Wednesday, May 21, 2008
My Grandfather
My education into the world of knowledge was driven to a large extent my grandfather. On Sunday mornings as a child I would go over to my Grandparent’s apartment. It was furnished in a manner that was very comforting to me, in that it invited inquiry and gave off a sense of warmth. I loved the visits and relished the opportunities, often spending days before hand thinking about the future outing. A plethora of books filled the solarium (or patio as we called it in South Africa) of the apartment. Most of these books dealt with history, archaeology and the Bible. All of which were of course of great interest to my grandfather. It was obvious that he wanted to share this knowledge with me as he seemed to invite me to read the books and ask questions on the content. I took to this opportunity with zest. Questioning him on everything from the Population of the great cities to the origins of the Boer War. His answers were well thought and detailed. He spared me no simplicity in his explanation, seeking with each description to broaden my mind. I could feel myself grow, what I was receiving was invaluable. I would be forever hooked on the pursuit of knowledge.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Movies I have seen lately
Iron Man - It was much better than I expected it to be. Robert Downey Jr. was first rate in his performance, the tech gadgets were neat and the story line, while predictable, played out well on screen. Rating: 7.5/10.
Juno - Overhyped and overrated. The female lead role actress was commendable but the movie lacked the zest and coherence of a top flick. Rating: 5/10
Charlie Wilson's War - This was a Johnny Come lately Democrats taking credit for the defeat of the Soviet Union movie. While Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent as usual. Tom Hanks' turned his role into an upmarket Forrest Gump. Julie Roberts failed to impress as did the obvious butchering of historical facts (for example there was an emphasis in the movie on the lack of American follow up in Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out - this was simply not the case). Rating: 6/10
Juno - Overhyped and overrated. The female lead role actress was commendable but the movie lacked the zest and coherence of a top flick. Rating: 5/10
Charlie Wilson's War - This was a Johnny Come lately Democrats taking credit for the defeat of the Soviet Union movie. While Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent as usual. Tom Hanks' turned his role into an upmarket Forrest Gump. Julie Roberts failed to impress as did the obvious butchering of historical facts (for example there was an emphasis in the movie on the lack of American follow up in Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out - this was simply not the case). Rating: 6/10
Bumping a Teacher
Source: http://www.projo.com/education/juliasteiny/content/se_educationwatch11_05-11-08_PCA1S0R_v8.22a279c.html
In 2004, Providence named a beloved biology teacher, John Wemple, Teacher of the Year. In the spring of that year, Amgen Corp. gave Wemple a $10,000 award for science teaching excellence. But shortly after, Providence laid him off from his job at Classical High. He’d been “bumped” by a teacher who had the right, thanks to state law, to displace a colleague with less seniority in the system. Wemple’s widely acknowledged merit counted for squat. A tony private school snapped him up.
The message to the kids is that the silly grownups can’t tell the difference between an excellent or indifferent teacher, or that they don’t care who teaches the kids. Forget science; seniority-driven school systems teach cynicism.
Last year at Times2 Academy, a district-charter school in Providence, 14 of the 18 elementary teachers were bumped out and replaced with teachers that the charter’s home district no longer needed because of declining enrollment. The time and resources spent on professional development, team-building and cultivating those bumped teachers just went down the tubes. Times2 leaders had to start all over again building the school’s culture. Devastating. And in the service of what?
“Bumping” is only one of several educationally pernicious personnel practices left over from the factory-model labor contracts that depress the quality of Rhode Island schools. Factory-model contracts treat teachers as interchangeable. It doesn’t matter whose hand is on the educational die press. What matters is their date of hire.
Most other states are further along in the process of professionalizing teachers. Rhode Island General Law 16-13-6 states that when the student population declines, teachers must be laid off “in the inverse order of their employment,” and rehired, when possible, according to their seniority in the system. Period. Merit is not an issue.
Last October in Providence, the East Side Parents Education Coalition hosted an education forum with the elected officials from the greater East Side. To everyone’s surprise the officials all came — from the state Senate, House and City Council. The conversation was temperate until the subject of bumping heated up the room. A parent recounted the John Wemple story, leading others to share their experiences of having some marvelous teacher yanked out of the classroom, often replaced by someone distinctly inferior.
Parents waxed so hot at the session that both Rep. Gordon Fox and Sen. Rhoda Perry agreed to submit legislation to end the practice of bumping.
However, the two bills appear to be languishing in the legislature, at least partly because neither offers a clean, clear solution.
I consulted the Business Education Partnership, the go-to people for understanding Rhode Island education’s labor contracts. They have four reports on the state’s teacher contracts that propose solutions to each of the problems they identify, including bumping. (Available at www.edpartnership.org)
For openers, BEP’s chief analyst, Lisa Blais, said, “There is no one bad guy here. There’s a culture of the way we do business that prevents us from getting what we need. Across the nation, districts complain that seniority does not work in the interests of the kids. Unions complain that administration doesn’t know what they’re doing. Both have a point. So our concept is to acknowledge fundamental practices like seniority and tenure, and to work with them instead of trying to bury them.”
To professionalize education personnel practices, Blais and her colleagues put the focus squarely on evaluation. Rhode Island is one of only a handful of states that do not mandate that teachers be evaluated. In fact, most Rhode Island teachers are never evaluated in any meaningful or helpful way.
Blais says the key to an effective and fair evaluation system is to use several different measures, instead of just one principal’s say-so. Evaluations should include objective, quantifiable information, such as student achievement, as well as administrator and peer observations. The resulting evaluations should place teachers at one of four levels: master, pre-master, basic and below basic.
With these categories in hand, teachers would no longer be interchangeable. Any teacher with two consecutive below-basic evaluations could be let go. (At last!) No basic teacher could bump a master, no matter how long he or she has been in the system. Only master teachers should be peer evaluators.
In other words, let’s develop standards that have teeth. The state’s official teacher standards are fine, but in practice they are treated as nice, ignorable guidelines and not as the foundations for rigorous evaluation. Distinguishing between the lazy and the committed, between the well-informed and the limited, between those who speak clear English and those who are poor communicators, would go a long way toward dismantling factory-model schools. This BEP recommendation is right on the money.
That said, however, developing evaluation systems takes time. In the meantime, Rhode Island could pass a very simple law stating that all teachers should be hired professionally — matched to the job via an interview and resumé or portfolio in hand — and that no teacher, however senior, is owed any job other than as a substitute teacher. If enrollment declines, the “excessed” teacher automatically becomes a substitute — until landing a more permanent position. That way the schools stay stable, and the teacher’s livelihood is intact. Yes, an “excessed” top-step teacher will be more expensive than regular subs. But that would be far less expensive than the wasteful havoc seniority and bumping are currently causing. If no school wants the “excessed” teacher for a permanent position, it shouldn’t be the kids, parents and school that suffer.
See the Source at the Top for the Rest
In 2004, Providence named a beloved biology teacher, John Wemple, Teacher of the Year. In the spring of that year, Amgen Corp. gave Wemple a $10,000 award for science teaching excellence. But shortly after, Providence laid him off from his job at Classical High. He’d been “bumped” by a teacher who had the right, thanks to state law, to displace a colleague with less seniority in the system. Wemple’s widely acknowledged merit counted for squat. A tony private school snapped him up.
The message to the kids is that the silly grownups can’t tell the difference between an excellent or indifferent teacher, or that they don’t care who teaches the kids. Forget science; seniority-driven school systems teach cynicism.
Last year at Times2 Academy, a district-charter school in Providence, 14 of the 18 elementary teachers were bumped out and replaced with teachers that the charter’s home district no longer needed because of declining enrollment. The time and resources spent on professional development, team-building and cultivating those bumped teachers just went down the tubes. Times2 leaders had to start all over again building the school’s culture. Devastating. And in the service of what?
“Bumping” is only one of several educationally pernicious personnel practices left over from the factory-model labor contracts that depress the quality of Rhode Island schools. Factory-model contracts treat teachers as interchangeable. It doesn’t matter whose hand is on the educational die press. What matters is their date of hire.
Most other states are further along in the process of professionalizing teachers. Rhode Island General Law 16-13-6 states that when the student population declines, teachers must be laid off “in the inverse order of their employment,” and rehired, when possible, according to their seniority in the system. Period. Merit is not an issue.
Last October in Providence, the East Side Parents Education Coalition hosted an education forum with the elected officials from the greater East Side. To everyone’s surprise the officials all came — from the state Senate, House and City Council. The conversation was temperate until the subject of bumping heated up the room. A parent recounted the John Wemple story, leading others to share their experiences of having some marvelous teacher yanked out of the classroom, often replaced by someone distinctly inferior.
Parents waxed so hot at the session that both Rep. Gordon Fox and Sen. Rhoda Perry agreed to submit legislation to end the practice of bumping.
However, the two bills appear to be languishing in the legislature, at least partly because neither offers a clean, clear solution.
I consulted the Business Education Partnership, the go-to people for understanding Rhode Island education’s labor contracts. They have four reports on the state’s teacher contracts that propose solutions to each of the problems they identify, including bumping. (Available at www.edpartnership.org)
For openers, BEP’s chief analyst, Lisa Blais, said, “There is no one bad guy here. There’s a culture of the way we do business that prevents us from getting what we need. Across the nation, districts complain that seniority does not work in the interests of the kids. Unions complain that administration doesn’t know what they’re doing. Both have a point. So our concept is to acknowledge fundamental practices like seniority and tenure, and to work with them instead of trying to bury them.”
To professionalize education personnel practices, Blais and her colleagues put the focus squarely on evaluation. Rhode Island is one of only a handful of states that do not mandate that teachers be evaluated. In fact, most Rhode Island teachers are never evaluated in any meaningful or helpful way.
Blais says the key to an effective and fair evaluation system is to use several different measures, instead of just one principal’s say-so. Evaluations should include objective, quantifiable information, such as student achievement, as well as administrator and peer observations. The resulting evaluations should place teachers at one of four levels: master, pre-master, basic and below basic.
With these categories in hand, teachers would no longer be interchangeable. Any teacher with two consecutive below-basic evaluations could be let go. (At last!) No basic teacher could bump a master, no matter how long he or she has been in the system. Only master teachers should be peer evaluators.
In other words, let’s develop standards that have teeth. The state’s official teacher standards are fine, but in practice they are treated as nice, ignorable guidelines and not as the foundations for rigorous evaluation. Distinguishing between the lazy and the committed, between the well-informed and the limited, between those who speak clear English and those who are poor communicators, would go a long way toward dismantling factory-model schools. This BEP recommendation is right on the money.
That said, however, developing evaluation systems takes time. In the meantime, Rhode Island could pass a very simple law stating that all teachers should be hired professionally — matched to the job via an interview and resumé or portfolio in hand — and that no teacher, however senior, is owed any job other than as a substitute teacher. If enrollment declines, the “excessed” teacher automatically becomes a substitute — until landing a more permanent position. That way the schools stay stable, and the teacher’s livelihood is intact. Yes, an “excessed” top-step teacher will be more expensive than regular subs. But that would be far less expensive than the wasteful havoc seniority and bumping are currently causing. If no school wants the “excessed” teacher for a permanent position, it shouldn’t be the kids, parents and school that suffer.
See the Source at the Top for the Rest
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Some Neat footer facts
The FA Cup takes place on Saturday and I have been in somewhat of a footer trivia mood as of late. Here are a few to wet the appetite:
Leicester City have reached the finals of the FA Cup Four times losing on every one of the occasions.
The Scottish Club Queen’s Park have played in two English FA Cup finals losing both of them.
The FA Cup was originally founded in 1872 as a knockout tournament for Amateur Clubs.
Blackburn Olympic in 1883 were the first Professional club to win the FA Cup.
In 1889 Preston North End won the FA Cup without conceding a goal throughout the entire competition. They also won the League that year without losing a game.
Cardiff City in 1927 are the only non-English club ever to win the FA Cup. Perhaps they can add a second one on Saturday....
Blackburn Rovers were the first team that still exist today in the League to win the FA Cup. They did so in 1884 repeating in 1885 and 1886.
11-a-side teams were first introduced in Football in 1841.
Everton, Arsenal and Newcastle United have been FA Cup runners-up the most times. 7 for each club. Liverpool have been runners-up 6 times, Manchester United 5 times.
Tottenham Hotspurs are 8-1 in FA Cup finals. Their first loss was the 3-2 defeat against Coventry in 1987.
Manchester United have been League Runners-up 12 times. Liverpool and Aston Villa are tied for 2nd place with ten runners-up berths each. Manchester United’s first season as runners-up was 1947.
Notts County have not won a trophy since 1894. Talk about long suffering fans.
The now discontinued Cup Winners Cup was won a record four times by Barcelona.
Chelsea were England’s most successful club in this competition winning the tournament twice, in 1971 and 1998.
The Cup Winners Cup was won more times by English clubs (8 times) than clubs of any other European Country. Spain and Italy each had clubs win the Cup 7 times.
Leicester City have reached the finals of the FA Cup Four times losing on every one of the occasions.
The Scottish Club Queen’s Park have played in two English FA Cup finals losing both of them.
The FA Cup was originally founded in 1872 as a knockout tournament for Amateur Clubs.
Blackburn Olympic in 1883 were the first Professional club to win the FA Cup.
In 1889 Preston North End won the FA Cup without conceding a goal throughout the entire competition. They also won the League that year without losing a game.
Cardiff City in 1927 are the only non-English club ever to win the FA Cup. Perhaps they can add a second one on Saturday....
Blackburn Rovers were the first team that still exist today in the League to win the FA Cup. They did so in 1884 repeating in 1885 and 1886.
11-a-side teams were first introduced in Football in 1841.
Everton, Arsenal and Newcastle United have been FA Cup runners-up the most times. 7 for each club. Liverpool have been runners-up 6 times, Manchester United 5 times.
Tottenham Hotspurs are 8-1 in FA Cup finals. Their first loss was the 3-2 defeat against Coventry in 1987.
Manchester United have been League Runners-up 12 times. Liverpool and Aston Villa are tied for 2nd place with ten runners-up berths each. Manchester United’s first season as runners-up was 1947.
Notts County have not won a trophy since 1894. Talk about long suffering fans.
The now discontinued Cup Winners Cup was won a record four times by Barcelona.
Chelsea were England’s most successful club in this competition winning the tournament twice, in 1971 and 1998.
The Cup Winners Cup was won more times by English clubs (8 times) than clubs of any other European Country. Spain and Italy each had clubs win the Cup 7 times.
Greatest Fiction Writers of All-Time
Something to debate:
1. Fyodor Dostoevsky
2. Leo Tolstoy
3. Victor Hugo
4. Charles Dickens
5. Franz Kafka
6. Maxim Gorki
7. Joseph Conrad
8. Miguel de Cervantes
9. Geoffery Chaucer
10. James Joyce
11. Alexander Dumas
12. Edgar Allen Poe
13. Jonathan Swift
14. Boris Pasternak
15. Thomas Mann
16. Albert Camus
17. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
18. Marcel Proust
19. JRR Tolkien
20. Virginia Woolfe
21. Emile Zola
22. Hermann Hesse
23. Mark Twain
24. Yasunari Kawabata
25. Jane Austen
1. Fyodor Dostoevsky
2. Leo Tolstoy
3. Victor Hugo
4. Charles Dickens
5. Franz Kafka
6. Maxim Gorki
7. Joseph Conrad
8. Miguel de Cervantes
9. Geoffery Chaucer
10. James Joyce
11. Alexander Dumas
12. Edgar Allen Poe
13. Jonathan Swift
14. Boris Pasternak
15. Thomas Mann
16. Albert Camus
17. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
18. Marcel Proust
19. JRR Tolkien
20. Virginia Woolfe
21. Emile Zola
22. Hermann Hesse
23. Mark Twain
24. Yasunari Kawabata
25. Jane Austen
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Lefty Political Definitions
Alternative Press - An alternative but very often only to sanity.
Anarchist - The foot fungus of the political world.
Anti-Globalization Protest - A chance to wreak havoc at the taxpayer’s expense.
Anti-Zionism - The politically correct form of Anti-Semitism.
Capitalism - All that which is evil. Even if it pays the bills.
Fidel Castro - A Great leader. Suppression of Free Speech and Democracy aside.
Noam Chomsky - Leading scholar of the school of ‘Progressive’ Political Hypocrisy.
Collective - A group structure implemented to water down individuality with mediocrity.
Colonialism Blame Theory - Excuse for Third World politicians to continue being second rate leaders and first rate scoundrels.
Communism - A failed philosophy except in the mind of university intellectuals.
Dead White Men - Thinkers blocking the path of the illogical.
Egalitarian Belief - The reduction of all to an equality with nothing.
Environmental Movement - Fascism for Vegetarians.
Feminism - A convenience for women to be just as idiotic as men.
Foreign Aid - Petty Cash for the bribery process.
Free Enterprise - Biased system favoring those with talent and a drive for hard work.
Freedom Fighter - A murderer with good taste.
Free Speech - That which all claim to champion but secretly wish to crush.
Hierarchy - A direct path leading to the most incompetent.
Marxism - Philosophy that for all purposes should have remained a theory.
Political Correctness - Twisted semantics that functions to strangle free thought.
Ralph Nader - Politician unelectable at any speed.
Oppressed - What every lefty dreams of being.
Peace - Ideal worth killing others over.
People of Color - Phrase foolishly used by those who claim to be politically color-blind.
Progressive Force - ‘Forward Thinking ‘ politics of the ideology that bought you the Gulags, Killing Fields and Purges.
Racism/Sexism - Common catch words designed to end debate.
Socialism - Marketing euphemism for Communism.
State Socialism - Rule by the ultimate corporate monopoly.
Taxes - The punishment for working too hard.
Trade Unions - A lefty’s best friend, until he/she tries to enter the job market.
Trotskyite - A Marxist on Uppers.
United States - A country that can do no right. Contrast with Iraq, China, North Korea and the old Soviet Union.
Anarchist - The foot fungus of the political world.
Anti-Globalization Protest - A chance to wreak havoc at the taxpayer’s expense.
Anti-Zionism - The politically correct form of Anti-Semitism.
Capitalism - All that which is evil. Even if it pays the bills.
Fidel Castro - A Great leader. Suppression of Free Speech and Democracy aside.
Noam Chomsky - Leading scholar of the school of ‘Progressive’ Political Hypocrisy.
Collective - A group structure implemented to water down individuality with mediocrity.
Colonialism Blame Theory - Excuse for Third World politicians to continue being second rate leaders and first rate scoundrels.
Communism - A failed philosophy except in the mind of university intellectuals.
Dead White Men - Thinkers blocking the path of the illogical.
Egalitarian Belief - The reduction of all to an equality with nothing.
Environmental Movement - Fascism for Vegetarians.
Feminism - A convenience for women to be just as idiotic as men.
Foreign Aid - Petty Cash for the bribery process.
Free Enterprise - Biased system favoring those with talent and a drive for hard work.
Freedom Fighter - A murderer with good taste.
Free Speech - That which all claim to champion but secretly wish to crush.
Hierarchy - A direct path leading to the most incompetent.
Marxism - Philosophy that for all purposes should have remained a theory.
Political Correctness - Twisted semantics that functions to strangle free thought.
Ralph Nader - Politician unelectable at any speed.
Oppressed - What every lefty dreams of being.
Peace - Ideal worth killing others over.
People of Color - Phrase foolishly used by those who claim to be politically color-blind.
Progressive Force - ‘Forward Thinking ‘ politics of the ideology that bought you the Gulags, Killing Fields and Purges.
Racism/Sexism - Common catch words designed to end debate.
Socialism - Marketing euphemism for Communism.
State Socialism - Rule by the ultimate corporate monopoly.
Taxes - The punishment for working too hard.
Trade Unions - A lefty’s best friend, until he/she tries to enter the job market.
Trotskyite - A Marxist on Uppers.
United States - A country that can do no right. Contrast with Iraq, China, North Korea and the old Soviet Union.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
My All-Time Top Twenty Favourite TV Shows
1. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
2. St. Elsewhere
3. House
4. Persuaders
5. Magnum PI
6. Family Ties
7 . Star Trek the Originals
8. Star Trek - Next Generation
8. Night Court
9. Seinfeld
10. Happy Days
11. Fawlty Towers
12. All in the Family
13. Buck Rogers
14. Different Strokes
15. High Chapparel
16. Battle Star Galactica
17. V
18. Dallas
19. Knight Rider
20. Bonanza
2. St. Elsewhere
3. House
4. Persuaders
5. Magnum PI
6. Family Ties
7 . Star Trek the Originals
8. Star Trek - Next Generation
8. Night Court
9. Seinfeld
10. Happy Days
11. Fawlty Towers
12. All in the Family
13. Buck Rogers
14. Different Strokes
15. High Chapparel
16. Battle Star Galactica
17. V
18. Dallas
19. Knight Rider
20. Bonanza
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
On Genetics
Genetics is a fascinating subject. I have taken several courses in the discipline. The following are some key milestones I have identified in the field (not in chronological order).
1. Gregor Mendel’s Experiments with peas show the passing on specific characteristics in defined ratios. Birth of the Science of Genetics.
2. Hugo De Vries re-discovers Gregor Mendel’s work
3. Charles Darwin describes Natural Selection of trait factors in his book the Origin of the Species
4. Ancient man diversifies dog species through selective breeding.
5. Identification of DNA as the unit of inheritance.
6. Watson and Crick reveal the double Helix structure of DNA.
7. Identification of the Chromosome unit within the cell nucleus
8. Deciphering by scientists of Cell Division processes as Mitosis and Meiosis
9. Discovery of RNA and the deciphering of the DNA-RNA transcription process.
10. RNA-protein translation process is unveiled.
11. Recombinant DNA Therapy is developed.
12. Discovery of the process of Crossing Over in Meiosis – Allows for Variation enhancement
13. Cary Mullis develops the Polymerase Chain Reactor
14. Work with fruit flies and radiation sheds light on the driving force of mutation and its effect on inheritance
15. First official clone revealed. That being the sheep Dolly
16. Human Genome Project is completed.
17. Discovery of the Retrovirus and the birth of Gene therapy.
18. Discovery of the Enzyme DNA Polymerase.
19. Discovery of Stop/Start genes in the Human Genome
20. Birth of the Science of Population Genetics – Leading figures: Sewell Wright, Hardy and Weinberg
21. Discovery of Mitochondrial DNA.
22. Dynamics of x-chromosome inheritance are revealed,
23. Discovery of the process of Epistasis whereby one gene set suppresses another.
24. Identification of the genes for specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia and Tay Sachs etc.
25. Invention of Modern DNA Fingerprinting techniques
1. Gregor Mendel’s Experiments with peas show the passing on specific characteristics in defined ratios. Birth of the Science of Genetics.
2. Hugo De Vries re-discovers Gregor Mendel’s work
3. Charles Darwin describes Natural Selection of trait factors in his book the Origin of the Species
4. Ancient man diversifies dog species through selective breeding.
5. Identification of DNA as the unit of inheritance.
6. Watson and Crick reveal the double Helix structure of DNA.
7. Identification of the Chromosome unit within the cell nucleus
8. Deciphering by scientists of Cell Division processes as Mitosis and Meiosis
9. Discovery of RNA and the deciphering of the DNA-RNA transcription process.
10. RNA-protein translation process is unveiled.
11. Recombinant DNA Therapy is developed.
12. Discovery of the process of Crossing Over in Meiosis – Allows for Variation enhancement
13. Cary Mullis develops the Polymerase Chain Reactor
14. Work with fruit flies and radiation sheds light on the driving force of mutation and its effect on inheritance
15. First official clone revealed. That being the sheep Dolly
16. Human Genome Project is completed.
17. Discovery of the Retrovirus and the birth of Gene therapy.
18. Discovery of the Enzyme DNA Polymerase.
19. Discovery of Stop/Start genes in the Human Genome
20. Birth of the Science of Population Genetics – Leading figures: Sewell Wright, Hardy and Weinberg
21. Discovery of Mitochondrial DNA.
22. Dynamics of x-chromosome inheritance are revealed,
23. Discovery of the process of Epistasis whereby one gene set suppresses another.
24. Identification of the genes for specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia and Tay Sachs etc.
25. Invention of Modern DNA Fingerprinting techniques
The Sixteen Laws of Business
1st Law: The size of the department budget surplus is directly proportional to the cost of the end of year party.
2nd Law: The Revenue and Cost sides of a business are mutually exclusive.
3rd Law: Bad decisions multiply quicker than good decisions.
4th Law: Only when the revenue side has bankrupted the company by selling at below cost will it be discovered that they can do something wrong.
5th Law: There are more people at their level of incompetence in a company than anything else.
6th Law: Profits arise only out of a mistake in the billing system.
7th Law: One does not enter business to make a profit but to create the illusion of a future profit.
8th Law: The buck is always passed. In 2788 it will eventually be paid for by some sucker.
9th Law: Nobody is cool until they have gone through Chapter 11 at least once.
10th Law: Several failed ventures add up to a great credit rating.
11th Law: Its all over when accounting moves in.
12th Law: Every product is doomed to market failure. The key to great business is to prolong the time until failure as long as possible.
13th Law: Palm reading is more accurate than marketing. Marketing is more accurate than economics.
14th Law: Beware of somebody who calls themselves an investment expert they are either stupid or crooked. There is no such thing.
15th Law: Every analyst is a genius after the fact.
16th Law: Interest rates defy all laws of logic.
2nd Law: The Revenue and Cost sides of a business are mutually exclusive.
3rd Law: Bad decisions multiply quicker than good decisions.
4th Law: Only when the revenue side has bankrupted the company by selling at below cost will it be discovered that they can do something wrong.
5th Law: There are more people at their level of incompetence in a company than anything else.
6th Law: Profits arise only out of a mistake in the billing system.
7th Law: One does not enter business to make a profit but to create the illusion of a future profit.
8th Law: The buck is always passed. In 2788 it will eventually be paid for by some sucker.
9th Law: Nobody is cool until they have gone through Chapter 11 at least once.
10th Law: Several failed ventures add up to a great credit rating.
11th Law: Its all over when accounting moves in.
12th Law: Every product is doomed to market failure. The key to great business is to prolong the time until failure as long as possible.
13th Law: Palm reading is more accurate than marketing. Marketing is more accurate than economics.
14th Law: Beware of somebody who calls themselves an investment expert they are either stupid or crooked. There is no such thing.
15th Law: Every analyst is a genius after the fact.
16th Law: Interest rates defy all laws of logic.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
50 Greatest Sportsmen of All-Time
1. Pele - Soccer
2. Jim Thorpe - Football, Track and Field
3. Tiger Woods - Golf
4. Muhammed Ali - Boxing
5. Jessie Owens - Track and Field
6. Michael Jordan - Basketball
7. Carl Lewis - Track and Field
8. Jack Nicklaus - Golf
9. Wayne Gretzky - Ice Hockey
10. Jean-Claude Killy – Skiing
11. Lance Armstrong-Cycling
12. Garfield Sobers - Cricket
13. Garrincha - Soccer
14. Hank Aaron - Baseball
15. Miguel Indurain - Cycling
16. Aryton Senna - Motor Racing
17. Johan Cruyff - Soccer
18. Pete Sampras - Tennis
19. Diego Mardonna – Soccer
20. Roger Federer – Tennis
21. Michael Schumacher - FI
22. Paavo Nurmi - Track and Field
23. Rod Laver - Tennis
24. Jahanghir Khan - Squash
25. Wilt Chaimberlain - Basketball
26. Babe Ruth - Baseball
27. Jim Brown - Football
28. Lasse Viren - Track and Field
29. Mark Spitz - Swimming
30. Joe Louis - Boxing
31. Bobby Orr - Ice Hockey
32. Sugar Ray Leonard - Boxing
33. Stanley Matthews - Soccer
34. Donald Bradman - Cricket
35. Eddie Merckx - Cycling
36. Sergei Bubka - Pole Vaulting
37. Johnny Weismuller - Swimming
35. Jerry Rice – Football
36. Eric Heiden – Speed Skating
37. Viktor Barna – Table Tennis
38. Dale Earnhardt – Nascar
39. Brian Lara – Cricket
40. Willie Mays – Baseball
41. Joe Montana - Football
42. Rocky Marciano - Boxing
43. Matt Biondi - Swimming
44. Tom Watson - Golf
45. Mario Lemieux - Ice Hockey
46. Magic Johnson - Basketball
47. Zinedine Zidane - Soccer
48. Bjorn Borg - Tennis
49. Roger Clemens - Baseball
50. John McEnroe - Tennis
2. Jim Thorpe - Football, Track and Field
3. Tiger Woods - Golf
4. Muhammed Ali - Boxing
5. Jessie Owens - Track and Field
6. Michael Jordan - Basketball
7. Carl Lewis - Track and Field
8. Jack Nicklaus - Golf
9. Wayne Gretzky - Ice Hockey
10. Jean-Claude Killy – Skiing
11. Lance Armstrong-Cycling
12. Garfield Sobers - Cricket
13. Garrincha - Soccer
14. Hank Aaron - Baseball
15. Miguel Indurain - Cycling
16. Aryton Senna - Motor Racing
17. Johan Cruyff - Soccer
18. Pete Sampras - Tennis
19. Diego Mardonna – Soccer
20. Roger Federer – Tennis
21. Michael Schumacher - FI
22. Paavo Nurmi - Track and Field
23. Rod Laver - Tennis
24. Jahanghir Khan - Squash
25. Wilt Chaimberlain - Basketball
26. Babe Ruth - Baseball
27. Jim Brown - Football
28. Lasse Viren - Track and Field
29. Mark Spitz - Swimming
30. Joe Louis - Boxing
31. Bobby Orr - Ice Hockey
32. Sugar Ray Leonard - Boxing
33. Stanley Matthews - Soccer
34. Donald Bradman - Cricket
35. Eddie Merckx - Cycling
36. Sergei Bubka - Pole Vaulting
37. Johnny Weismuller - Swimming
35. Jerry Rice – Football
36. Eric Heiden – Speed Skating
37. Viktor Barna – Table Tennis
38. Dale Earnhardt – Nascar
39. Brian Lara – Cricket
40. Willie Mays – Baseball
41. Joe Montana - Football
42. Rocky Marciano - Boxing
43. Matt Biondi - Swimming
44. Tom Watson - Golf
45. Mario Lemieux - Ice Hockey
46. Magic Johnson - Basketball
47. Zinedine Zidane - Soccer
48. Bjorn Borg - Tennis
49. Roger Clemens - Baseball
50. John McEnroe - Tennis
Ten Greatest Shakespeare Plays
1. Hamlet
2. Julius Caesar
3. Richard III
4. Othello
5. Henry V
6. King Lear
7. The Tempest
8. Macbeth
9. Much ado about nothing
10. Anthony and Cleopatra
2. Julius Caesar
3. Richard III
4. Othello
5. Henry V
6. King Lear
7. The Tempest
8. Macbeth
9. Much ado about nothing
10. Anthony and Cleopatra
The Seventies
Fifteen Great Things about the 70s (not in order)
1. Casual Sex was easier to obtain
2. There were less Computer Geeks running around.
3. As an English Soccer Fan - Liverpool were brilliant and Manchester United were crap.
4. There was no RAP music.
5. Tennis matches were fun to watch. Borg-Connors-Vilas Era.
6. Monty Python
7. Charlie’s Angels
8. Popsicles cost 5c and you could buy gum for 1c.
9. Star Wars debuted
10. Comics were more focused on story than effect.
11. Voice Mail was almost non-existent.
12. Nobody knew what it was to ‘leverage synergy’
13. No Cell Phones and Yuppies
14. The Space Race was looked at with confidence
15. Cars didn’t all look the same. As they did in the 90s.
Fifteen not so Great Things about the 70s (not in order)
1. Terrorism. Pity its still with us. Now worse than ever.
2. Grotesque hairdos
3. Lots of bad disco songs
4. Chequered suits
5. Serial Killers such as the Son of Sam
6. Mood Rings and Pet Rocks
7. Studio 54
8. Yasser Arafat addressing the United Nations with a pistol in his belt
9. Three Mile Island
10. England not qualifying for World Cup 74 and 78
11. Skylab crashing to Earth
12. The Yom Kippur War
13. Giant size calculators with limited power
14. Head cases such as Jane Fonda and Patty Hearst
15. Idi Amin
1. Casual Sex was easier to obtain
2. There were less Computer Geeks running around.
3. As an English Soccer Fan - Liverpool were brilliant and Manchester United were crap.
4. There was no RAP music.
5. Tennis matches were fun to watch. Borg-Connors-Vilas Era.
6. Monty Python
7. Charlie’s Angels
8. Popsicles cost 5c and you could buy gum for 1c.
9. Star Wars debuted
10. Comics were more focused on story than effect.
11. Voice Mail was almost non-existent.
12. Nobody knew what it was to ‘leverage synergy’
13. No Cell Phones and Yuppies
14. The Space Race was looked at with confidence
15. Cars didn’t all look the same. As they did in the 90s.
Fifteen not so Great Things about the 70s (not in order)
1. Terrorism. Pity its still with us. Now worse than ever.
2. Grotesque hairdos
3. Lots of bad disco songs
4. Chequered suits
5. Serial Killers such as the Son of Sam
6. Mood Rings and Pet Rocks
7. Studio 54
8. Yasser Arafat addressing the United Nations with a pistol in his belt
9. Three Mile Island
10. England not qualifying for World Cup 74 and 78
11. Skylab crashing to Earth
12. The Yom Kippur War
13. Giant size calculators with limited power
14. Head cases such as Jane Fonda and Patty Hearst
15. Idi Amin
Extra-Terrestrial Interaction
The following question has always bothered me: If superior intelligent Extra-Terrestrials do exist, why have they not contacted us ? Hence the following argument:
1. Earth exists in a protected zone. A guardian species from our dimension or perhaps another has placed Earth in the off-limits category away from all other Alien life. The reason for this is to protect humanity against interaction with other species that are more advanced and whose influence may prove to be deleterious to human kind.
2. Humanity may exist in this protected zone for the life time of our species but I suspect that is not the case. What I think is that when the ‘guardian’ species suspect that we are capable of weathering an interaction with a more advanced alien culture they will remove the barriers to allow contact to occur.
Its just a thought. But perhaps those UFOs so many have seen in the skies above are the guardian’s checking up on their protected species.
1. Earth exists in a protected zone. A guardian species from our dimension or perhaps another has placed Earth in the off-limits category away from all other Alien life. The reason for this is to protect humanity against interaction with other species that are more advanced and whose influence may prove to be deleterious to human kind.
2. Humanity may exist in this protected zone for the life time of our species but I suspect that is not the case. What I think is that when the ‘guardian’ species suspect that we are capable of weathering an interaction with a more advanced alien culture they will remove the barriers to allow contact to occur.
Its just a thought. But perhaps those UFOs so many have seen in the skies above are the guardian’s checking up on their protected species.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
On God
VOR = Voice of Reason
GK = Gavin Kanowitz
VOR: Ok what do you see God as?
GK: God is multifaceted and this is a consequence of his omnipotence. He therefore can be perceived on many levels (Please note I use the male ‘his’ and ‘he’ to describe God not because I believe God is male – God does not have gender – but for the mere sake of convenience). I, myself, choose to view God at two levels. The Spirit God that is ‘everything ‘ and from which our souls originate and the personal God to whom I communicate with.
VOR: What is this ‘everything’ you associate with the Spirit God?
GK ‘Everything’ is what can and cannot be perceived by us. It is all of matter, energy and spirit. It is all the dimensions that exist in space-time and beyond. In short it is the absolute. Nothing exists beyond it.
VOR: So it is a singularity?
GK: In a conceptual sense yes but in its full truism its impossible to even attempt the reduction of something outside our comprehension.
VOR: Can the spirit God be understood at all?
GK: Not with respect to determining the reason for its action, only the consequences. Unfortunately western philosophy believes that both can be ascertained. It attempts to quantify and qualify this spirit essence. Consequently it falls short every time. We can build intellectual Towers of Babel but our many lines of erroneous logic will trip us up all the time, forcing the tower to collapse. We have however another way of understanding God and that is through personal communication. Which brings me to the concept of the personal God.
VOR: Ok so what is this personal God?
GK: The personal God is your spiritual side being. It is that component that links your matter-energy makeup (the physical you) to the Spirit God. You can choose to accept it or ignore it.
The choice is yours. Accepting it allows you to have a window directly to God.
VOR: And if you reject it?
GK: Then you will likely experience the loneliness associated with mental separation from a higher force. Existentialists try to justify this by saying that there is meaning only in one’s existence, thus ‘removing’ the need for the Personal and indeed the Spirit God. Although this may benefit some, the truth is that the spirit God is always around and it is a positive force. It doesn’t disappear because we deem it so, anymore than the sky changing to red because we would like it to be that way. Existentialists choose to negate what they don’t understand, I choose to understand and negate only when I find the reasoning behind the phenomenon to be fallacious. This is not the case with the Personal God.
VOR: But how do you know the Personal God exists?
GK: He exists because it is impossible to prove that any event is random. All that exists is connected. Systems organize and that ‘directing’ force is the spirit god. The Personal God is an abstraction of this spirit god, just as fractals in chaos science mirror the entire system as a whole.
By opening my eyes to the Personal God I have seen his action. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at events in your lives, even in your daily existence, and you will see purpose. ‘Things’ happen for a reason. There is method behind the apparent randomness. For example if I meet somebody and interact with them if I sit back and think about it, a purpose for our interaction will spring immediately to mind, the second one asks the questions: Why did we meet? What did I learn from this meeting?
There is always something positive that springs up. Something new that is uncovered. This is the action of the Personal God trying to enrich us.
VOR: But one can say by the same logic what about the negative thoughts?
GK: Negative thoughts are only negative if we choose them to be so, if we look at the thoughts as guiding lights then they become positive. This is what my interaction with the Personal God tells me.
VOR: So negativity is an illusion?
GK: Yes. The only real concern is the non-randomness of all events and the existence of non-random phenomena. This is what defines God in the strict logical sense.
VOR: Getting back to the Personal God. If we follow your reasoning it appears that he is always present?
GK: Definitely. We always have a direct conduit to God. Any religion that tells us that we need an intermediary is mistaken. It is as east to speak to God directly as it is to converse with yourself. That is the whole concept of the Personal God.
VOR: But are we not in believing in the Personal God recreating God in our own image? Does that not make us the same as those pagans that the bible takes great care to warn us about?
GK: God is all powerful. He can take our image just as easy as he can take on any other image that exists in space and time. I choose to see him in my image because it simplifies my relationship with him. It provides a dimension to God which I can understand. As far as this being Pagan in outlook I argue that it is quite the contrary, Pagan religions are no different to mainstream religions in that they do have an image of God that they want all to worship. Traditional religion opposes this as it represents an alternative mass-image threat. I feel that both sides are in fact wrong and indeed the same. One’s image of God should reflect what one finds easiest to relate to. Standardized versions of God that are espoused by Paganism and traditional religion are therefore nonsensical as they ignore individuality.
VOR: But wouldn’t an evil person create an evil version of God? Does this not in some way condone acts of evil through the instrument of moral relativism?
GK: As mentioned God is everything - Good, Bad and Ambivalent. A failure of many beliefs is that of separating evil as being a non-godlike quality whilst still championing God as being all-powerful. This is a blaring contradiction. Defining Good and Evil is extremely difficult. Partly because we do not have access to the full picture. We are like people looking through a keyhole and describing the world we see. Our senses for one are limited, our knowledge negligible, We cannot even begin to define in a universal sense what good and evil are. Having said that this does not mean that we can do what we like. Law governed by utilitarian (what is good for the majority thinking) prevents this, in order to negate chaos and preserve a workable structure. This is why legal systems exists.
VOR: For the greater good?
GK: That and to avoid chaos.
VOR: Isn’t that slightly Hobbesian?
GK: No Hobbes argued that man is evil/stupid and needs a strong system of law to keep him in check.
I don’t see this as the case. Man is not inherently evil or stupid but he is prone to error. However as a player in the scheme of the world, he is prone to chaos. The more people the greater the degree of chaos. Law limits this.
VOR: I see a conflict in your full argument though. On one level you argue that Gods existence can be justified by the non-randomness of the universe on another front you see law as a mechanism to avoid a natural flow toward chaos. If God introduces non-randomness why then does entropy exist? Why is there a drive in the direction of chaos?
GK: There is no conflict. Chaos exists side beside non-randomness.is a state that exists. Chaos is God inspired as well. It is a phase that God uses to change one non-randomness dominant into another type. This process is dynamic. When I talk about mankind’s slide into chaos what is worrisome is not so much the chaos itself, but a slide into a non-randomness dominant that is less favorable to the species.
VOR: But can one not argue that this slide is part of God’s will?
GK: God provides us with many options. In a dynamic universe we face multiple possible non-randoms dominants our choice is to find the direction that takes us to the next most favorable one. Law prevents us slipping quickly into those non-randoms that go against our greater good. It is a breaking force.
VOR: Do you feel that true chaos (a complete absence of randomness) is impossible because God will always act to introduce non-randomness?
GK: No I reckon God can sit back and allow non-randomness to happen but for some reason or other, he hasn’t.
VOR: how can we separate the actions of God from those of physics? Is God constrained by the laws of physics?
GK: Of course not. God created the laws of physics in the first place. God uses physics as a mechanism to simplify his actions for our level of understanding. The laws of physics are the outline of a great book whose revelation is beyond us. In different universes it is conceivable that these laws might change.
VOR: Are you thus saying that the laws of Physics are in someway a simplifying illusion?
GK: No they are very real for us as beings as God has defined us around them. However for God they are insignificant.
VOR: So science cannot tell us all there is to know?
GK: Yes of course. Science is limited by the frame of reference that it exists in. Everything other than God is limited as well.
VOR: In a way then our relationship with the personal God is greater than our study of science. Is this a reasonable argument to make?
GK: The two are different. The personal God instructs us as individuals. We are still guided by science as to what we can and cannot do in the matter world.
GK = Gavin Kanowitz
VOR: Ok what do you see God as?
GK: God is multifaceted and this is a consequence of his omnipotence. He therefore can be perceived on many levels (Please note I use the male ‘his’ and ‘he’ to describe God not because I believe God is male – God does not have gender – but for the mere sake of convenience). I, myself, choose to view God at two levels. The Spirit God that is ‘everything ‘ and from which our souls originate and the personal God to whom I communicate with.
VOR: What is this ‘everything’ you associate with the Spirit God?
GK ‘Everything’ is what can and cannot be perceived by us. It is all of matter, energy and spirit. It is all the dimensions that exist in space-time and beyond. In short it is the absolute. Nothing exists beyond it.
VOR: So it is a singularity?
GK: In a conceptual sense yes but in its full truism its impossible to even attempt the reduction of something outside our comprehension.
VOR: Can the spirit God be understood at all?
GK: Not with respect to determining the reason for its action, only the consequences. Unfortunately western philosophy believes that both can be ascertained. It attempts to quantify and qualify this spirit essence. Consequently it falls short every time. We can build intellectual Towers of Babel but our many lines of erroneous logic will trip us up all the time, forcing the tower to collapse. We have however another way of understanding God and that is through personal communication. Which brings me to the concept of the personal God.
VOR: Ok so what is this personal God?
GK: The personal God is your spiritual side being. It is that component that links your matter-energy makeup (the physical you) to the Spirit God. You can choose to accept it or ignore it.
The choice is yours. Accepting it allows you to have a window directly to God.
VOR: And if you reject it?
GK: Then you will likely experience the loneliness associated with mental separation from a higher force. Existentialists try to justify this by saying that there is meaning only in one’s existence, thus ‘removing’ the need for the Personal and indeed the Spirit God. Although this may benefit some, the truth is that the spirit God is always around and it is a positive force. It doesn’t disappear because we deem it so, anymore than the sky changing to red because we would like it to be that way. Existentialists choose to negate what they don’t understand, I choose to understand and negate only when I find the reasoning behind the phenomenon to be fallacious. This is not the case with the Personal God.
VOR: But how do you know the Personal God exists?
GK: He exists because it is impossible to prove that any event is random. All that exists is connected. Systems organize and that ‘directing’ force is the spirit god. The Personal God is an abstraction of this spirit god, just as fractals in chaos science mirror the entire system as a whole.
By opening my eyes to the Personal God I have seen his action. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at events in your lives, even in your daily existence, and you will see purpose. ‘Things’ happen for a reason. There is method behind the apparent randomness. For example if I meet somebody and interact with them if I sit back and think about it, a purpose for our interaction will spring immediately to mind, the second one asks the questions: Why did we meet? What did I learn from this meeting?
There is always something positive that springs up. Something new that is uncovered. This is the action of the Personal God trying to enrich us.
VOR: But one can say by the same logic what about the negative thoughts?
GK: Negative thoughts are only negative if we choose them to be so, if we look at the thoughts as guiding lights then they become positive. This is what my interaction with the Personal God tells me.
VOR: So negativity is an illusion?
GK: Yes. The only real concern is the non-randomness of all events and the existence of non-random phenomena. This is what defines God in the strict logical sense.
VOR: Getting back to the Personal God. If we follow your reasoning it appears that he is always present?
GK: Definitely. We always have a direct conduit to God. Any religion that tells us that we need an intermediary is mistaken. It is as east to speak to God directly as it is to converse with yourself. That is the whole concept of the Personal God.
VOR: But are we not in believing in the Personal God recreating God in our own image? Does that not make us the same as those pagans that the bible takes great care to warn us about?
GK: God is all powerful. He can take our image just as easy as he can take on any other image that exists in space and time. I choose to see him in my image because it simplifies my relationship with him. It provides a dimension to God which I can understand. As far as this being Pagan in outlook I argue that it is quite the contrary, Pagan religions are no different to mainstream religions in that they do have an image of God that they want all to worship. Traditional religion opposes this as it represents an alternative mass-image threat. I feel that both sides are in fact wrong and indeed the same. One’s image of God should reflect what one finds easiest to relate to. Standardized versions of God that are espoused by Paganism and traditional religion are therefore nonsensical as they ignore individuality.
VOR: But wouldn’t an evil person create an evil version of God? Does this not in some way condone acts of evil through the instrument of moral relativism?
GK: As mentioned God is everything - Good, Bad and Ambivalent. A failure of many beliefs is that of separating evil as being a non-godlike quality whilst still championing God as being all-powerful. This is a blaring contradiction. Defining Good and Evil is extremely difficult. Partly because we do not have access to the full picture. We are like people looking through a keyhole and describing the world we see. Our senses for one are limited, our knowledge negligible, We cannot even begin to define in a universal sense what good and evil are. Having said that this does not mean that we can do what we like. Law governed by utilitarian (what is good for the majority thinking) prevents this, in order to negate chaos and preserve a workable structure. This is why legal systems exists.
VOR: For the greater good?
GK: That and to avoid chaos.
VOR: Isn’t that slightly Hobbesian?
GK: No Hobbes argued that man is evil/stupid and needs a strong system of law to keep him in check.
I don’t see this as the case. Man is not inherently evil or stupid but he is prone to error. However as a player in the scheme of the world, he is prone to chaos. The more people the greater the degree of chaos. Law limits this.
VOR: I see a conflict in your full argument though. On one level you argue that Gods existence can be justified by the non-randomness of the universe on another front you see law as a mechanism to avoid a natural flow toward chaos. If God introduces non-randomness why then does entropy exist? Why is there a drive in the direction of chaos?
GK: There is no conflict. Chaos exists side beside non-randomness.is a state that exists. Chaos is God inspired as well. It is a phase that God uses to change one non-randomness dominant into another type. This process is dynamic. When I talk about mankind’s slide into chaos what is worrisome is not so much the chaos itself, but a slide into a non-randomness dominant that is less favorable to the species.
VOR: But can one not argue that this slide is part of God’s will?
GK: God provides us with many options. In a dynamic universe we face multiple possible non-randoms dominants our choice is to find the direction that takes us to the next most favorable one. Law prevents us slipping quickly into those non-randoms that go against our greater good. It is a breaking force.
VOR: Do you feel that true chaos (a complete absence of randomness) is impossible because God will always act to introduce non-randomness?
GK: No I reckon God can sit back and allow non-randomness to happen but for some reason or other, he hasn’t.
VOR: how can we separate the actions of God from those of physics? Is God constrained by the laws of physics?
GK: Of course not. God created the laws of physics in the first place. God uses physics as a mechanism to simplify his actions for our level of understanding. The laws of physics are the outline of a great book whose revelation is beyond us. In different universes it is conceivable that these laws might change.
VOR: Are you thus saying that the laws of Physics are in someway a simplifying illusion?
GK: No they are very real for us as beings as God has defined us around them. However for God they are insignificant.
VOR: So science cannot tell us all there is to know?
GK: Yes of course. Science is limited by the frame of reference that it exists in. Everything other than God is limited as well.
VOR: In a way then our relationship with the personal God is greater than our study of science. Is this a reasonable argument to make?
GK: The two are different. The personal God instructs us as individuals. We are still guided by science as to what we can and cannot do in the matter world.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The 60 Most Important ‘Advances’ in the History of Warfare
The 60 Most Important ‘Advances’ in the History of Warfare (not in order of importance)
1. The invention of the tank
2. The birth of air warfare and the development of the aircraft carrier
3. First use of biological weapons
4. Harnessing the powers of fire and water.
5. The A-Bomb
6. The H-Bomb and the Neutron Bomb.
7. Chemical weaponry
8. Gunpowder
9. The stirrup
10. Domestication of the Horse/Camel/Elephant.
11. The development of Bronze weaponry
12. The creation of the standing army
13. Invention of the flintlock musket
14. Development of the first canons. Birth of artillery warfare.
15. The longbow
16. Surveillance satellites
17. Invention of the rifle
18. Laser weaponry
19. Military organization
20. The invention of the wheel
21. The Invention of the shield
22. Invention of barb wire
23. Invention of the machine gun.
24. Invention of the hand held pistol
25. The development of the suit of armor.
26. The development of siege warfare and such devices as the catapult.
27. Diplomacy /Deception.
28. Dynamite
29. The invention of the Molotov cocktail.
30. The invention of the mortar
31. Invention of the radio.
32. Walled cities and moats.
33. Development of the computer/microprocessor.
34. Invention of the helicopter
35. Invention of the hand grenade.
36. Invention of the smart bomb.
37. The development of propaganda techniques
38. The invention of the submarine
39. The invention of radar.
40. The development of land mines.
41. The invention of the parachute.
42. The sophistication of espionage techniques - eg. code breaking.
43. The invention of the assembly line for production.
44. Development of anti-aircraft weaponry.
45. The arrival of the Dreadnoughts (Turn-of-the century Metal Battleships)
46. The invention of the torpedo.
47. Compulsory military conscription.
48. Invention of the bayonet.
49. Blitzkrieg warfare.
50. Terrorism/ Suicide soldiers.
51. Khaki battle uniforms.
52. Sniper fighting.
53. Trench warfare.
54. Cluster bombs.
55. The convoy system.
56. The removal of barriers of class and race distinction in the army.
57. Women in the military.
58. Scorched earth warfare.
59. The invention of the armored car and the Jeep.
60. The invention of the depth charge. To be used in anti-submarine warfare.
1. The invention of the tank
2. The birth of air warfare and the development of the aircraft carrier
3. First use of biological weapons
4. Harnessing the powers of fire and water.
5. The A-Bomb
6. The H-Bomb and the Neutron Bomb.
7. Chemical weaponry
8. Gunpowder
9. The stirrup
10. Domestication of the Horse/Camel/Elephant.
11. The development of Bronze weaponry
12. The creation of the standing army
13. Invention of the flintlock musket
14. Development of the first canons. Birth of artillery warfare.
15. The longbow
16. Surveillance satellites
17. Invention of the rifle
18. Laser weaponry
19. Military organization
20. The invention of the wheel
21. The Invention of the shield
22. Invention of barb wire
23. Invention of the machine gun.
24. Invention of the hand held pistol
25. The development of the suit of armor.
26. The development of siege warfare and such devices as the catapult.
27. Diplomacy /Deception.
28. Dynamite
29. The invention of the Molotov cocktail.
30. The invention of the mortar
31. Invention of the radio.
32. Walled cities and moats.
33. Development of the computer/microprocessor.
34. Invention of the helicopter
35. Invention of the hand grenade.
36. Invention of the smart bomb.
37. The development of propaganda techniques
38. The invention of the submarine
39. The invention of radar.
40. The development of land mines.
41. The invention of the parachute.
42. The sophistication of espionage techniques - eg. code breaking.
43. The invention of the assembly line for production.
44. Development of anti-aircraft weaponry.
45. The arrival of the Dreadnoughts (Turn-of-the century Metal Battleships)
46. The invention of the torpedo.
47. Compulsory military conscription.
48. Invention of the bayonet.
49. Blitzkrieg warfare.
50. Terrorism/ Suicide soldiers.
51. Khaki battle uniforms.
52. Sniper fighting.
53. Trench warfare.
54. Cluster bombs.
55. The convoy system.
56. The removal of barriers of class and race distinction in the army.
57. Women in the military.
58. Scorched earth warfare.
59. The invention of the armored car and the Jeep.
60. The invention of the depth charge. To be used in anti-submarine warfare.
The Mousetrap Propulsion Car
This is a common High School Physics Project. Below is a list of expectations - in addition to the actual Mousetrap car - that I expect my Grade 11 Physics students to deliver on.
Grade 11 SPH3U Final Report
A Cover Page. Must include Title. Name. Course.
Report must be type-written
A sketch with clean lines. Sketch should contain labels of key items
A Free Body Sketch of the Mousetrap showing all forces
A Data Table with time trials for at least five runs
- Items to be included should be: starting velocity, average velocity, final velocity, displacement, time
- Calculate Net Force for each run
Estimation of Friction force acting on the object - will need to look up rolling friction coefficients
Calculation of Applied Force for each run. You will have to think about this.
Paragraph or two rationalizing why you made chose to implement certain features (at least three) eg. Why did you choose big wheels as opposed to small wheels or vice versa? Why were gears necessary? etc
A paragraph detailing important energy conversion that occur in the mousetrap process? Estimate the efficiency of the system.
A paragraph detailing possible improvements to the system.
A paragraph outlining what you believe that you have learnt from this project. At least three items.
Relevant Bibliography of at least four sources that you looked at when carrying out your design. A maximum of two of these sources can be internet related.
The Report need not be longer than five-six pages double spaced.
Grade 11 SPH3U Final Report
A Cover Page. Must include Title. Name. Course.
Report must be type-written
A sketch with clean lines. Sketch should contain labels of key items
A Free Body Sketch of the Mousetrap showing all forces
A Data Table with time trials for at least five runs
- Items to be included should be: starting velocity, average velocity, final velocity, displacement, time
- Calculate Net Force for each run
Estimation of Friction force acting on the object - will need to look up rolling friction coefficients
Calculation of Applied Force for each run. You will have to think about this.
Paragraph or two rationalizing why you made chose to implement certain features (at least three) eg. Why did you choose big wheels as opposed to small wheels or vice versa? Why were gears necessary? etc
A paragraph detailing important energy conversion that occur in the mousetrap process? Estimate the efficiency of the system.
A paragraph detailing possible improvements to the system.
A paragraph outlining what you believe that you have learnt from this project. At least three items.
Relevant Bibliography of at least four sources that you looked at when carrying out your design. A maximum of two of these sources can be internet related.
The Report need not be longer than five-six pages double spaced.
English Premiership draws to a close
Blackburn tied Man U at Erwood Park which leaves Chelsea three points behind the leaders, but United still dominant on goal difference. For me its anyone but the Mancs but realistically speaking its United's title to lose and I can't see them doing that.
Liverpool have all but secured 4th spot in the League (which means CL next season). Fulham were left wanting today as the Reds B team won 2-0 with goals from Pennant and Crouch (a useful combination that offers Benitez some options in the Champions League).
All the focus now though is on the Anfield encounter with Chelsea in the CL semi-finals this tuesday .The 'smart money' is backing Chelsea but then that was the case as well in 2005 and 2007 with Liverpool emerging victorious on both occasions.
As a Liverpool supporter I would prefer the first leg to be at Stamford Bridge but I have faith that the Reds can prevail regardless of the scheduling.
My predictions for relegation are: Derby (done deal), Fulham and Reading.
I am also goiung out on a bit of a limb here and backing Torres to reach 25 league goals by seasons end (assuming no injuries) - what a prize he has turned out to be. Our best striker since Rush?.......Perhaps....sorry Robbie Fowler fans.
Liverpool have all but secured 4th spot in the League (which means CL next season). Fulham were left wanting today as the Reds B team won 2-0 with goals from Pennant and Crouch (a useful combination that offers Benitez some options in the Champions League).
All the focus now though is on the Anfield encounter with Chelsea in the CL semi-finals this tuesday .The 'smart money' is backing Chelsea but then that was the case as well in 2005 and 2007 with Liverpool emerging victorious on both occasions.
As a Liverpool supporter I would prefer the first leg to be at Stamford Bridge but I have faith that the Reds can prevail regardless of the scheduling.
My predictions for relegation are: Derby (done deal), Fulham and Reading.
I am also goiung out on a bit of a limb here and backing Torres to reach 25 league goals by seasons end (assuming no injuries) - what a prize he has turned out to be. Our best striker since Rush?.......Perhaps....sorry Robbie Fowler fans.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Some thoughts
In my writing I have tried to resurrect the Idom a word that I have coined to represent the single idea. Pure in its presentation, yet open to the reader’s interpretation not bothered by prose that flowers the main theme.
Poetry seems to be the best form for the self expression of one’s feelings even though in some way it is too particular to be of use to anyone else.
In reality everything is a blur. We suffer because we attempt to create clarity out of non-quantifiable mist. Drawing lines on platforms that are themselves imaginary.
I am a prisoner to my own need to write. No single idea can pass through my head without me wanting to put it on paper.
Poetry seems to be the best form for the self expression of one’s feelings even though in some way it is too particular to be of use to anyone else.
In reality everything is a blur. We suffer because we attempt to create clarity out of non-quantifiable mist. Drawing lines on platforms that are themselves imaginary.
I am a prisoner to my own need to write. No single idea can pass through my head without me wanting to put it on paper.
Is Knowledge Finite?
G: Simply put. I would like to know if knowledge is finite ?
P: Isn’t that the type of question that only a higher power can answer ?
G: Maybe in truth. But its worth speculating about. To begin with we have to ask what is knowledge ?
Is it the sum of everything knowable ? ie. Everything that can be understood. Or does it include the unknowable ? ie. Those ‘facts’ if indeed ‘fact’ is the right word that we are incapable of understanding.
For convenience and because to not do so would open up a giant can of worms. I have chosen knowledge to be that which is knowable. So the question we need answer then is whether body of knowledge we define as knowable is static or dynamic. Since nothing in the universe is truly static (it is only static within the narrow dimensions in which we define or limit it a such), it is safe to assume that knowledge is not static either ie. It fluctuates over time. Since it is always in a state of flux knowledge can never truly be measured. It therefore takes on the form of being infinite and unreachable. However what happens if we reduce the delta in time between single units of knowledge to as close to zero as possible (without of course reaching zero), could we reduce knowledge change to zero itself. In other words is it possible to hypothetically flash freeze the knowledge available at a time to create a snapshot of what total knowledge looks like, in a moment of no change ? Another one for the higher power I guess. But since all mass and energy can be reduced ultimately to quanta ie. they break down into discrete units, then knowledge change which is some function of both mass and energy (certainly the knowable portion) cannot be reduced to a size below that of the knowledge quanta. Ie. zero knowledge change is impossible. Therefore knowledge is always, even at the most infinitesimally small time scale always changing, Hence it cannot be measured and is by definition infinite.
P: Isn’t that the type of question that only a higher power can answer ?
G: Maybe in truth. But its worth speculating about. To begin with we have to ask what is knowledge ?
Is it the sum of everything knowable ? ie. Everything that can be understood. Or does it include the unknowable ? ie. Those ‘facts’ if indeed ‘fact’ is the right word that we are incapable of understanding.
For convenience and because to not do so would open up a giant can of worms. I have chosen knowledge to be that which is knowable. So the question we need answer then is whether body of knowledge we define as knowable is static or dynamic. Since nothing in the universe is truly static (it is only static within the narrow dimensions in which we define or limit it a such), it is safe to assume that knowledge is not static either ie. It fluctuates over time. Since it is always in a state of flux knowledge can never truly be measured. It therefore takes on the form of being infinite and unreachable. However what happens if we reduce the delta in time between single units of knowledge to as close to zero as possible (without of course reaching zero), could we reduce knowledge change to zero itself. In other words is it possible to hypothetically flash freeze the knowledge available at a time to create a snapshot of what total knowledge looks like, in a moment of no change ? Another one for the higher power I guess. But since all mass and energy can be reduced ultimately to quanta ie. they break down into discrete units, then knowledge change which is some function of both mass and energy (certainly the knowable portion) cannot be reduced to a size below that of the knowledge quanta. Ie. zero knowledge change is impossible. Therefore knowledge is always, even at the most infinitesimally small time scale always changing, Hence it cannot be measured and is by definition infinite.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Nine Irritating Personality Types
After Years of Observation.
1. The Repeater – Someone who tells you the same story over and over again without realizing at all that they have told it to you before. Strong repeaters not only retell the same stories but are prone to reiterating old cliches. The Repeater is the Ultimate bore and what is worse is that they have no idea whatsoever that they are boring. Somehow they are surrounded by an imaginary force field.
2. Computer Retentive - Never happy with the output of a document. The retentive is always adjusting such factors as the FONT or margin spacing to fit his or her obsessive need for ludicrious perfection. After a while adjustments will become ridiculous, such as flashing lines in word documents. Nevertheless CRs will insist that their document presentation is the best even if it means missing the deadline for the document’s draft.
3. Fashion Critic per excellence– Walks around making remarks about the dress sense of others. Is astute in noticing what is wrong with one’s dress clothes. Often does not hesitate to point this out to you. Of course their dress sense is by definition perfect.
4. Ultimate Process Player – Won’t do anything unless its in the process. Forget about spontaneity its not documented. This character is without doubt one of the worst drudges in any work environment.
5. One- Over-U – What ever you achieve or can do? This personality type can do better. At least that’s what they claim. Sees everything in black and white, where its you against them. Lives by one up-manship. A trait that they probably developed during toliet training.
6. See-No-Evil – The world is all good. People are not bad just misunderstood. Is so caught up in seeing the good of others, that they cannot realize when they themselves are being used against good for the sake of ill-intended purposes.
7. My-luv-life-is crap – Bores you to death with descriptions of their love life. Generally self centered. Offers no advice to another party but insists that you should be the sounding board for the description of their pathetic life.
8. Darkside – Only see the worst moments of a situation, no matter how rosy it really is. Will insist on pointing out the negatives of winning the lottery or having sex with Pamela Anderson. Positive breaks are minimized whilst bad happenings are exaggerated to take on catastrophic portions. Any advice that you give such a person will be deconstructed and then ripped apart in front of the advice giver.
9. Obvious Sayer – An unimaginative git, who can always be relied to point out the obvious to everyone. Generally a trend follower the obvious sayer specializes in dumbing down what would otherwise be an intelligent conversation by stating the limits of his comprehension early on
1. The Repeater – Someone who tells you the same story over and over again without realizing at all that they have told it to you before. Strong repeaters not only retell the same stories but are prone to reiterating old cliches. The Repeater is the Ultimate bore and what is worse is that they have no idea whatsoever that they are boring. Somehow they are surrounded by an imaginary force field.
2. Computer Retentive - Never happy with the output of a document. The retentive is always adjusting such factors as the FONT or margin spacing to fit his or her obsessive need for ludicrious perfection. After a while adjustments will become ridiculous, such as flashing lines in word documents. Nevertheless CRs will insist that their document presentation is the best even if it means missing the deadline for the document’s draft.
3. Fashion Critic per excellence– Walks around making remarks about the dress sense of others. Is astute in noticing what is wrong with one’s dress clothes. Often does not hesitate to point this out to you. Of course their dress sense is by definition perfect.
4. Ultimate Process Player – Won’t do anything unless its in the process. Forget about spontaneity its not documented. This character is without doubt one of the worst drudges in any work environment.
5. One- Over-U – What ever you achieve or can do? This personality type can do better. At least that’s what they claim. Sees everything in black and white, where its you against them. Lives by one up-manship. A trait that they probably developed during toliet training.
6. See-No-Evil – The world is all good. People are not bad just misunderstood. Is so caught up in seeing the good of others, that they cannot realize when they themselves are being used against good for the sake of ill-intended purposes.
7. My-luv-life-is crap – Bores you to death with descriptions of their love life. Generally self centered. Offers no advice to another party but insists that you should be the sounding board for the description of their pathetic life.
8. Darkside – Only see the worst moments of a situation, no matter how rosy it really is. Will insist on pointing out the negatives of winning the lottery or having sex with Pamela Anderson. Positive breaks are minimized whilst bad happenings are exaggerated to take on catastrophic portions. Any advice that you give such a person will be deconstructed and then ripped apart in front of the advice giver.
9. Obvious Sayer – An unimaginative git, who can always be relied to point out the obvious to everyone. Generally a trend follower the obvious sayer specializes in dumbing down what would otherwise be an intelligent conversation by stating the limits of his comprehension early on
Top 100 Greatest South Africans
As a South African living in Canada - this list was worth noting
I have posted the Top 50 - For the rest go to
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABC3
Notable absentees from the list include:
Philip Tobias - Anthroplogist
Max Theiler - Nobel Prize Winner (Medicine 1951 - Area of Research - Yellow Fever)
JBM Herzog - Influential Afrikaner Politician
Louis Botha - First South African Prime Minister
DF Malan - Prime Minister
1. Nelson Mandela, first president of democratic South Africa and joint Nobel Peace Prize winner (1918 - )
2. Christiaan Barnard, pioneering heart transplant surgeon (1922 - 2001)
3. F. W. de Klerk, former president and joint Nobel Peace Prize winner (1936 - )
4. Mahatma Gandhi, political activist (1869 - 1948)
5. Nkosi Johnson, child who died of AIDS (1989 - 2001)
6. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, politician and 2nd wife of Nelson Mandela (1936 - )
7. Thabo Mbeki, current president (1942 - )
8. Gary Player, golfer (1936 - )
9. Jan Smuts, statesman (1870 - 1950)
10. Desmond Tutu, cleric and Nobel Peace Prize winner (1931 - )
11. Hansie Cronje, cricketer (1969 - 2002)
12. Charlize Theron, actress and Academy Award winner (1975 - )
13. Steve Biko, nonviolent political activist (1946 - 1977)
14. Shaka, founder of the Zulu nation (1787 - 1828)
15. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, politician and a Zulu prince (1928 - )
16. Tony Leon, politician (1956 - )
17. Brenda Fassie, singer (1964 - 2004)
18. Mark Shuttleworth, Web entrepreneur, founder of Thawte, distributor of Ubuntu Linux and second fee paying space tourist (1973 - )
19. Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, former prime minister and primary architect of Apartheid (1901 - 1966)2
0. Chris Hani, political activist who was Secretary General of the SACP when he was assassinated (1942 - 1993)
21. Bonginkosi Dlamini, also known as "Zola", poet, actor and musician
22. Patricia de Lille, politician (1951 - )
23. Johnny Clegg, also known as "The White Zulu", musician (1953 - )
24. Helen Suzman, stateswoman (1917 - )
25. Eugène Terre'Blanche, white supremacist and founder of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (1941 - )
26. Pieter Dirk Uys political satirist and entertainer (1945 - )
27. Paul Kruger, four times president of South African Republic (1825 - 1904)
28. Anton Rupert, businessman and environmentalist (1916 - 2006)
29. Jonty Rhodes, cricketer (1969 - )
30. Leon Schuster, filmmaker, comedian, actor and prankster (entertainer)
31. Oliver Tambo, political activist who spent 30 years in exile (1917 - 1993)
32. Steve Hofmeyr, musician and actor
33. Walter Sisulu, political activist (1912 - 2003
)34. Cyril Ramaphosa, politician and businessman
35. J. R. R. Tolkien, author (1892 - 1973)
36. Beyers Naude, cleric and anti-apartheid activist (1915 - 2004)
37. Ernie Els, golfer (1969 - )
38. Miriam Makeba, musician (1932 - )
39. Patrice Motsepe, businessman
40. Trevor Manuel, civil engineer, minister of finance and politician
41. Albert Luthuli, cleric, politician and 1960 Nobel Peace Prize winner († 1967)
42. Robert Sobukwe, former political activist and founder of the PAC (1924 - 1978)
43. Tokyo Sexwale, politician and businessman
44. Danny Jordaan, politician and soccer administrator
45. Fatima Meer, scientist and political activist
46. Ahmed Kathrada, political activist
47. Joe Slovo, communist politician (1926 - 1995)
48. Natalie du Toit, disabled olympic swimmer
49. Jomo Sono, soccer coach
50. Francois Pienaar, captain of the Springboks, the winning team in the 1995 Rugby World
I have posted the Top 50 - For the rest go to
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABC3
Notable absentees from the list include:
Philip Tobias - Anthroplogist
Max Theiler - Nobel Prize Winner (Medicine 1951 - Area of Research - Yellow Fever)
JBM Herzog - Influential Afrikaner Politician
Louis Botha - First South African Prime Minister
DF Malan - Prime Minister
1. Nelson Mandela, first president of democratic South Africa and joint Nobel Peace Prize winner (1918 - )
2. Christiaan Barnard, pioneering heart transplant surgeon (1922 - 2001)
3. F. W. de Klerk, former president and joint Nobel Peace Prize winner (1936 - )
4. Mahatma Gandhi, political activist (1869 - 1948)
5. Nkosi Johnson, child who died of AIDS (1989 - 2001)
6. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, politician and 2nd wife of Nelson Mandela (1936 - )
7. Thabo Mbeki, current president (1942 - )
8. Gary Player, golfer (1936 - )
9. Jan Smuts, statesman (1870 - 1950)
10. Desmond Tutu, cleric and Nobel Peace Prize winner (1931 - )
11. Hansie Cronje, cricketer (1969 - 2002)
12. Charlize Theron, actress and Academy Award winner (1975 - )
13. Steve Biko, nonviolent political activist (1946 - 1977)
14. Shaka, founder of the Zulu nation (1787 - 1828)
15. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, politician and a Zulu prince (1928 - )
16. Tony Leon, politician (1956 - )
17. Brenda Fassie, singer (1964 - 2004)
18. Mark Shuttleworth, Web entrepreneur, founder of Thawte, distributor of Ubuntu Linux and second fee paying space tourist (1973 - )
19. Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, former prime minister and primary architect of Apartheid (1901 - 1966)2
0. Chris Hani, political activist who was Secretary General of the SACP when he was assassinated (1942 - 1993)
21. Bonginkosi Dlamini, also known as "Zola", poet, actor and musician
22. Patricia de Lille, politician (1951 - )
23. Johnny Clegg, also known as "The White Zulu", musician (1953 - )
24. Helen Suzman, stateswoman (1917 - )
25. Eugène Terre'Blanche, white supremacist and founder of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (1941 - )
26. Pieter Dirk Uys political satirist and entertainer (1945 - )
27. Paul Kruger, four times president of South African Republic (1825 - 1904)
28. Anton Rupert, businessman and environmentalist (1916 - 2006)
29. Jonty Rhodes, cricketer (1969 - )
30. Leon Schuster, filmmaker, comedian, actor and prankster (entertainer)
31. Oliver Tambo, political activist who spent 30 years in exile (1917 - 1993)
32. Steve Hofmeyr, musician and actor
33. Walter Sisulu, political activist (1912 - 2003
)34. Cyril Ramaphosa, politician and businessman
35. J. R. R. Tolkien, author (1892 - 1973)
36. Beyers Naude, cleric and anti-apartheid activist (1915 - 2004)
37. Ernie Els, golfer (1969 - )
38. Miriam Makeba, musician (1932 - )
39. Patrice Motsepe, businessman
40. Trevor Manuel, civil engineer, minister of finance and politician
41. Albert Luthuli, cleric, politician and 1960 Nobel Peace Prize winner († 1967)
42. Robert Sobukwe, former political activist and founder of the PAC (1924 - 1978)
43. Tokyo Sexwale, politician and businessman
44. Danny Jordaan, politician and soccer administrator
45. Fatima Meer, scientist and political activist
46. Ahmed Kathrada, political activist
47. Joe Slovo, communist politician (1926 - 1995)
48. Natalie du Toit, disabled olympic swimmer
49. Jomo Sono, soccer coach
50. Francois Pienaar, captain of the Springboks, the winning team in the 1995 Rugby World
Friday, April 11, 2008
20 Greatest Non-Medical Mechanical Inventions
1. The Plough
2. The Spear
3. Wheel
4. Levers
5. Working sewage system
6. The Clock
7. Writing
8. Printing Press
9. Radio
10. Telephone
11. Computers
12. Modern Irrigation
13. Automobiles
14. Sailing Ships
15. Airplanes
16. The Compass
17. Conveyor Belts
18. Television
19. Nuclear Reactors
20. The Drill
2. The Spear
3. Wheel
4. Levers
5. Working sewage system
6. The Clock
7. Writing
8. Printing Press
9. Radio
10. Telephone
11. Computers
12. Modern Irrigation
13. Automobiles
14. Sailing Ships
15. Airplanes
16. The Compass
17. Conveyor Belts
18. Television
19. Nuclear Reactors
20. The Drill
The Illusion of Atheist Superiority
Some of the most religious people I have ever met are atheists. Sounds ridiculous.....doesn’t it? But the preceding statement is a truism. The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin root (religo) which means ‘to bind’ or ‘to obligate’. When viewed in such a context the enthusiasm which many an atheist shows in denying God creates such ‘an obligation’ to a philosophy....... that to call it anything else seems completely ludicrous. Now it is not that I am critical of the atheist's belief, for like any other free thinking being they too have the right to a choice...... but to describe oneself as existing on a higher level of being free from religion, simply because one has rejected the supernatural makes no sense whatsoever. All that has happened is that one belief system has been substituted for another, and the ‘escape from dogma’ that so many atheists rejoice in trumping, is nothing more than a falsity that has blinded the perspective of its holder.
On Buddhism
There is an essence to Buddhism that at first glance appears to be extremely soothing. As a philosophy it puts on a kinder face that to so many appears to be more welcoming than the harshness of the Judeo-Christian belief system. One such mechanism that has engendered one to think of Buddhism in a more enlightened framework was the replacement of the all-powerful judging God viewing each and every one of our actions with the belief in karma, that argues that every action has a consequence to it. In reality both the God and the karmic system function to guide our action toward doing what is the ‘good’. Bad acts in the Buddhist world invite bad karma which leads to suffering. In Western theology these acts are punished by the wrath of God, which too leads to suffering. So what we have here are alternative explanations for the same outcome. But are they really alternatives or is the one, karma, perhaps merely a description as to how God meets out justice? My problem with the karma view on its own is that it augers in too conveniently with the laws of classical physics. It provides for a predictability of outcome that for convenience is oversimplified. The complexity of human nature fits neatly into an equation of fortune that ‘makes it all too easy’ Subconsciously it is this ‘ease of knowing what an outcome is’ that perhaps draws many people to Buddhism. Western Religions are murkier on the outcome of an action because the ultimate decider of our fate is God, whose logic is beyond that of human reason (we for example cannot explain why infants die at such a young age but God must clearly know the reason). So we err on the side of simplicity and go with the easier explanation, not because it is necessary correct but because convenience and our loathing of uncertainty deems it so.
People once believed that the rules of mathematics and classical mechanics could be used to predict with complete certainty the future history of the universe. Modern Physics, the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics through this ‘certainty’ on its head. Now it appears that the universe is more intricate and unpredictable than we could ever imagine. Is this indeed the case or have we been denying something for too long a time that the workings of the universe, just the logic of justice cannot be described by a simplicity (such as karma) as its source derives from a God power, whose reasoning is beyond our understanding.
People once believed that the rules of mathematics and classical mechanics could be used to predict with complete certainty the future history of the universe. Modern Physics, the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics through this ‘certainty’ on its head. Now it appears that the universe is more intricate and unpredictable than we could ever imagine. Is this indeed the case or have we been denying something for too long a time that the workings of the universe, just the logic of justice cannot be described by a simplicity (such as karma) as its source derives from a God power, whose reasoning is beyond our understanding.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Condi Checkpoint
This is an excellent article illustrating the short-sightedness of current American Policy with respect to the Israel/Palestinian saga.
Lifted from:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=73CD3370-E86E-4916-AAFD-76E46E97550A
I have posted about 2/3 of the article for the rest click on the link above.
A new Hamas TV production for Palestinian children shows a puppet stabbing President Bush to death after telling him the White House has been turned into a mosque. The Palestinians elected Hamas as their leadership by a wide margin in January 2006, and in a poll two weeks ago a majority of Palestinians said they would vote for current Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh for president if there were new Palestinian elections.
After the massacre at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem on March 6, Bush called Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and said “This barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians deserves the condemnation of every nation.” But the same poll of Palestinians found 84% of them approving the attack. And the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority featured a front-page photo of the dead terrorist over a caption calling him a shahid (martyr).
To say that Bush and his secretary of state don’t appear impressed by these problematic proclivities of the Palestinians is a great understatement. Condi Rice was here yet again this week in what has become a grimly obsessive quest to award the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians—in their current condition of moral development—with a sovereign state by the end of 2008.
Rice’s visit was seen as aimed at ensuring “progress” by the time Bush visits Israel in May to mark its 60th anniversary. Any remaining doubts as to whether Bush and Rice are serious—or just intended the “Annapolis process” as a spectacle to appease broader Arab opinion—can be laid to rest by the fact that Bush has also invited PA president Mahmoud Abbas to the White House in early May.
So Rice came to Israel with an agenda of “easing conditions” for the Palestinians—meaning mainly the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank that the entire Israeli defense establishment regards as a key element in Israel’s mostly successful containment of West Bank terror over the past couple of years.
Rice’s main foil was reportedly Defense Minister Ehud Barak. A former military hero, a left-of-center, Labor politician who himself—as prime minister—made draconian offers to Yasser Arafat in 2000 and 2001, Barak is said to be concerned about jeopardizing the recent security achievements and, concurrently, his own ambitions to be prime minister again.
Nonetheless, Rice didn’t find Barak too tough a customer this time and, along with her U.S. delegation, was reportedly “amazed” at the gestures Barak offered in a three-way meeting with her and PA prime minister Salam Fayyad. These include, among other things, removing a major checkpoint near Ramallah and 50 dirt roadblocks, allowing 700 PA policemen (trained in Jordan under U.S. supervision) to enter the West Bank terror-town of Jenin, building a city or several neighborhoods near Ramallah, increasing the number of Palestinians allowed to work in Israel, and easing security checks on Palestinian public figures passing through crossings.
Part of why Barak folded so easily has to do with the pressure on him: as Jerusalem Post analyst Calev Ben-David noted,
it can’t be easy for Rice to sit opposite the most decorated soldier in Israeli military history, and counter his arguments that the concessions she is demanding risk endangering the security of his nation’s citizens. Perhaps that helps explain why she has enlisted some heavy brass to help her in that mission, a trio of top US military officials: Gen. James Jones, Lt.-Gen. William Fraser and Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton.
As Ben-David details, Jones—who is no less than former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe—is said to help Rice with putting the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” in a larger context and is the one who already “leaned on Barak to make security concessions ahead of the secretary’s visit.”
As for Fraser, he’s a former top-level air force commander and currently assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as Rice’s top military adviser, and he’s also entrusted with monitoring Israel and the PA’s compliance with the “process.”
Dayton , also no lightweight, was director of the Iraq Survey Group and a senior member of the Joint Chiefs, and helps oversee the training of the Palestinian security forces that Bush and Rice still hallucinate to be a pro-Western contingent that will resist and, if necessary, defeat Hamas. Ben-David speaks of “rumored tensions between Dayton and Barak, the latter reportedly bristling at [ Dayton ’s] criticism of [his] unwillingness to approve giving the PA security forces more operational latitude and higher-level military equipment.”
If that sounds like a lot of pressure on the defense minister of a democratic ally, it is. If it sounds like the idea that Israel is supposed to be a sovereign country in its own right is getting lost in the shuffle here, it is.
Lifted from:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=73CD3370-E86E-4916-AAFD-76E46E97550A
I have posted about 2/3 of the article for the rest click on the link above.
A new Hamas TV production for Palestinian children shows a puppet stabbing President Bush to death after telling him the White House has been turned into a mosque. The Palestinians elected Hamas as their leadership by a wide margin in January 2006, and in a poll two weeks ago a majority of Palestinians said they would vote for current Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh for president if there were new Palestinian elections.
After the massacre at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem on March 6, Bush called Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and said “This barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians deserves the condemnation of every nation.” But the same poll of Palestinians found 84% of them approving the attack. And the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority featured a front-page photo of the dead terrorist over a caption calling him a shahid (martyr).
To say that Bush and his secretary of state don’t appear impressed by these problematic proclivities of the Palestinians is a great understatement. Condi Rice was here yet again this week in what has become a grimly obsessive quest to award the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians—in their current condition of moral development—with a sovereign state by the end of 2008.
Rice’s visit was seen as aimed at ensuring “progress” by the time Bush visits Israel in May to mark its 60th anniversary. Any remaining doubts as to whether Bush and Rice are serious—or just intended the “Annapolis process” as a spectacle to appease broader Arab opinion—can be laid to rest by the fact that Bush has also invited PA president Mahmoud Abbas to the White House in early May.
So Rice came to Israel with an agenda of “easing conditions” for the Palestinians—meaning mainly the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank that the entire Israeli defense establishment regards as a key element in Israel’s mostly successful containment of West Bank terror over the past couple of years.
Rice’s main foil was reportedly Defense Minister Ehud Barak. A former military hero, a left-of-center, Labor politician who himself—as prime minister—made draconian offers to Yasser Arafat in 2000 and 2001, Barak is said to be concerned about jeopardizing the recent security achievements and, concurrently, his own ambitions to be prime minister again.
Nonetheless, Rice didn’t find Barak too tough a customer this time and, along with her U.S. delegation, was reportedly “amazed” at the gestures Barak offered in a three-way meeting with her and PA prime minister Salam Fayyad. These include, among other things, removing a major checkpoint near Ramallah and 50 dirt roadblocks, allowing 700 PA policemen (trained in Jordan under U.S. supervision) to enter the West Bank terror-town of Jenin, building a city or several neighborhoods near Ramallah, increasing the number of Palestinians allowed to work in Israel, and easing security checks on Palestinian public figures passing through crossings.
Part of why Barak folded so easily has to do with the pressure on him: as Jerusalem Post analyst Calev Ben-David noted,
it can’t be easy for Rice to sit opposite the most decorated soldier in Israeli military history, and counter his arguments that the concessions she is demanding risk endangering the security of his nation’s citizens. Perhaps that helps explain why she has enlisted some heavy brass to help her in that mission, a trio of top US military officials: Gen. James Jones, Lt.-Gen. William Fraser and Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton.
As Ben-David details, Jones—who is no less than former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe—is said to help Rice with putting the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” in a larger context and is the one who already “leaned on Barak to make security concessions ahead of the secretary’s visit.”
As for Fraser, he’s a former top-level air force commander and currently assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as Rice’s top military adviser, and he’s also entrusted with monitoring Israel and the PA’s compliance with the “process.”
Dayton , also no lightweight, was director of the Iraq Survey Group and a senior member of the Joint Chiefs, and helps oversee the training of the Palestinian security forces that Bush and Rice still hallucinate to be a pro-Western contingent that will resist and, if necessary, defeat Hamas. Ben-David speaks of “rumored tensions between Dayton and Barak, the latter reportedly bristling at [ Dayton ’s] criticism of [his] unwillingness to approve giving the PA security forces more operational latitude and higher-level military equipment.”
If that sounds like a lot of pressure on the defense minister of a democratic ally, it is. If it sounds like the idea that Israel is supposed to be a sovereign country in its own right is getting lost in the shuffle here, it is.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Al Sharpton - Off the Deep End Once Again
He has made a career and a fortune out of exploiting racial issues - Could this lack of moral judgement finally torpedo Big Al? Methinks not the blinkers have been set to tight on the heads of the chattering class.
Read
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/03/30/s1c_bino_0330.html
Read
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/03/30/s1c_bino_0330.html
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The 20th Century
10 Names that future historians might be justified in using when describing the 20th century
1. Age of Greed
2. Age of Insanity
3. Era of Border Collapse
4. Age of the Frivolous
5. First Period of the Media
6. Total War Era
7. Era of Protest
8. Age of virtual gold
9. Period of growth-obsession
10. Age of Disinformation
1. Age of Greed
2. Age of Insanity
3. Era of Border Collapse
4. Age of the Frivolous
5. First Period of the Media
6. Total War Era
7. Era of Protest
8. Age of virtual gold
9. Period of growth-obsession
10. Age of Disinformation
Democrats shooting themselves in the foot
The following is an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal Article
by Daniel Henninger. Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657794218867183.html?mod=todays_columnists
The Democratic primary is starting to look like World War I. The origins of the dispute are forgotten. Pennsylvania is the Somme. No chance, though, that the Clintons, who lead the imperial armies, will consent to paying reparations at the Treaty of Denver.The most striking resemblance to the Great War has been the campaign-worker body-count. They're strewn all over the battlefield. Geraldine Ferraro (killed for bringing up if Obama weren't black), Samantha Power (Hillary's a "monster"), the intrepid if foolhardy Rev. Wright (multiple offenses), James Hagee (Catholics as the "anti-Christ"), Bill Cunningham ("Barack Hussein Obama"), Bill Sheehan (for bringing up Obama's drug use). All gone. Anyone working for or in support of a political campaign these days is entering a free-fire zone.Some say the high casualty rate in the campaigns is the result of indiscriminate political correctness. Campus speech codes were put in place to monitor people who said the "wrong thing" about favored groups, often categorized as holding "minority status" by dint of race, gender or sexual preference. Now the Democratic campaigns are using the toxic PC gas on each other.
Original Source has the full article.........
by Daniel Henninger. Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657794218867183.html?mod=todays_columnists
The Democratic primary is starting to look like World War I. The origins of the dispute are forgotten. Pennsylvania is the Somme. No chance, though, that the Clintons, who lead the imperial armies, will consent to paying reparations at the Treaty of Denver.The most striking resemblance to the Great War has been the campaign-worker body-count. They're strewn all over the battlefield. Geraldine Ferraro (killed for bringing up if Obama weren't black), Samantha Power (Hillary's a "monster"), the intrepid if foolhardy Rev. Wright (multiple offenses), James Hagee (Catholics as the "anti-Christ"), Bill Cunningham ("Barack Hussein Obama"), Bill Sheehan (for bringing up Obama's drug use). All gone. Anyone working for or in support of a political campaign these days is entering a free-fire zone.Some say the high casualty rate in the campaigns is the result of indiscriminate political correctness. Campus speech codes were put in place to monitor people who said the "wrong thing" about favored groups, often categorized as holding "minority status" by dint of race, gender or sexual preference. Now the Democratic campaigns are using the toxic PC gas on each other.
Original Source has the full article.........
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
A Zest for History
I am very much a history buff - see my other blog
http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/
or my book - Take the History Challenge
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Take-History-Challenge-Gavin-Kanowitz/dp/1401051499
It has been my passion from age five. These are my ten favourite areas of study.
(not in any order)
1. The Middle East since 1880
2. Biblical Times (and the People Thereof )
3. The History of Science
4. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era
5. African History – (20th century)
6. Jewish History
7. The 19th Century radical movements
8. Second World War
9. Cold War
10. Ancient Rome
http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/
or my book - Take the History Challenge
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Take-History-Challenge-Gavin-Kanowitz/dp/1401051499
It has been my passion from age five. These are my ten favourite areas of study.
(not in any order)
1. The Middle East since 1880
2. Biblical Times (and the People Thereof )
3. The History of Science
4. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era
5. African History – (20th century)
6. Jewish History
7. The 19th Century radical movements
8. Second World War
9. Cold War
10. Ancient Rome
Comment on Carl Jung
I enjoy reading Jung but still question the practicality of much of his work. Whilst the concept of the Static and dynamic personalities, and their definitions within the construct of both the masculine and feminine life forces makes sense, his reliance on the power of the mythic image is overplayed. In today’s society especially, with the flood of information that bombard us each minute, I see the mythic image swamped and indeed torpedoed by all else that impinges our mind. Reducing these old archetypes into practically marginalized entities.
The Tilt of Journalism in the US
This article below is a reprint from
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032001.html
Looks like Bernard Goldberg - The Author of Arrogance was correct.
http://www.amazon.com/Arrogance-Rescuing-America-Media-Elite/dp/044653191X
Four Times as Many Journalists Self-Define as Liberal than Conservative
By John Jalsevac
March 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that journalists are far more likely to define themselves as liberal than the general population, and far less likely to define themselves as conservative.
The massive study was conducted late last year, and surveyed the views of over 500 journalists.
"As was the case in 2004," reads the commentary on the study by the Pew Research Center, "majorities of the national and local journalists surveyed describe themselves as political moderates; 53% of national journalists and 58% of local journalists say they are moderates. About a third of national journalists (32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals. Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives (8% national, 14% local)."
Commentary by the popular Newsbusters website suggested that the statistics do not even fully describe the imbalance in the media, pointing out, "It's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as 'moderate' are really quite liberal."
The study also found that internet journalists in particular tend to be more liberal than other journalists. "Fewer than half (46%) call themselves moderates, while 39% are self described liberals and just 9% are conservatives."
The study compared these figures with the figures for the general population, saying: "Among the population as a whole, 36% call themselves conservatives - more than triple the percentage of national and internet journalists, and more than double the percentage of local journalists. About four-in-ten (39%) characterized their political views as moderate, while 19% are self-described liberals, based on surveys conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press."
Amy Mitchell, deputy director of Pew Research Center, said that the findings are the same as they were when a similar study was conducted in 2004. The numbers also reflect the findings of other similar studies.
The disproportion in the beliefs of journalists has also reflected itself in public attitudes towards the press. "Among those who feel that their daily newspaper has become worse," says the study, "the number who blame bias, and particularly liberal bias, has grown from 19% in 1996 to 28% in 2006."
"Overall, Republicans express less confidence than Democrats in the credibility of nearly every major news outlet, with the exception of Fox News. Yet that partisan gap is narrowing, and that is because Democrats are beginning to doubt the believability of more news outlets, and their suspicion of bias is growing too."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032001.html
Looks like Bernard Goldberg - The Author of Arrogance was correct.
http://www.amazon.com/Arrogance-Rescuing-America-Media-Elite/dp/044653191X
Four Times as Many Journalists Self-Define as Liberal than Conservative
By John Jalsevac
March 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that journalists are far more likely to define themselves as liberal than the general population, and far less likely to define themselves as conservative.
The massive study was conducted late last year, and surveyed the views of over 500 journalists.
"As was the case in 2004," reads the commentary on the study by the Pew Research Center, "majorities of the national and local journalists surveyed describe themselves as political moderates; 53% of national journalists and 58% of local journalists say they are moderates. About a third of national journalists (32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals. Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives (8% national, 14% local)."
Commentary by the popular Newsbusters website suggested that the statistics do not even fully describe the imbalance in the media, pointing out, "It's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as 'moderate' are really quite liberal."
The study also found that internet journalists in particular tend to be more liberal than other journalists. "Fewer than half (46%) call themselves moderates, while 39% are self described liberals and just 9% are conservatives."
The study compared these figures with the figures for the general population, saying: "Among the population as a whole, 36% call themselves conservatives - more than triple the percentage of national and internet journalists, and more than double the percentage of local journalists. About four-in-ten (39%) characterized their political views as moderate, while 19% are self-described liberals, based on surveys conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press."
Amy Mitchell, deputy director of Pew Research Center, said that the findings are the same as they were when a similar study was conducted in 2004. The numbers also reflect the findings of other similar studies.
The disproportion in the beliefs of journalists has also reflected itself in public attitudes towards the press. "Among those who feel that their daily newspaper has become worse," says the study, "the number who blame bias, and particularly liberal bias, has grown from 19% in 1996 to 28% in 2006."
"Overall, Republicans express less confidence than Democrats in the credibility of nearly every major news outlet, with the exception of Fox News. Yet that partisan gap is narrowing, and that is because Democrats are beginning to doubt the believability of more news outlets, and their suspicion of bias is growing too."
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why I like Batman......
For me Batman is the greatest of the DC Comics superheroes. Far superior to Superman and way ahead of the Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow and the Hawk. It was the universe in which the dark night existed that drew me to the Gotham City avenger. Batman has no powers other than his wit and physical prowess, yet he faces and defeats villains who were seemingly larger than life. There is a depth to Bruce Wayne’s world that escapes that of Clarke Kent’s. I appreciate this. Once when deconstructing the Gotham Universe I was hit by a strange idea, Batman’s villains all take something benign such a s a joke, a riddle, a cat and a penguin, and twist them into evil entities as represented by their respective villains. It is this perversion of the ordinary that makes these villains so frightening. All faith in what should be harmless is destroyed overridden by the diabolical.
Four reasons to dismiss the Classical Utopia
1. Humanity is cursed with the Boredom factor.
2. Our General vision is shortsighted because our lives are short.
3. We are programmed to look out for ourselves. Therefore energy flow is in all directions. It is difficult to facilitate movement on a global level in the same direction.
4. Individuals need to be optimized with respect to their abilities. This will most likely never happen.
2. Our General vision is shortsighted because our lives are short.
3. We are programmed to look out for ourselves. Therefore energy flow is in all directions. It is difficult to facilitate movement on a global level in the same direction.
4. Individuals need to be optimized with respect to their abilities. This will most likely never happen.
Zombie Times - The Insanity of Moonbeams
Zombie Times has some bizarre and somewhat nauseating photographs from various uber-Leftist demonstrations/Book Fairs over the last few years.
Five to look at in particular are:
1. US Out of Iraq Now Anti-War Rally
http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/
2. Racist Literature Distributed in Berkley
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_racist_literature/
3. Rally Against Bush's opposed Troop Escalation in Iraq
http://www.zombietime.com/no_troop_escalation/
4. Anti-American July 4th
http://www.zombietime.com/anti-july_4th_sf/
5. AIPAC Dinner Protest
http://www.zombietime.com/aipac_oakland/
Ten Commonalities from these protests
1. An undeniable anti-semitic undertone/overtone
2. The presence of a significant number of individuals with possible mental disorders
3. HATRED that seems to be pathological in nature
4. An abundance of hypocrisy (Greenies driving big SUVs is my fave)
5. Shock Value
6. The Death of Rationality/Reason
7. Badly written signs
8. Postmodernism ad nauseum
9. An obvious alliance between the Four R's (or Four Radicalisms): Islamism, Marxism, Old-Fashioned Isolationism and New Wave Socialism.
10. Bush Derangement Syndrome
Five to look at in particular are:
1. US Out of Iraq Now Anti-War Rally
http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/
2. Racist Literature Distributed in Berkley
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_racist_literature/
3. Rally Against Bush's opposed Troop Escalation in Iraq
http://www.zombietime.com/no_troop_escalation/
4. Anti-American July 4th
http://www.zombietime.com/anti-july_4th_sf/
5. AIPAC Dinner Protest
http://www.zombietime.com/aipac_oakland/
Ten Commonalities from these protests
1. An undeniable anti-semitic undertone/overtone
2. The presence of a significant number of individuals with possible mental disorders
3. HATRED that seems to be pathological in nature
4. An abundance of hypocrisy (Greenies driving big SUVs is my fave)
5. Shock Value
6. The Death of Rationality/Reason
7. Badly written signs
8. Postmodernism ad nauseum
9. An obvious alliance between the Four R's (or Four Radicalisms): Islamism, Marxism, Old-Fashioned Isolationism and New Wave Socialism.
10. Bush Derangement Syndrome
Thursday, March 20, 2008
On Barack Obama....some passing thoughts
The Obama candidacy is something of an enigma as it seems to be drawing support from a variety of sources that cut across traditional political divisions (I heard a politician from the Right of center Libertarian Fraser Institute endorsing him the other day... I almost fell off my chair as Obama's economics policies are littered with old-style 'tax and spend liberalism'.........Andrew Sullivan likes Obama as well but the former New Republic editor appears to be inhaling some mind altering fumes of late).
Granted Obama has a noteworthy charisma but I find most of his speeches to be rather vacuous. He throws around the word 'change' as if he was receiving commission for its useage and almost always makes some reference to JFK beatifying the former president to underserved acclaim.
Furthermore Obama's experience profile makes Bush c.2000 look like a political veteran.
It is fair to say that up until the Pastorgate scandal Obama has been clothed in a criticism immunity cloak. Even his assoiciation with slumlord and early campaign donor Tony Reszko has been underreported by the media. I have relatives/colleagues who assure me that Obama is the real deal (usually based on nothing more than a hunch). As for myself I have to agree for once and only once with the odious Al Sharpton (who has since made a predictable u-turn) that Obama is 'all sizzle and no steak'
Granted Obama has a noteworthy charisma but I find most of his speeches to be rather vacuous. He throws around the word 'change' as if he was receiving commission for its useage and almost always makes some reference to JFK beatifying the former president to underserved acclaim.
Furthermore Obama's experience profile makes Bush c.2000 look like a political veteran.
It is fair to say that up until the Pastorgate scandal Obama has been clothed in a criticism immunity cloak. Even his assoiciation with slumlord and early campaign donor Tony Reszko has been underreported by the media. I have relatives/colleagues who assure me that Obama is the real deal (usually based on nothing more than a hunch). As for myself I have to agree for once and only once with the odious Al Sharpton (who has since made a predictable u-turn) that Obama is 'all sizzle and no steak'
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bozos of the Week
1. The Chinese government - For supporting an Anti-Israel UN resolution concerning Gaza while at the same time suppressing human rights with vigilence in Tibet this week;
2. Eliot Spitzer - I won't add more insult to the Spitzer debacle - Suffice it to say that at least the man is no cheapskate and he seems to have better taste in the fairer sex than Bill Clinton;
3. New Scientist - for posting an ad that showed flood victims in some remote Third World locale and somewhere blaming this on global carbon dioxide emissions (as if floods never existed before the Industrial Revolution) - if I wanted senstationalism I would read the Enquirer - Is Scientific Rationalism another victim of Environmental hysteria?
4. Al Sharpton - For threatening the DNC with a possible court action if they allow results from the Florida and Michigan Primaries to stand (these states backed HillBill over Obama). So much for Big Al being a champion of democracy and the right of the disenfranchised.....And of all places Florida where that election in 2000 was 'apparently' stolen - hypocrisy overload here;
5. The Canadian Federal Liberals - For sitting on their hands (when in power) while Canuck Wally Sampson was imprisoned and tortured in a Saudi Jail. The party is now taking the moral high ground by castigating the Conservatives with respect to the Brenda Martin case (A possible misacarriage of justice in Mexico involving another Canadian that took place initially....you guessed it..... during the Grit's tenure in power).
2. Eliot Spitzer - I won't add more insult to the Spitzer debacle - Suffice it to say that at least the man is no cheapskate and he seems to have better taste in the fairer sex than Bill Clinton;
3. New Scientist - for posting an ad that showed flood victims in some remote Third World locale and somewhere blaming this on global carbon dioxide emissions (as if floods never existed before the Industrial Revolution) - if I wanted senstationalism I would read the Enquirer - Is Scientific Rationalism another victim of Environmental hysteria?
4. Al Sharpton - For threatening the DNC with a possible court action if they allow results from the Florida and Michigan Primaries to stand (these states backed HillBill over Obama). So much for Big Al being a champion of democracy and the right of the disenfranchised.....And of all places Florida where that election in 2000 was 'apparently' stolen - hypocrisy overload here;
5. The Canadian Federal Liberals - For sitting on their hands (when in power) while Canuck Wally Sampson was imprisoned and tortured in a Saudi Jail. The party is now taking the moral high ground by castigating the Conservatives with respect to the Brenda Martin case (A possible misacarriage of justice in Mexico involving another Canadian that took place initially....you guessed it..... during the Grit's tenure in power).
Friday, March 14, 2008
My Book: A History of the Future (2025-2525)
The following is a description of the book
It can be purchased at: http://www.overlookedbooks.com/atitle.php?id=87
A History of the Future is a vast but orderly chronicle of the next five hundred years, set down not as 'perhaps-this-or-perhaps-that' conjecture, but as though historical fact accurate to specific days and years. A map for every science fiction fan and every reader who wishes to test in his/her own mind the plausibility of another's vision.
It is a fact of our mortality that we can never know the future. Yet nothing can quench this deep yearning for a glimpse into the world that will follow ours. Twenty and thirty somethings are particularly susceptible to the future's appeal and a century of science fiction stories has attempted to address the subject.
A History of the Future, however, answers the need more directly. It is not a story in the usual sense, but a document of sweeping scope that recounts the history of mankind as though the next five hundred years were already in the past. It begins so near to our own time that we easily recognize the significance of the events described and then, year by year, steps away from our present to chronicle the sorts of great changes that must inevitably overtake humanity.
As the work of an engineer, A History of the Future pays loving homage to the technological changes that have always had a most profound effect on our development. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, communications, aeronautics and weapons science are all there. But so are music, the fine arts, architecture, politics, alliance formation, diplomacy, wars and natural catastrophes. And 'History' does not describe these events in 'wooly' Nostradamus terms: it gives us the names and provides us with the dates. How accurate are they? As accurate as any vision of the future. They are as good as we can have.
A History of the Future provides science fiction, video gaming and futurology fans with a sweeping historical structure in which to set their favorite stories. How would classic sci-fi accounts fit in? How could such storybook events be linked to our very real present? The patient chronicle of A History of the Future provides the background.
The book is accompanied by a series of detailed appendices that authoritatively catalogue the peoples, places and things of these years and allows us as readers to briefly indulge the fantasy that the future is indeed known.
It can be purchased at: http://www.overlookedbooks.com/atitle.php?id=87
A History of the Future is a vast but orderly chronicle of the next five hundred years, set down not as 'perhaps-this-or-perhaps-that' conjecture, but as though historical fact accurate to specific days and years. A map for every science fiction fan and every reader who wishes to test in his/her own mind the plausibility of another's vision.
It is a fact of our mortality that we can never know the future. Yet nothing can quench this deep yearning for a glimpse into the world that will follow ours. Twenty and thirty somethings are particularly susceptible to the future's appeal and a century of science fiction stories has attempted to address the subject.
A History of the Future, however, answers the need more directly. It is not a story in the usual sense, but a document of sweeping scope that recounts the history of mankind as though the next five hundred years were already in the past. It begins so near to our own time that we easily recognize the significance of the events described and then, year by year, steps away from our present to chronicle the sorts of great changes that must inevitably overtake humanity.
As the work of an engineer, A History of the Future pays loving homage to the technological changes that have always had a most profound effect on our development. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, communications, aeronautics and weapons science are all there. But so are music, the fine arts, architecture, politics, alliance formation, diplomacy, wars and natural catastrophes. And 'History' does not describe these events in 'wooly' Nostradamus terms: it gives us the names and provides us with the dates. How accurate are they? As accurate as any vision of the future. They are as good as we can have.
A History of the Future provides science fiction, video gaming and futurology fans with a sweeping historical structure in which to set their favorite stories. How would classic sci-fi accounts fit in? How could such storybook events be linked to our very real present? The patient chronicle of A History of the Future provides the background.
The book is accompanied by a series of detailed appendices that authoritatively catalogue the peoples, places and things of these years and allows us as readers to briefly indulge the fantasy that the future is indeed known.
10 scenarios that might happen to us after death
1. We cease to exist completely in all dimensions.
2. We are recycled and reborn as humans somewhere else on Earth.
3. We join with a singularity so that our conscious becomes one with the new medium.
4. We are reborn as a life form somewhere else in the universe.
5. We are reborn as a non-human life form on Earth.
6. We join with another consciousness and are reborn in some form or another.
7. We move into another dimension which our living conscious here on Earth cannot comprehend.
8. We ascend to the paradise described in traditional views of heaven. Never to be reborn again.
9. We are reborn in another world but keep our knowledge gained from the previous life.
10. We (or at least some of us) become 'angels' or messengers. Building new worlds across the universe that will themselves be populated by life
2. We are recycled and reborn as humans somewhere else on Earth.
3. We join with a singularity so that our conscious becomes one with the new medium.
4. We are reborn as a life form somewhere else in the universe.
5. We are reborn as a non-human life form on Earth.
6. We join with another consciousness and are reborn in some form or another.
7. We move into another dimension which our living conscious here on Earth cannot comprehend.
8. We ascend to the paradise described in traditional views of heaven. Never to be reborn again.
9. We are reborn in another world but keep our knowledge gained from the previous life.
10. We (or at least some of us) become 'angels' or messengers. Building new worlds across the universe that will themselves be populated by life
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Jeopardizing Physics
The Big Bang Implosion of Physics
by David Perks
We are on the cusp of some of the biggest breakthroughs in physics in over three decades. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a massive particle collider built deep beneath the Swiss/French border, is nearing completion. Together with Fermilab’s Tevatron, a proton-antiproton collider near Chicago, the European and US facilities are in a race to discover the Higg’s Boson. This is the gaping hole in our theory of everything, the standard model of matter. Predicted by Peter Higgs in Edinburgh in 1964, the Higgs Boson is our best bet at explaining the nature of mass, that ubiquitous property of matter that has evaded explanation to date.
advertisement
Now, particle physics is about to be kicked out of its speculative doldrums by the influx of long-awaited experimental data that may result in the revelation of a new fundamental force of nature, and could even allow us to create mini black holes here on Earth. But just as physics is about to receive a massive shot in the arm, its political masters seem prepared to pull the plug on fundamental research, introducing massive budget cutbacks both in the UK and in the US. Is this the beginning of the end for Big Physics?
Both Fermilab and the Standford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) in California, the two big particle physics labs in the US, are in near meltdown. Fermilab is cutting 10 per cent of its staff and has had the budgets for both its next generation projects cut to zero this year. SLAC looks likely to lose 300 staff at its facility. As Pier Oddone, Fermilab’s director put it: ‘The greatest impact is on the future of the lab, we have no ability now to develop our future.’ (1)
In the UK, the budget cuts imposed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) are even more detrimental. In removing £80million from the physics budget, the UK faces losing its participation in the next generation particle physics projects to which it has already committed; it is also pulling out of two telescope collaborations: the Isaac Newton facility in the Canary Islands and the new £8million Gemini telescope in Hawaii. There are no equivalent facilities for UK astronomers to use in the northern hemisphere. Brian Foster, professor of experimental physics at Oxford University, described the cuts as ‘scientific vandalism’ (2).
There has been considerable discussion within the scientific community as to whether the swingeing cutbacks occurring on both sides of the Atlantic are the product, in the words of Manchester University’s Dr Brian Cox, of ‘accident, design or just sheer incompetence’. But even if you believe that, given better financial circumstances, things will right themselves in the future, we should be aware that something significant has changed.
Big Physics no longer has the same kudos with our political rulers as it once did. In the UK, the recent Sainsbury Review of the government’s science and innovation policies made it clear that the days of universities focusing on basic research are numbered. The key emphasis is now on ‘knowledge transfer’. The government is now only interested in the capacity of university research departments to kickstart high-end product development or ‘useful’ spin-offs from basic research. As Lord Sainsbury put it: ‘Today, we are seeing a transformation in the purpose and self-image of universities. Politicians, industrialists and economists are beginning to see universities as major agents of economic growth as well as creators of knowledge, developers of young minds and transmitters of culture.’ (3)
Over the past two or three decades, the era of backing for knowledge for its own sake has been dispensed with, both on economic and educational grounds. So even though US President George W Bush has promised increased spending in the physical sciences in 2009, no one is holding their breath in the US; the president promised the same in 2007 and 2008, but it did not materialise.
In truth, in the US Big Physics no longer has the political protection it once had when it comes to pushing a budget through Congress. In Britain, scientists have been promised a review of current spending priorities in the summer, but there is little chance that the STFC will rescind its decision to withdraw from the major international collaborations.
A petition on the Downing Street website to ‘reverse the decision to cut vital UK contributions to Particle Physics and Astronomy’ has attracted 17,380 signatures (4). But the petition has somewhat missed the point, since the writing has been on the wall for some time: physics just isn’t a vital priority for the political class. The UK government has happily turned our school science curriculum into a course on scientific literacy for the masses, allowed numerous university physics departments to close, and sponsored the creation of physics degrees that don’t require mathematics.
In the US, this is not the first time that funding priorities have forced drastic cuts in investment in fundamental physics research. In 1993, despite protestations from then president Bill Clinton, Congress cancelled the proposed Superconducting Super Collider, which would have challenged the dominance of the LHC in Europe.
Britain has until now retained its participation at the front-end of particle physics with its contribution to the LHC. The International Linear Collider was to be the next big step forward beyond the LHC. It would be able to explore matter at a finer detail than the LHC. The UK initially contributed to this project, yet it now seems stillborn: the UK pulled out last month, and the US is removing any further funding for it.
Even more perplexing is the American decision to cancel its funding for ITER, the new international fusion reactor to be built in France. This is the next stage in the project to develop commercial fusion power which will potentially produce energy from water by mimicking the action of the sun. This clean nuclear energy could replace the more conventional nuclear fission reactors in 30 years time.
Robert Wilson, Fermilab’s first director, when asked by a congressional committee if the lab would aid national defence, famously responded: ‘No, but it will help keep the nation worth defending.’ Today, such a strident belief in the quest for knowledge does not fit well within the constraints of an education system orientated towards skills, not knowledge, and access, not excellence. The political class does not think young people are interested enough in science to believe that any youngster could aspire to an understanding of the nature of the universe without somehow making it relevant to their everyday lives.
Even the physicists at the European Programme for Nuclear Research (CERN) and Fermilab are prone to justify their work feebly in terms of the potential spin-offs to medical research. That is like trying to justify the Apollo space programme because it gave us Teflon non-stick saucepans. Rationalising fundamental research on the basis of a few spin-offs just won’t wash. As Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, put it, the discovery of magnetic resonance imaging, a powerful way of identifying cancers, was discovered by a physicist ‘whose work would never have been possible without funding or basic physics’ (5).
In truth, fundamental research is a necessity, not a luxury. Most of the technological developments made in the past 100 years have been fuelled by fundamental research into science. Albert Einstein famously dismissed Enrico Fermi’s idea that massive amounts of energy could be released by splitting the atom. The unintended consequences of the theory of relativity gave us nuclear power. Similarly, from the esoteric beauty of the theory of quantum mechanics has emerged electronics, computing and laser optics, to name but a few developments.
We cannot foretell where research into the fundamental constituents of matter will take us, but to not travel down that path is to shut the door on the future. Our ability to understand and control nature is what gives us the capacity to carve out a different future not constrained by the fetters of the immediate problems of finite resources. It is our lack of vision and our preoccupation with the limitations of our society that holds us back from venturing further.
As a society, if we relinquish our quest to understand the universe within which we live, we curtail our ambition. This reflects a lesser view of humanity, capable at best of patching up the damage we have done to the planet, rather than seeking to expand our horizons.
For the rest go to: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4559/
by David Perks
We are on the cusp of some of the biggest breakthroughs in physics in over three decades. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a massive particle collider built deep beneath the Swiss/French border, is nearing completion. Together with Fermilab’s Tevatron, a proton-antiproton collider near Chicago, the European and US facilities are in a race to discover the Higg’s Boson. This is the gaping hole in our theory of everything, the standard model of matter. Predicted by Peter Higgs in Edinburgh in 1964, the Higgs Boson is our best bet at explaining the nature of mass, that ubiquitous property of matter that has evaded explanation to date.
advertisement
Now, particle physics is about to be kicked out of its speculative doldrums by the influx of long-awaited experimental data that may result in the revelation of a new fundamental force of nature, and could even allow us to create mini black holes here on Earth. But just as physics is about to receive a massive shot in the arm, its political masters seem prepared to pull the plug on fundamental research, introducing massive budget cutbacks both in the UK and in the US. Is this the beginning of the end for Big Physics?
Both Fermilab and the Standford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) in California, the two big particle physics labs in the US, are in near meltdown. Fermilab is cutting 10 per cent of its staff and has had the budgets for both its next generation projects cut to zero this year. SLAC looks likely to lose 300 staff at its facility. As Pier Oddone, Fermilab’s director put it: ‘The greatest impact is on the future of the lab, we have no ability now to develop our future.’ (1)
In the UK, the budget cuts imposed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) are even more detrimental. In removing £80million from the physics budget, the UK faces losing its participation in the next generation particle physics projects to which it has already committed; it is also pulling out of two telescope collaborations: the Isaac Newton facility in the Canary Islands and the new £8million Gemini telescope in Hawaii. There are no equivalent facilities for UK astronomers to use in the northern hemisphere. Brian Foster, professor of experimental physics at Oxford University, described the cuts as ‘scientific vandalism’ (2).
There has been considerable discussion within the scientific community as to whether the swingeing cutbacks occurring on both sides of the Atlantic are the product, in the words of Manchester University’s Dr Brian Cox, of ‘accident, design or just sheer incompetence’. But even if you believe that, given better financial circumstances, things will right themselves in the future, we should be aware that something significant has changed.
Big Physics no longer has the same kudos with our political rulers as it once did. In the UK, the recent Sainsbury Review of the government’s science and innovation policies made it clear that the days of universities focusing on basic research are numbered. The key emphasis is now on ‘knowledge transfer’. The government is now only interested in the capacity of university research departments to kickstart high-end product development or ‘useful’ spin-offs from basic research. As Lord Sainsbury put it: ‘Today, we are seeing a transformation in the purpose and self-image of universities. Politicians, industrialists and economists are beginning to see universities as major agents of economic growth as well as creators of knowledge, developers of young minds and transmitters of culture.’ (3)
Over the past two or three decades, the era of backing for knowledge for its own sake has been dispensed with, both on economic and educational grounds. So even though US President George W Bush has promised increased spending in the physical sciences in 2009, no one is holding their breath in the US; the president promised the same in 2007 and 2008, but it did not materialise.
In truth, in the US Big Physics no longer has the political protection it once had when it comes to pushing a budget through Congress. In Britain, scientists have been promised a review of current spending priorities in the summer, but there is little chance that the STFC will rescind its decision to withdraw from the major international collaborations.
A petition on the Downing Street website to ‘reverse the decision to cut vital UK contributions to Particle Physics and Astronomy’ has attracted 17,380 signatures (4). But the petition has somewhat missed the point, since the writing has been on the wall for some time: physics just isn’t a vital priority for the political class. The UK government has happily turned our school science curriculum into a course on scientific literacy for the masses, allowed numerous university physics departments to close, and sponsored the creation of physics degrees that don’t require mathematics.
In the US, this is not the first time that funding priorities have forced drastic cuts in investment in fundamental physics research. In 1993, despite protestations from then president Bill Clinton, Congress cancelled the proposed Superconducting Super Collider, which would have challenged the dominance of the LHC in Europe.
Britain has until now retained its participation at the front-end of particle physics with its contribution to the LHC. The International Linear Collider was to be the next big step forward beyond the LHC. It would be able to explore matter at a finer detail than the LHC. The UK initially contributed to this project, yet it now seems stillborn: the UK pulled out last month, and the US is removing any further funding for it.
Even more perplexing is the American decision to cancel its funding for ITER, the new international fusion reactor to be built in France. This is the next stage in the project to develop commercial fusion power which will potentially produce energy from water by mimicking the action of the sun. This clean nuclear energy could replace the more conventional nuclear fission reactors in 30 years time.
Robert Wilson, Fermilab’s first director, when asked by a congressional committee if the lab would aid national defence, famously responded: ‘No, but it will help keep the nation worth defending.’ Today, such a strident belief in the quest for knowledge does not fit well within the constraints of an education system orientated towards skills, not knowledge, and access, not excellence. The political class does not think young people are interested enough in science to believe that any youngster could aspire to an understanding of the nature of the universe without somehow making it relevant to their everyday lives.
Even the physicists at the European Programme for Nuclear Research (CERN) and Fermilab are prone to justify their work feebly in terms of the potential spin-offs to medical research. That is like trying to justify the Apollo space programme because it gave us Teflon non-stick saucepans. Rationalising fundamental research on the basis of a few spin-offs just won’t wash. As Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, put it, the discovery of magnetic resonance imaging, a powerful way of identifying cancers, was discovered by a physicist ‘whose work would never have been possible without funding or basic physics’ (5).
In truth, fundamental research is a necessity, not a luxury. Most of the technological developments made in the past 100 years have been fuelled by fundamental research into science. Albert Einstein famously dismissed Enrico Fermi’s idea that massive amounts of energy could be released by splitting the atom. The unintended consequences of the theory of relativity gave us nuclear power. Similarly, from the esoteric beauty of the theory of quantum mechanics has emerged electronics, computing and laser optics, to name but a few developments.
We cannot foretell where research into the fundamental constituents of matter will take us, but to not travel down that path is to shut the door on the future. Our ability to understand and control nature is what gives us the capacity to carve out a different future not constrained by the fetters of the immediate problems of finite resources. It is our lack of vision and our preoccupation with the limitations of our society that holds us back from venturing further.
As a society, if we relinquish our quest to understand the universe within which we live, we curtail our ambition. This reflects a lesser view of humanity, capable at best of patching up the damage we have done to the planet, rather than seeking to expand our horizons.
For the rest go to: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4559/
Great Questions in Modern Physics
The following is a list of some of the key unanswered questions in Modern Physics:
1. Can General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics be reconciled? This is also known as the Problem of Quantum Gravity
2. What is time? Does it even exist?
3. What happened before the Big Bang?
4. How did the great constants of physics come to be?
5. What particles comprise Dark Matter? Does it even exist or should we modify Newton's Law of Gravitation to make sense of large mass motion in the galaxy? How does Dark Matter influence supersymmmetry?
6. What really is Dark Energy? How does it truly influence the universe?
7. Do Multiverses exist and if so how do they influence our understanding of all that there is?
8. What is reality? Can this be reconciled within the world of Quantum mechanics? Is there a level of formal structure behind Quantum foam?
9. Why is the speed of light constant in a vacuum?
10. Does the Higgs Boson particle exist? How can we find it? Will it really tell us what the concept of mass is?
11. Do strings exist?
12. Can we unify the Four Fundamental forces of nature? - gravity being the hold out.
13. Why is there more matter in the universe than anti-matter? - Baryon symmetry problem
14. Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past? - so-called Arrow of Time
15. How is neutrino mass generated? What is the mechanism?
16. How does Electroweak Symmetry breaking occur? What gives mass to W and Z bosons?
17. What accounts for the missing spin in protons? - quarks only account for 12% - Could it be the Gluons?
18. How can the mathematics of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) give rise to the nucleus and its constituents?
19. Why do Cosmic Rays close to Earth have such high energy considering than their don't appear to be any significant sources?
20. What type of physics can explain the Tetraneutron or the Pentaquark?
21. How many dimensions are there? What is a dimension?
1. Can General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics be reconciled? This is also known as the Problem of Quantum Gravity
2. What is time? Does it even exist?
3. What happened before the Big Bang?
4. How did the great constants of physics come to be?
5. What particles comprise Dark Matter? Does it even exist or should we modify Newton's Law of Gravitation to make sense of large mass motion in the galaxy? How does Dark Matter influence supersymmmetry?
6. What really is Dark Energy? How does it truly influence the universe?
7. Do Multiverses exist and if so how do they influence our understanding of all that there is?
8. What is reality? Can this be reconciled within the world of Quantum mechanics? Is there a level of formal structure behind Quantum foam?
9. Why is the speed of light constant in a vacuum?
10. Does the Higgs Boson particle exist? How can we find it? Will it really tell us what the concept of mass is?
11. Do strings exist?
12. Can we unify the Four Fundamental forces of nature? - gravity being the hold out.
13. Why is there more matter in the universe than anti-matter? - Baryon symmetry problem
14. Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past? - so-called Arrow of Time
15. How is neutrino mass generated? What is the mechanism?
16. How does Electroweak Symmetry breaking occur? What gives mass to W and Z bosons?
17. What accounts for the missing spin in protons? - quarks only account for 12% - Could it be the Gluons?
18. How can the mathematics of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) give rise to the nucleus and its constituents?
19. Why do Cosmic Rays close to Earth have such high energy considering than their don't appear to be any significant sources?
20. What type of physics can explain the Tetraneutron or the Pentaquark?
21. How many dimensions are there? What is a dimension?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
In the News XXXV
Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/saudi/
or should I say the lack of it.
Another Racist UN Conference
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0916001C-1F3A-4C06-B0F6-3552FF70A369
Not sure that one should expect more from the inept UN
Obama and Tony Rezko
http://www.brookesnews.com/081003obama.html
What lies behind the Emperors new clothes?
Obama and Carter and Israel
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obama_and_carter_and_israel.html
What is depressing is how words mean nothing......
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/saudi/
or should I say the lack of it.
Another Racist UN Conference
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0916001C-1F3A-4C06-B0F6-3552FF70A369
Not sure that one should expect more from the inept UN
Obama and Tony Rezko
http://www.brookesnews.com/081003obama.html
What lies behind the Emperors new clothes?
Obama and Carter and Israel
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obama_and_carter_and_israel.html
What is depressing is how words mean nothing......
Football Roundup
FA Cup Draw
Barnsley v Cardiff
West Brom v Portsmouth
- 3 Teams from the Championship. One from Premiership.
- I am cheering for Barnsley to win the whole thing.
- First time since 1995 that FA Cup will not be won by one of the Big Four
- Great for the Competition. Wonderful news for the Sport.
Euro League Roundups
Portugal: Porto 54, Benfica 40, Guimaraes 38, Setubal 37, Sporting 34
Porto have dominated Portuguese footer for most of the last twenty-five years. I personally prefer Benfica but it looks as though the League will head to Portugal's second city. Somewhat of a runaway. Also just in: Jose Antonio Camacho quits as coach of Benfica.
Netherlands: PSV 59, Ajax 53, Groningen 50, Breda 50, Feyernoord 48
It would be great to see Ajax launch a full out push and steal the League but PSV seem to have enough distance between the two clubs to make that happening unlikely.
Ajax forward - Klaas Jan-Huntelaar has been fantastic once again with 23 goals.
Germany: Bayern are making up for missing out on the Champions League this season. I will be very surprised if they cannot hold on to win another Bundesliga.
Bayern 50, Werder Bremen 43, Hamburg 42, Leverkusen 41, Schalke 38 (may be more focussed on Champions League).
My team - Moenchengladbach - are leading Budesliga 2 and will hopefully be back with the big boys next season.
Spain: A combination of Barcelona injuries and Real Madrid's ability to grind out results should allow the all-whites to successfully defend their title.
Villareal have played well this season - less so Valencia and to some extent Sevilla.
Real Madrid 62, Barcelona 54, Villareal 50, Atletico Madrid 44, Racing Santander 44
Italy: The smart money is on another Inter Milan title although Roma have appeared to have not given up the pursuit. Its great to see Juventus back amongst the big boys. Would peronally not shed a tear if Fiorentina edged out AC Milan for a Champion's League spot.
Inter 64, Roma 58, Juventus 51, Fiorentina 47, AC Milan 46
Big flop: Lazio 11th place 33 points
Personal Hope: Parma avoid relegation.
France: Another season - another Lyon title. Can't remember if this would be six or seven in a row. Closest rivals are Bordeaux who were defeated 4-2 by Lyon on Sunday. My team St. Etienne are hovering around mid table.
Lyon 58, Bordeaux 52, Nancy 48, Marseille 45, Le Mans 41.
Scotland: I prefer Celtic but this looks to be Ranger's year (not only in Scotland but perhaps in the UEFA Cup as well).
Rangers 68, Celtic 64, Motherwell 46, Dundee United 45, Hibernian (team I support)41
Old Firm runaway - once again.
Barnsley v Cardiff
West Brom v Portsmouth
- 3 Teams from the Championship. One from Premiership.
- I am cheering for Barnsley to win the whole thing.
- First time since 1995 that FA Cup will not be won by one of the Big Four
- Great for the Competition. Wonderful news for the Sport.
Euro League Roundups
Portugal: Porto 54, Benfica 40, Guimaraes 38, Setubal 37, Sporting 34
Porto have dominated Portuguese footer for most of the last twenty-five years. I personally prefer Benfica but it looks as though the League will head to Portugal's second city. Somewhat of a runaway. Also just in: Jose Antonio Camacho quits as coach of Benfica.
Netherlands: PSV 59, Ajax 53, Groningen 50, Breda 50, Feyernoord 48
It would be great to see Ajax launch a full out push and steal the League but PSV seem to have enough distance between the two clubs to make that happening unlikely.
Ajax forward - Klaas Jan-Huntelaar has been fantastic once again with 23 goals.
Germany: Bayern are making up for missing out on the Champions League this season. I will be very surprised if they cannot hold on to win another Bundesliga.
Bayern 50, Werder Bremen 43, Hamburg 42, Leverkusen 41, Schalke 38 (may be more focussed on Champions League).
My team - Moenchengladbach - are leading Budesliga 2 and will hopefully be back with the big boys next season.
Spain: A combination of Barcelona injuries and Real Madrid's ability to grind out results should allow the all-whites to successfully defend their title.
Villareal have played well this season - less so Valencia and to some extent Sevilla.
Real Madrid 62, Barcelona 54, Villareal 50, Atletico Madrid 44, Racing Santander 44
Italy: The smart money is on another Inter Milan title although Roma have appeared to have not given up the pursuit. Its great to see Juventus back amongst the big boys. Would peronally not shed a tear if Fiorentina edged out AC Milan for a Champion's League spot.
Inter 64, Roma 58, Juventus 51, Fiorentina 47, AC Milan 46
Big flop: Lazio 11th place 33 points
Personal Hope: Parma avoid relegation.
France: Another season - another Lyon title. Can't remember if this would be six or seven in a row. Closest rivals are Bordeaux who were defeated 4-2 by Lyon on Sunday. My team St. Etienne are hovering around mid table.
Lyon 58, Bordeaux 52, Nancy 48, Marseille 45, Le Mans 41.
Scotland: I prefer Celtic but this looks to be Ranger's year (not only in Scotland but perhaps in the UEFA Cup as well).
Rangers 68, Celtic 64, Motherwell 46, Dundee United 45, Hibernian (team I support)41
Old Firm runaway - once again.
Monday, March 10, 2008
On Freedom of Speech
I post a lot on a University board known as ED Forum that is often under siege by Leftist naysayers.
The following is a reply I wrote to a fellow teacher who is concerned about the accusations of intolerance that are often used to strangle free debate.
Hi Mike
You raise pertinent issues. It seems as though there is a tendency amongst some to use the twin spears/barbs of racism and sexism to attack opinions that they disagree with (as opposed to logically dissect them – which of course is much more work). I have written about this before as I find the approach to be ultimately self-serving and counterproductive. Stifling dialogue helps nobody – which is why I am a strong opponent of hate speech legislation and other movements to curb freedom of expression.
Ed Forum is a wonderful resource in that it theoretically provides a backdrop whereby teachers, student et al. can discuss, debate, argue and exchange ideas and opinions with others. In such a sense it should further typify the open forum of old where experiences are shared and controversy analyzed.
Unfortunately like many outlets for debate in academia it is often at risk from the tyranny of censorship.
I do not wish to go into the nature of this censorship – as it is a topic for another thread – but suffice it to say its influence is pernicious.
One needs to ask the tough questions when dealing with all issues – let alone those of race, religion and sexual discrimination – if we are truly serious about addressing problems that influence the human condition.
In following this very notion – I have posted articles that some have not agreed with – not to create malice (that doesn’t achieve anything) but rather to illicit vital discussion (too often a rarity in mainstream academia). It is for this very reason that I will continue to post and I encourage you to do so as well - even if it means in your own words ‘airing dirty laundry’. Do not allow the voices of new wave McCarthyism to dent the spirit of a broader inquiry.
Cheers
Gavin
The following is a reply I wrote to a fellow teacher who is concerned about the accusations of intolerance that are often used to strangle free debate.
Hi Mike
You raise pertinent issues. It seems as though there is a tendency amongst some to use the twin spears/barbs of racism and sexism to attack opinions that they disagree with (as opposed to logically dissect them – which of course is much more work). I have written about this before as I find the approach to be ultimately self-serving and counterproductive. Stifling dialogue helps nobody – which is why I am a strong opponent of hate speech legislation and other movements to curb freedom of expression.
Ed Forum is a wonderful resource in that it theoretically provides a backdrop whereby teachers, student et al. can discuss, debate, argue and exchange ideas and opinions with others. In such a sense it should further typify the open forum of old where experiences are shared and controversy analyzed.
Unfortunately like many outlets for debate in academia it is often at risk from the tyranny of censorship.
I do not wish to go into the nature of this censorship – as it is a topic for another thread – but suffice it to say its influence is pernicious.
One needs to ask the tough questions when dealing with all issues – let alone those of race, religion and sexual discrimination – if we are truly serious about addressing problems that influence the human condition.
In following this very notion – I have posted articles that some have not agreed with – not to create malice (that doesn’t achieve anything) but rather to illicit vital discussion (too often a rarity in mainstream academia). It is for this very reason that I will continue to post and I encourage you to do so as well - even if it means in your own words ‘airing dirty laundry’. Do not allow the voices of new wave McCarthyism to dent the spirit of a broader inquiry.
Cheers
Gavin
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Ten More Inductees into the Hall of Lefty Loonies
Who ever accused me of having no Canadian content?.........
1. Peter Leibovitch - Head-in-the sand so-called 'pro-labour' activist
2. John Clarke - Head of OCAP - Professional Rabble Rouser
3. James Clarke - Prime Winer for the Stop the War Coalition
4. Andrea Calver - Feminist Kvetch
5. Avi Lewis - New lapdog for Al-Jazeera
6. Sid Ryan - CUPE's Chief Windbag
7. Marilyn Churley - 'Space Cadet' and former NDP minister in People's Republic of Ontario
8. Carolyn Parrish - Resident former liberal foot-in-mouth MP. A third rate mind amongst second rate minds.
9. Jack Layton - Grand Poopah of unelectable Canadian Socialists
10. Harry Kopyto - A one man noise pollution device.
1. Peter Leibovitch - Head-in-the sand so-called 'pro-labour' activist
2. John Clarke - Head of OCAP - Professional Rabble Rouser
3. James Clarke - Prime Winer for the Stop the War Coalition
4. Andrea Calver - Feminist Kvetch
5. Avi Lewis - New lapdog for Al-Jazeera
6. Sid Ryan - CUPE's Chief Windbag
7. Marilyn Churley - 'Space Cadet' and former NDP minister in People's Republic of Ontario
8. Carolyn Parrish - Resident former liberal foot-in-mouth MP. A third rate mind amongst second rate minds.
9. Jack Layton - Grand Poopah of unelectable Canadian Socialists
10. Harry Kopyto - A one man noise pollution device.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Bill Buckley RIP
John Ray, a conservative thinker, runs one of the best blogs on the Net - Dissecting Leftism.
Ray had this to say about the passing of the ever eloquent Bill Buckley. While I don't necessarily agree with Ray on this issue his thoughts are worth reading.
Bill Buckley: On the wrong track?
There have of course by now been many eloquent eulogies of W.F. Buckley. And not only from conservatives. Some libertarians have also weighed in with kind words. I have said nothing so far because I don't want to seem like an old grouch, and I do have in mind the old adjuration about speaking only good of the dead: De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. But perhaps another viewpoint won't do any harm, after all:
A recurring theme is that Buckley made conservatism respectable in polite society. And that is exactly why I did not immediately add my voice to the eulogies. From a libertarian viewpoint, polite society is overwhelmingly comprised of Fascists -- and that is using "Fascism" in a precise historical way, to mean advocates of pervasive government power and control. So conservatism SHOULD NOT BE respectable in polite society. What have conservatives got to gain from the approval of people who think that they know what is best for other people and who want to enforce that on other people in any way they can?
To me, polite society is the ENEMY and I personally want no truck with the self-satisfied knowalls who in reality know next to nothing. And that is partly why in 1974 I wrote a book under the title "Conservatism as Heresy". The intelligentsia and their allies will always be Fascistic and should always be opposed because of that. Conservatism SHOULD be heretical.
I have no doubt that Buckley was a fine man and a good conservative but his modus operandi was in my view only superficially helpful to the cause of liberty. At the risk of appearing to make an absurd comparison, I note that the carpenter of Nazareth did not seek convivial relationships with the top people in his day. He was happy among outcasts. And his disciples were "agrammatoi kai idiotai" (translatable as "ignorant and unlearned" -- see Acts 4:13). I respect Christ's example much more than the example of W.F. Buckley, I am afraid, though I certainly don't claim to be a good follower of Christ. But I too get on very well with ordinary working people and it is they who matter most in my view. And as far as "intellectuals" are concerned, do the one thing that they hate most: Ignore them. Fortunately, the workers almost invariably do.
Buckley himself of course acknowledged the good sense of ordinary working people with his famous remark about the first 1,000 names in the Boston phonebook. It's a pity he did not seek them as his audience. He would have found them much more receptive than the self-anointed wise ones of the world were. And the workers have a lot more votes! Still, as the old saying goes: "It takes all types to make a world" and I don't dispute that Buckley had his place.
Coda: I can see that what I have written above could well be taken as sour grapes. Under Leftist influence, ad hominem argumentation is rife these days so people might well conclude that I am simply justifying some failure of my own in polite society. Just a few words then about my background: I am the son of a lumberjack and regard my late father as the greatest gentleman I have ever known. I have in fact moved in all sorts of social circles in my life, sometimes in very rarefied ones, and my acceptance has always seemed good to me. I certainly have no complaints about the ladies concerned. Nonetheless, I just don't seek (and barely notice) acceptance among anybody but those whom I personally value as people.
For the rest of John's wonderful blog go to: http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
Ray had this to say about the passing of the ever eloquent Bill Buckley. While I don't necessarily agree with Ray on this issue his thoughts are worth reading.
Bill Buckley: On the wrong track?
There have of course by now been many eloquent eulogies of W.F. Buckley. And not only from conservatives. Some libertarians have also weighed in with kind words. I have said nothing so far because I don't want to seem like an old grouch, and I do have in mind the old adjuration about speaking only good of the dead: De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. But perhaps another viewpoint won't do any harm, after all:
A recurring theme is that Buckley made conservatism respectable in polite society. And that is exactly why I did not immediately add my voice to the eulogies. From a libertarian viewpoint, polite society is overwhelmingly comprised of Fascists -- and that is using "Fascism" in a precise historical way, to mean advocates of pervasive government power and control. So conservatism SHOULD NOT BE respectable in polite society. What have conservatives got to gain from the approval of people who think that they know what is best for other people and who want to enforce that on other people in any way they can?
To me, polite society is the ENEMY and I personally want no truck with the self-satisfied knowalls who in reality know next to nothing. And that is partly why in 1974 I wrote a book under the title "Conservatism as Heresy". The intelligentsia and their allies will always be Fascistic and should always be opposed because of that. Conservatism SHOULD be heretical.
I have no doubt that Buckley was a fine man and a good conservative but his modus operandi was in my view only superficially helpful to the cause of liberty. At the risk of appearing to make an absurd comparison, I note that the carpenter of Nazareth did not seek convivial relationships with the top people in his day. He was happy among outcasts. And his disciples were "agrammatoi kai idiotai" (translatable as "ignorant and unlearned" -- see Acts 4:13). I respect Christ's example much more than the example of W.F. Buckley, I am afraid, though I certainly don't claim to be a good follower of Christ. But I too get on very well with ordinary working people and it is they who matter most in my view. And as far as "intellectuals" are concerned, do the one thing that they hate most: Ignore them. Fortunately, the workers almost invariably do.
Buckley himself of course acknowledged the good sense of ordinary working people with his famous remark about the first 1,000 names in the Boston phonebook. It's a pity he did not seek them as his audience. He would have found them much more receptive than the self-anointed wise ones of the world were. And the workers have a lot more votes! Still, as the old saying goes: "It takes all types to make a world" and I don't dispute that Buckley had his place.
Coda: I can see that what I have written above could well be taken as sour grapes. Under Leftist influence, ad hominem argumentation is rife these days so people might well conclude that I am simply justifying some failure of my own in polite society. Just a few words then about my background: I am the son of a lumberjack and regard my late father as the greatest gentleman I have ever known. I have in fact moved in all sorts of social circles in my life, sometimes in very rarefied ones, and my acceptance has always seemed good to me. I certainly have no complaints about the ladies concerned. Nonetheless, I just don't seek (and barely notice) acceptance among anybody but those whom I personally value as people.
For the rest of John's wonderful blog go to: http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)