Whenever people thank god for someone surviving some biological malady - it makes me sick.
There is indeed reason for thanks when anti-biotics save a life.
There is indeed reason for thanks when an air-bag prevents a person from dying in a car accident. An accident that might have killed a person 20 years ago might not even send that person to the hospital now.
There is indeed reason for thanks when a surgery prevents an infected appendix from taking a life.
There is indeed reason for thanks when thousands of people survive and live healthy lives after cancer has struck at them.
There is indeed reason for thanks when computers are used in research that lead to life saving medicines or models of the human body that increase our understanding of our biological selves.
There is indeed a group of people, not god, gods or other supernatural creatures that should be thanked every time a life is saved, injury is prevented or our lives are in general better than they were in the past.
Thanks the scientists - who work every day to learn more about everything. Some of that everything is learning about the human body and creating new defenses for humanity against the many maladies that can strike at the human body.
Thank the engineers who work together as a group to create airbags in cars, safety glass, reflectors on the roads, better signal lights and tires that have better traction in the rain.
You can even thank the people that make laws for mandating that there be fire escapes on buildings.
Thank the computer scientists and engineers that constantly wear away at the barriers of computing speed.
But don't thank god. God and religion have always sided squarely on the side of keeping things they way they are. Knowledge is not something to be feared. In fact, it is unfortunate that Adam had to be tricked in to eating the apple from the tree of Knowledge of Good And Evil. Adam and every person should make the choice willingly to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - to do otherwise is to be a child - and earn only the responsibilities of a child.
Knoweldge - has a Good and Evil side to it. It all depends on how we apply it. Knowledge of Quantum Mechanics which travels down through Albert Einstein has enabled humanity to make remarkable computers. Knowledge of the General and Spacial Theory of Relativity endowed us with the ability to make nuclear weapons.
Increasingly in our society people are becoming anti-technology. They are becoming Luddites and are against scientific progress.
To them I say - you are hypocrites. It is only by the existence of technology that we live at all. The logistics of getting food from place to place, the engineering of tractor-trailer trucks to carry that food efficiently, the designing of traffic light systems that work appropriately. All of this is due to technology.
If you remove technology from our current context - many things would fail. Our ability to have food. Distribution of medicines that extend our lives. Our governments ability to communicate with itself, our people and other governments.
There is increasingly only one path for us to follow - as our population grows. Technology and Science.
So, thank a scientist the next time you go to the doctor and they provide you with medicine to quell high blood pressure.
Thank an engineer for making your car safe, relatively efficient and capable.
Thank the existence of computers for the many advances in science, engineering and design that make our lives safer.
But do not thank god, gods or other supernatural entities. They did not want this. We are responsible for ourselves and our future. The best way for us to take care of ourselves in the future is to become more knowledgeable about ourselves and our universe. And there is only one path to more knowledge of this sort - science and technology.
No amount of praying is going to produce an anti-biotic. No amount of praying is going to help us ensure that everyone in the world has the capability of having a meal when they need it.
But scientists can produce anti-biotics and medicines.
And people, like you and me are responsible for making it so everyone that wants to eat, can (unless of course they are a fashion model and have no wish to eat on a regular basis).
So, I say my thanks for my Thanksgiving Turkey pre-maturely this year.
Thank the truck driver for bringing the turkey to the supermarket.
Thank the engineer who designed the truck to be more efficient, safe and reliable now than they have ever been in the past.
Thank the scientists for creating medicines helping the people I love live longer lives and more thanksgivings to enjoy.
Thank the computer engineers and scientists for designing computers to help us better understand ourselves and make sure there are even more Thanksgivings to enjoy.
Thank the people who make laws for allowing traffic lights to regulate traffic - so that there is not anarchy on the streets and unnecessary deaths on the roads.
And god who is a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient entity can take care of himself.
Abwägen
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Scope and reduction Part II
Our energy consumption - is partly due to inefficiency.
One of those inefficienies is regarding transformer power-supplies. If if they are not plugged in to anything or the item they are plugged in to is not in use - turns out that many of them continue to draw power.
A simple mandate that all transformers for electronic devices - not draw power when they are not plugged in to a device or when that device is turned off - would reduce our power draw - and in the end our consumption of fuels to create electricity and the corresponding pollution created by consuming those fuels.
But once again, this kind of thing does not work - unless the entire industry complies - and typically the industry does not comply unless there is a governmental mandate that they must make transformers that do not draw power when they are not feeding an electronic object power is created.
Abwägen
One of those inefficienies is regarding transformer power-supplies. If if they are not plugged in to anything or the item they are plugged in to is not in use - turns out that many of them continue to draw power.
A simple mandate that all transformers for electronic devices - not draw power when they are not plugged in to a device or when that device is turned off - would reduce our power draw - and in the end our consumption of fuels to create electricity and the corresponding pollution created by consuming those fuels.
But once again, this kind of thing does not work - unless the entire industry complies - and typically the industry does not comply unless there is a governmental mandate that they must make transformers that do not draw power when they are not feeding an electronic object power is created.
Abwägen
Scope and reduction Part I
The environment is affected by the many things that we do. Even small things that we do - we do en masse - millions of people.
Millions of people buy computers.
Millions of people leave them on all the time.
Just a slight modification to our behavior patters and a slight increase of cost of computers and resources that are used and gone forever could be resources - well never used or vastly reduced in usage.
Consider, that the average computer really uses about as much power as 1 to 3 lightbulbs. Not including the monitor.
There are solar cells that produce enough power computers a significant portion of the time. And they could potential have surplus power during the day to charge batteries to run the computer on in to the night.
One person a lone doing this is not enough to affect our energy usage.
A small group of people or even a large group of people implementing this kind of existing technology is not enough to change our environment footprint and our energy usage.
But an executive mandate - that all new computers be sold with an adequate solar cell and that cell must be used to power the computer (not the monitor) - would really reduce the power usage of our society.
In fact, such a reduction could reduce power demands to the extent of affecting prices by reducing demand for fuel to create electricity.
Something to think about anyway. It is fairly unlikely that anyone would take any action on such an idea. Certainly not to the level of actually changing our society to make things better for everyone.
Abwägen
Millions of people buy computers.
Millions of people leave them on all the time.
Just a slight modification to our behavior patters and a slight increase of cost of computers and resources that are used and gone forever could be resources - well never used or vastly reduced in usage.
Consider, that the average computer really uses about as much power as 1 to 3 lightbulbs. Not including the monitor.
There are solar cells that produce enough power computers a significant portion of the time. And they could potential have surplus power during the day to charge batteries to run the computer on in to the night.
One person a lone doing this is not enough to affect our energy usage.
A small group of people or even a large group of people implementing this kind of existing technology is not enough to change our environment footprint and our energy usage.
But an executive mandate - that all new computers be sold with an adequate solar cell and that cell must be used to power the computer (not the monitor) - would really reduce the power usage of our society.
In fact, such a reduction could reduce power demands to the extent of affecting prices by reducing demand for fuel to create electricity.
Something to think about anyway. It is fairly unlikely that anyone would take any action on such an idea. Certainly not to the level of actually changing our society to make things better for everyone.
Abwägen
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Things I would like to see in the future Part IV
And end to organized religion.
People have the right to believe in whatever it is that they want to believe. That needs t o be straight. I do not advocate and never will advocate the destruction, ethnic cleansing, or any other terms that essentially mean the elimination of people that do not believe whatever the ruling group of people believe or do not belong to the group that is appropriate at that time.
People can read their scriptures and decide what they believe and what they do not believe and how that impacts how they should act in regards to other people on their own.
The only reason for the existence of organized religion is so that 'mouthpieces' of god/goddess/gods can make their will apparent to the populace.
Well, I say that if any of these gods are worth their salt they should have no trouble making it clear to their adherents what exactly they want without the middle man present.
Too often have I heard and seen the actions of people that are either directed or influenced by the so-called representatives of god(s) cause harm to people.
It seems at present that the sole purpose of organized christians in the United States of America is to limit everyone else in the country to doing only what the organized christians think is right.
They attempt to 'persuade' people that they have a higher moral ground and that is why we need to do things their way instead of the secular way.
There have been many times when the populace has allowed the organized religions to have power in their governments. Devine right rules litter the historical landscape.
And our little devine right president is making our government more of a tool for the organized religions every day.
He has made it so that every department of our government can give money to organized religions while at the same time removing the restrictions on the use of that money for only one purpose - to increase the strength of the organized religions in the United States of America.
You say - hey that is not a bad thing? Well, yes it is...
1) Organized religion is on the decline in the United States - while the religiousness of the population is on the rise. The reasons for this are complex, but it is quite clear that people do not need to be part of an organized religion to be religious. This effort by Bush Jr. has the goal of putting as many of those religious people under his umbrella to make the great white Christian America that people seem to think existed in the 1950's (it didn't).
2) There was a time where religion caused riots in the major cities in the United States - because the local governments were controlled by protestants and there were catholic minorities that were affected. Is this the kind of behavior we want to encourage? But the past is being 'cleansed' and it gets harder and harder to find information on these riots that occurred in Philadelphia not too long ago, historically speaking.
3) You may be a religious person, but which religion is exactly going to be in control when the United States becomes a divine right state? Well, judging by the current president - better be ready for a fundamentalist state.
4) Religion and science are rather unfortunately on organizational levels - incompatible. The stronger religion is in the world (organized religion) the more they squelch research. The reason is quite clear - with every scientific breakthrough - at least on an organization level - it seems that science leaves less space for a god or gods to be necessary. I am not saying that a person cannot be religious and a scientist. I am saying that a dogmatic member of organized religion has no interest in they why things work or how they work - after all god did it and if we needed to know why or how god would explain it to humanity.
Organizations are particularly dumb, and religious organizations are worse. There is nothing in any of the religions that actually says you need some hierarchical structure in reference to how people worship on Earth. But heirarchy is inherent in organizational structure - as is the inability of people that are members of organized religions to question their leaders decisions and perhaps appeal them. I fear that one day some religious leader will say 'I have a list of unbelievers - go forth and convert them or else!' and well, I'd be up a creek at that point.
And this isn't some kind of irrational fear. Religious leaders make all kinds of weird statements - sometimes that they are forced to take back - like 'Satan is on Earth now and he is a Jew' some famous fundamentalist preacher said and then recanted.
But like any recantation - people can read quite squarely that if he didn't mean it - he wouldn't have said it. He recanted so that he would avoid being demonized by the rest of the population.
http://slate.msn.com/id/45483/
-
Just imagine idiots like this in control of our government - and using vast amounts of government money for their own pursuit of religious 'freedom' - where you are free to be what they want you to be and that is final.
http://www2.davidduke.com/index.php?p=6
Abwägen
People have the right to believe in whatever it is that they want to believe. That needs t o be straight. I do not advocate and never will advocate the destruction, ethnic cleansing, or any other terms that essentially mean the elimination of people that do not believe whatever the ruling group of people believe or do not belong to the group that is appropriate at that time.
People can read their scriptures and decide what they believe and what they do not believe and how that impacts how they should act in regards to other people on their own.
The only reason for the existence of organized religion is so that 'mouthpieces' of god/goddess/gods can make their will apparent to the populace.
Well, I say that if any of these gods are worth their salt they should have no trouble making it clear to their adherents what exactly they want without the middle man present.
Too often have I heard and seen the actions of people that are either directed or influenced by the so-called representatives of god(s) cause harm to people.
It seems at present that the sole purpose of organized christians in the United States of America is to limit everyone else in the country to doing only what the organized christians think is right.
They attempt to 'persuade' people that they have a higher moral ground and that is why we need to do things their way instead of the secular way.
There have been many times when the populace has allowed the organized religions to have power in their governments. Devine right rules litter the historical landscape.
And our little devine right president is making our government more of a tool for the organized religions every day.
He has made it so that every department of our government can give money to organized religions while at the same time removing the restrictions on the use of that money for only one purpose - to increase the strength of the organized religions in the United States of America.
You say - hey that is not a bad thing? Well, yes it is...
1) Organized religion is on the decline in the United States - while the religiousness of the population is on the rise. The reasons for this are complex, but it is quite clear that people do not need to be part of an organized religion to be religious. This effort by Bush Jr. has the goal of putting as many of those religious people under his umbrella to make the great white Christian America that people seem to think existed in the 1950's (it didn't).
2) There was a time where religion caused riots in the major cities in the United States - because the local governments were controlled by protestants and there were catholic minorities that were affected. Is this the kind of behavior we want to encourage? But the past is being 'cleansed' and it gets harder and harder to find information on these riots that occurred in Philadelphia not too long ago, historically speaking.
3) You may be a religious person, but which religion is exactly going to be in control when the United States becomes a divine right state? Well, judging by the current president - better be ready for a fundamentalist state.
4) Religion and science are rather unfortunately on organizational levels - incompatible. The stronger religion is in the world (organized religion) the more they squelch research. The reason is quite clear - with every scientific breakthrough - at least on an organization level - it seems that science leaves less space for a god or gods to be necessary. I am not saying that a person cannot be religious and a scientist. I am saying that a dogmatic member of organized religion has no interest in they why things work or how they work - after all god did it and if we needed to know why or how god would explain it to humanity.
Organizations are particularly dumb, and religious organizations are worse. There is nothing in any of the religions that actually says you need some hierarchical structure in reference to how people worship on Earth. But heirarchy is inherent in organizational structure - as is the inability of people that are members of organized religions to question their leaders decisions and perhaps appeal them. I fear that one day some religious leader will say 'I have a list of unbelievers - go forth and convert them or else!' and well, I'd be up a creek at that point.
And this isn't some kind of irrational fear. Religious leaders make all kinds of weird statements - sometimes that they are forced to take back - like 'Satan is on Earth now and he is a Jew' some famous fundamentalist preacher said and then recanted.
But like any recantation - people can read quite squarely that if he didn't mean it - he wouldn't have said it. He recanted so that he would avoid being demonized by the rest of the population.
http://slate.msn.com/id/45483/
-
Just imagine idiots like this in control of our government - and using vast amounts of government money for their own pursuit of religious 'freedom' - where you are free to be what they want you to be and that is final.
http://www2.davidduke.com/index.php?p=6
Abwägen
Things I would like to see in the Future Part III
Three words. Adjustable Penis Size.
You know, I suspect that a lot of the nudity taboos come from insecurity among males due to penis size or the lack thereof.
It is very weird because rarely do females base their mate decision solely on the basis of penis size.
And right now, there are women out there with adjustable breast sizes. Instead of silicone implants - they actually have inflatable breast implants.
Some men that are older and need a little help, actually have an adjustable penis already. Although perhaps this is not so much adjustable as inflatable to their appropriate size.
So, all I am saying is that society in general would improve if we were a little less sensitive about nudity and penis size were less of a perceived factor with males.
Skin is very adaptable and stretches. There was a case where a kid was hit by a car while on rollerblades. It shattered both of his legs. Some of the surgery they were performing was to restore some of his lost height - by stretching the legs and replacing the lost bone. This implies that at least as much could be done with the penis.
I do suspect that it was a painful process for the boy to go through. And it would probably be even more painful due to the sensitivity of the penis.
But hey, some people would think it is worth it.
http://www.mentorcorp.com/breastsurgery/augmentation/cs_ba_prod_adjust.htm
http://kyw.com/health/local_story_040192402.html
http://abcnews.healthology.com/webcast_transcript.asp?b=abcnews&f=erectile_dysfunction&c=urology_pumpdecision&spg=FID
Abwägen
You know, I suspect that a lot of the nudity taboos come from insecurity among males due to penis size or the lack thereof.
It is very weird because rarely do females base their mate decision solely on the basis of penis size.
And right now, there are women out there with adjustable breast sizes. Instead of silicone implants - they actually have inflatable breast implants.
Some men that are older and need a little help, actually have an adjustable penis already. Although perhaps this is not so much adjustable as inflatable to their appropriate size.
So, all I am saying is that society in general would improve if we were a little less sensitive about nudity and penis size were less of a perceived factor with males.
Skin is very adaptable and stretches. There was a case where a kid was hit by a car while on rollerblades. It shattered both of his legs. Some of the surgery they were performing was to restore some of his lost height - by stretching the legs and replacing the lost bone. This implies that at least as much could be done with the penis.
I do suspect that it was a painful process for the boy to go through. And it would probably be even more painful due to the sensitivity of the penis.
But hey, some people would think it is worth it.
http://www.mentorcorp.com/breastsurgery/augmentation/cs_ba_prod_adjust.htm
http://kyw.com/health/local_story_040192402.html
http://abcnews.healthology.com/webcast_transcript.asp?b=abcnews&f=erectile_dysfunction&c=urology_pumpdecision&spg=FID
Abwägen
Things I would like to see in the Future Part II
There is something that I hold particularly close in my mind that I would be enthusiastic about.
I want to be able to change the color of my skin. My skin color is currently a fairly generic brown. Few things do I find more interesting if I could have green skin for a year or blue or red or even multiple different colors for all over my body.
I am not talking about tatoos. Way too permenant.
It would be interesting to see people that look truly different - from day to day. And I am talking about change that would be on the temporary but genetic level. Or even technological level but not something that washes off.
Some people might choose to have skin embedded with Chlorphyll and be green - so that they would not need to eat as many calories during the summer.
If the color change of skin could be managed quickly and without high health risks I could imagine a time where due to politics people would change the color of their skin to show devotion to or for a cause.
In the end, when we have this level of mastery over our appearance discrimination on the basis of race would rapidly become history. Who could tell what race you were if you could change the way you look on a daily or even hourly basis?
Overall, though, order is so oppressive in a species. I mean, how boring can humanity be - the way it is now? Ooooh I think he's a slightly browner brown than he is. Or oohhhh that person has really white skin (not really though) or that person has really black skin (but not really, though).
In the beginning though it might spur off a new discrimination - those for and against changing the colors of your skin. I'm sure they'll have things like - oh its gonna damage your skin and stuff like that on the side of the against. Probably some religious freaks running around telling people how they shouldn't mark their skin because its the mark of the devil (even though many of those people will be wearing tatoos).
Later, though, when it is proven that such changes are not harmful (because if they are harmful what good are they?) - humanity might be a somewhat interesting species to observe and be a part of than the humdrum species that it is now.
Abwägen
I want to be able to change the color of my skin. My skin color is currently a fairly generic brown. Few things do I find more interesting if I could have green skin for a year or blue or red or even multiple different colors for all over my body.
I am not talking about tatoos. Way too permenant.
It would be interesting to see people that look truly different - from day to day. And I am talking about change that would be on the temporary but genetic level. Or even technological level but not something that washes off.
Some people might choose to have skin embedded with Chlorphyll and be green - so that they would not need to eat as many calories during the summer.
If the color change of skin could be managed quickly and without high health risks I could imagine a time where due to politics people would change the color of their skin to show devotion to or for a cause.
In the end, when we have this level of mastery over our appearance discrimination on the basis of race would rapidly become history. Who could tell what race you were if you could change the way you look on a daily or even hourly basis?
Overall, though, order is so oppressive in a species. I mean, how boring can humanity be - the way it is now? Ooooh I think he's a slightly browner brown than he is. Or oohhhh that person has really white skin (not really though) or that person has really black skin (but not really, though).
In the beginning though it might spur off a new discrimination - those for and against changing the colors of your skin. I'm sure they'll have things like - oh its gonna damage your skin and stuff like that on the side of the against. Probably some religious freaks running around telling people how they shouldn't mark their skin because its the mark of the devil (even though many of those people will be wearing tatoos).
Later, though, when it is proven that such changes are not harmful (because if they are harmful what good are they?) - humanity might be a somewhat interesting species to observe and be a part of than the humdrum species that it is now.
Abwägen
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Firefox browser
I've just loaded this web browser over the past week. It is fairly easy to use - and has some bonuses compared to IE 6.0. Primarily this involves security. But as a very good second, I have notices that the memory footprint of Firefox is about half that of Internet Explorer and the download to install Firefox was 5 MB, where I think I have loaded patches to IE 6.0 that were that large.
Abwägen
Abwägen
Things I would like to see in the Future Part I
Just a list here - of things I would like to see in the future. Perhaps my son in some future might read it and get some ideas of what his father was like. These are in no particular order.
1. Humanity travelling to other planets in the solar system as easily as we now travel across oceans to other continents.
2. Humanity meeting an alien species in some form. Alien being specific to non-Earth solar system organisms containing a similar or higher intelligence than humanity.
3. People check their religious beliefs at the door when applying for actions the government of everyone will be a party.
4. People to look up to scientists and hope that the scientists can do things to help make the future a better place.
5. People to understand in general that there is no such thing as perfection. Especially in regard to the human genome. There might be perfect in some particular aspect, but in reality perfect is a paradoxical word - nothing can be perfect because perfect implies perfect in all circumstances. A human who has been genetically modified to live underwater would not be the perfect human design to run a 100 meter race. Genetic modifications to make humanity better should be allowed. If we can improve ourselves on the individual level there is a chance that as a species we can improve.
6. A president that understands the ecological problems confronting our world - and is willing to use presidential orders to ensure that we minimize our impact on the environment.
a) A presidential order that states if inventions are created that would clearly improve the standard of live for people in general or vastly reduce the environmental impact of humans on Earth - these items are part of the publics best interest and cannot be purchased by a company and squelched from existence. I remember a ultrasonic clothes washer that I saw on the TV show beyond 2000 - and the fact that it would not be coming to the United States because some major manufacturer purchased the design and had no designs on bringing the chemically free clothes washer to market. Imagine, all the clothes detergent that would go not made, and not pollute our environment if it was brought to market. Al the fuel savings because none of those detergents would need to be transported. Waste of pollution, of time and lives for things that are not necessary - and for what - so people can make money helping other people have clean clothes.
b) A presidential order mandating that significant fuel savings via new technology must be implemented by automotive companies within a specific time frame. I do not see why 90% of consumer vehicles at this point in time cannot be hybrids. The savings goes beyond individual households saving money on fuel. Imagine millions of households not consuming as much gasoline this year as they did last year - vastly reducing the demand for gasoline. Prices would go down of gasoline, there would be less pollution in the air and the United States would be on the road to gasoline independence.
c) A presidential mandate that employees not go to physical workplaces whenever possible - to be enforced and audited by the government. Programmers, accountants and other people should almost never go to the work place. Businesses should help defray the costs of home offices and help people be able to work the vast majority of the time from home. This would also combine with the fuel savings mandate for hybrid vehicles to reduce the demand for gasoline in the United States.
That's all for now.
Abwägen
1. Humanity travelling to other planets in the solar system as easily as we now travel across oceans to other continents.
2. Humanity meeting an alien species in some form. Alien being specific to non-Earth solar system organisms containing a similar or higher intelligence than humanity.
3. People check their religious beliefs at the door when applying for actions the government of everyone will be a party.
4. People to look up to scientists and hope that the scientists can do things to help make the future a better place.
5. People to understand in general that there is no such thing as perfection. Especially in regard to the human genome. There might be perfect in some particular aspect, but in reality perfect is a paradoxical word - nothing can be perfect because perfect implies perfect in all circumstances. A human who has been genetically modified to live underwater would not be the perfect human design to run a 100 meter race. Genetic modifications to make humanity better should be allowed. If we can improve ourselves on the individual level there is a chance that as a species we can improve.
6. A president that understands the ecological problems confronting our world - and is willing to use presidential orders to ensure that we minimize our impact on the environment.
a) A presidential order that states if inventions are created that would clearly improve the standard of live for people in general or vastly reduce the environmental impact of humans on Earth - these items are part of the publics best interest and cannot be purchased by a company and squelched from existence. I remember a ultrasonic clothes washer that I saw on the TV show beyond 2000 - and the fact that it would not be coming to the United States because some major manufacturer purchased the design and had no designs on bringing the chemically free clothes washer to market. Imagine, all the clothes detergent that would go not made, and not pollute our environment if it was brought to market. Al the fuel savings because none of those detergents would need to be transported. Waste of pollution, of time and lives for things that are not necessary - and for what - so people can make money helping other people have clean clothes.
b) A presidential order mandating that significant fuel savings via new technology must be implemented by automotive companies within a specific time frame. I do not see why 90% of consumer vehicles at this point in time cannot be hybrids. The savings goes beyond individual households saving money on fuel. Imagine millions of households not consuming as much gasoline this year as they did last year - vastly reducing the demand for gasoline. Prices would go down of gasoline, there would be less pollution in the air and the United States would be on the road to gasoline independence.
c) A presidential mandate that employees not go to physical workplaces whenever possible - to be enforced and audited by the government. Programmers, accountants and other people should almost never go to the work place. Businesses should help defray the costs of home offices and help people be able to work the vast majority of the time from home. This would also combine with the fuel savings mandate for hybrid vehicles to reduce the demand for gasoline in the United States.
That's all for now.
Abwägen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)