of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported this to Kennedy and said that there was only one way to handle this - invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. Kennedy did not want to do this. He felt that this could cause the Soviet Union to retaliate with nuclear missiles. In fact, there already were missiles in Cuba that could have hit US targets. He did not want to do something which might cause the world to explode in thermonuclear holocaust.
But he did not want to back down. To allow Soviet missiles in Cuba would have seriously damaged our security. So he wanted to stand up to the Soviets but not cause a nuclear showdown. An invasion was not the way. Neither was doing nothing. He found a way of standing up to the Soviets that had the best chance of dealing with the situation. He ordered a blockade of Cuba. This did two things: it told the Soviets to stop building missiles in Cuba or else; and because it took time for Soviet ships with equipment to get to Cuba, and this is what made the decision so great, it gave Khrushchev plenty of time to think about what he was doing. Just as the ships got to the brink of the blockade, sure enough, Khrushchev backed down, allowing a treaty to be formulated and signed. I feel it was one of the most brilliant decisions ever made by our Chief Executive. Another fine point of this decision is that Kennedy rejected the advice of his military. In his previous endeavor with the military, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the brand new President listened to the Joint Chiefs and created a big fiasco.
The decision also humiliated Khrushchev and exposed to the world his mistake. He paid for it a year later when the Kremlin threw him out as Party Boss. The decision by Kennedy was a courageous one to make. There still could have been a nuclear holocaust. But by doing what he did, he took the best chance of preserving the existence of our civilization, and it still exists in part because of him. Hope that we have more leaders and decisions like his in the future.
2003/11/22
Combating Spam is an International Problem
I heard recently that the house had passed an anti-spam bill. In particular, CNN said on its web page that "The House voted overwhelmingly Saturday for a bill to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do not spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail." This may seem like a good idea. Spam resembles telemarketing calls in that both come uninvited, frequently involve scams and fraud, and usually try to sell us something. A while ago a Do Not Call list was established. This is a listing of people who said that they do not want to be called by telemarketers. There are now 50 million or so people on this list. This means that if a telemarketer calls someone from the list he can be penalized for it. To me this seems like a good idea. If you sign up and someone calls you, just report it to the authorities.
So why not a Do Not Spam list? The intention is the same. A spammer must avoid email addresses in such a list when they send out their multimillion-recipient emails. But there are problems with this. There are many ways in which a spammer can avoid detection, more so than with telemarketers. He can misspell words, use gibberish in his message, use false return addresses, and hop from one email address and IP address to another to avoid detection. The telemarketer has a few such methods available, chiefly the "unavailable" appearing on a caller ID, but not as many as the spammer. The telemarketer is forced to speak personally over the phone to his targets, but the spammer does not need to contact anyone at all. In 5 seconds, if he is lucky, a telemarketer can call one person. In the same length of time, a spammer can spam tens of millions of people, simply by clicking a mouse. So a do not spam list is not as effective.
Further, the US Congress is the wrong place to start fighting spam. No US law, no presidential order or edict, absolutely no court subpoena, summons or warrants can do anything about foreigners spamming from overseas. Many spams I get are from domains .fr, .it, .tw, .pc, and so forth, meaning France, Italy, Taiwan, China, and so forth. No US law can do anything about people from these places for the US has no jurisdiction there. For spam to be truly controlled, it needs to be treated as an international problem. It needs to be brought up before the United Nations, and the UN should take steps to help its member countries fight spam worldwide, so that a spammer in Taiwan can be caught and tried for spamming the United States. Unless this problem is internationalized, it will never be solved.
I heard recently that the house had passed an anti-spam bill. In particular, CNN said on its web page that "The House voted overwhelmingly Saturday for a bill to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do not spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail." This may seem like a good idea. Spam resembles telemarketing calls in that both come uninvited, frequently involve scams and fraud, and usually try to sell us something. A while ago a Do Not Call list was established. This is a listing of people who said that they do not want to be called by telemarketers. There are now 50 million or so people on this list. This means that if a telemarketer calls someone from the list he can be penalized for it. To me this seems like a good idea. If you sign up and someone calls you, just report it to the authorities.
So why not a Do Not Spam list? The intention is the same. A spammer must avoid email addresses in such a list when they send out their multimillion-recipient emails. But there are problems with this. There are many ways in which a spammer can avoid detection, more so than with telemarketers. He can misspell words, use gibberish in his message, use false return addresses, and hop from one email address and IP address to another to avoid detection. The telemarketer has a few such methods available, chiefly the "unavailable" appearing on a caller ID, but not as many as the spammer. The telemarketer is forced to speak personally over the phone to his targets, but the spammer does not need to contact anyone at all. In 5 seconds, if he is lucky, a telemarketer can call one person. In the same length of time, a spammer can spam tens of millions of people, simply by clicking a mouse. So a do not spam list is not as effective.
Further, the US Congress is the wrong place to start fighting spam. No US law, no presidential order or edict, absolutely no court subpoena, summons or warrants can do anything about foreigners spamming from overseas. Many spams I get are from domains .fr, .it, .tw, .pc, and so forth, meaning France, Italy, Taiwan, China, and so forth. No US law can do anything about people from these places for the US has no jurisdiction there. For spam to be truly controlled, it needs to be treated as an international problem. It needs to be brought up before the United Nations, and the UN should take steps to help its member countries fight spam worldwide, so that a spammer in Taiwan can be caught and tried for spamming the United States. Unless this problem is internationalized, it will never be solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)