Check out the new sign on Metro Line 444.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Richard Dawkins is Misguided
Believe me when I say I can take any subject and pretty much tie it back to a political argument. It's not hard because the state has ensconced itself into every facet of life.
A friend of mine recommended that I read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. It seems that Dawkins' primary beef is that 40% of Americans don't buy evolution. He explains that this is the primary purpose of writing his book. And that's a fine reason indeed. If you have a viewpoint you want to get across, write a book and help people understand. But that's not why Dawkins is misguided. You have to ask yourself, why is it so important to Dawkins that everyone accept evolution as fact? Well, that's where I get political. Dawkins wants science to be pure. He wants it to be free from pseudo science. And on that, we both agree. But he believes that the only way to do it is to convince the general public to accept evolution. And that's where I disagree. Science shouldn't ever depend on a majority. If science can only be done by consensus, there will always be conflict. So the solution is to get away from the need for consensus. I'm talking about general consensus, not consensus within science itself. If you don't get away from consensus, you have to turn to indoctrination. But it shouldn't matter if 50% + 1 of the general public accept one conclusion over another. You can present the general public a mountain of evidence, yet they believe what they want (see OJ trial). Science should be unfettered by general consensus. If the evidence leads a certain place, science should follow that evidence, even if 100% - 1 person believe otherwise. The problem is that science is funded primarily by government and coercion. Grants come with strings attached. But even if the strings don't affect the outcome of scientific research, a moral problem still exists. The moral problem is that the funds were obtained by violent means. Government should not be involved in research. It should not do science. There needs to be a separation of science and government, but instead there's a lobby. Research should be funded voluntarily. Political angles always surface. The scientists who do the research that tends to lead to pro-state political outcomes will successfully lobby the funding while the research that leads away from pro-state outcomes will get ignored. There will always be piles and piles of money waiting to go somewhere. Some of it goes into war. Some of it goes into major economic sectors. But even what's left over for scientific research is huge.The above is a problem even assuming there is no fraud in scientific research. But imagine what kind of money-pit could happen if research is falsified for a time just to get at that cash-cow. Nobody is surprised when fraud is found in the commodities industry. If "Big Oil" or "Big Iron" is caught with its hand in the cookie-jar, it's almost expected and they get a slap on the wrist. So why would scientific research free from the same scrutiny and suspicion? There is another gentleman named Dan Dennett who has similar but not identical misguided ideas about education. Dennett is a little less of a prick about it than Dawkins. Where Dawkins would beat people over the head with scientific research, Dennett's approach would be to beat people over the head with all other religions. Their ideas might be different, but both approaches on dealing with their ideas are identical. They both pine over the democratic implication of ignorance. They both want to take their appeal directly to children, bypassing the parents because they know better. Dennett claims he wants the parents involved but then asserts that children must be taught all facts in all religion, possibly against the wishes of the parents. I'm sure there are some parents that are totally in favor of this idea. There are some who would rather home school their children, at great expense, to avoid it. Dennett wants to mandate his curriculum policy even for the home schooled. Both Dawkins and Dennett want to teach their overarching philosophies regardless of what parents value. Check it out, and listen to their recommended tactical political policies: While Dawkins outright attacks religion, Dennett fanes support for it: I highly recommend you watch both of the above. It is where education is headed whether you like it or not. The only solution is to abolish government schools. These nutjobs will continue to assert their dastardly policies piggybacking scientific research to get there. By the way, I'll put anybody on the intelligent design side of the discussion into the "nutjob" category if they are trying to mandate national policies for education too. I know they exist. None of it is valid if the goal forced curriculum. Both sides of the origins debate are trying to leverage public opinion and that's what I object to. As for the true science itself, I have no objection to it. If you want to research evolution by natural selection, do it. Have fun. It is certainly compelling science. And if you want to teach a curriculum on the same, do it. Offer your curriculum to schools that want to teach it. But don't force it on people by offering it as a national policy. If you have the truth, it should be self-evident. You shouldn't need the violent apparatus of the state to get what you want.Friday, November 27, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Automatic Earthquake Tweet
I have rigged a touchatag RFID tag to automatically tweet if there's an earthquake. The tag has been enclosed in a display slab (the slab is intended for collectible coins). I've labeled the tags with a post-it note and placed it in the slab as well. The earthquake tag is being held by a top-heavy robot that will (hopefully) fall on the tag reader during a moderate or large seismic event. It would be so cool if it worked, wouldn't it?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Hannah's Doodles
Here is what Hannah (3) drew tonight on my iPhone. She knows I have a sketching app (she calls it coloring), and she likes to use it after her bath. She picked all the colors too. And she signed it with an H. The only thing I helped her with was moving the view window to a new spot so she could start a new doodle.
I also drew shapes like stars which she colored over.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Windows 3.11 on iPhone
Is that really Windows 3.11 running on my iPhone? No, not really. I'm just accessing it over VNC with my iPhone. It's actually running on my desktop in Virtual PC as a 386 DX with 64 MB RAM and 250 MB HDD. What happened was, I decided to install DOS 6.22, then it grew from there. I found a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 ISO file, then the Y2K fix. Then the 32-bit update with Freecell, and so on.I even found the Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 and S3 Trio64V video driver so I could have sound and use full color depth (I left it at 640x480 just for kicks). There's the network card driver and a TCP/IP stack so I can access the Internet. Not easy. Virtual PC itself was no help at all with any of this except for the ability to undo disk writes. It's like building a ship in a bottle. Some people see that as fun. Others say, "WHY!?"It's also great how all this stuff came back to me. Little things, like which IRQ the sound card is on or which DOS programs will run in EMS vs. XMS. Then there's remembering what to do when you install a video driver that doesn't work. Yep, run the setup from the command line because there's no "safe mode." There were also some surprises like the fact that Creative Labs drivers can still be downloaded from their web site, even in 2009! Another surprise was that Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 was available along with a matching version of Outlook Express. IE even installed a version of Java that runs applets. Not from Microsoft's web site, mind you. No, I had to Google all this. Thanks Google! One thing I found downright shocking was that AOL Instant Messenger works. Think about that for a second. This app is twelve years old and version 1.0 can still connect to the same servers. Well, I guess that's not too amazing considering AIM is merely a chat app. So none of this is actually useful, but it's certainly a blast from the past. Fun stuff.
Ralph Lauren: The Hits Keep On Coming
Although Ralph Lauren have apologized for their last outrageous bout of Photoshop exuberance, they still haven't apologized for the original DMCA their lawyers issued to this blog.Which makes it quite difficult to resist showing you this window display from Sydney, Australia. Thanks to PG!
Ok, this one is DMCA proof, I assume.
Letters From A Nut: Metro Annoyances
Being long winded when it comes to all forms of writing, I also have a strange habit of actually writing letters. I'm not talking about e-mail letters. I'm talking about old fashioned "typed" letters on paper, mailed with a fricking stamp. Ok, I don't use a typewriter and I do send e-mail too, but when I want to be really annoying, I print them, stuff them in an envelop, and hope at least one eyebrow will raise from my antics. When I write them for mailing, I try to stick to some semblance of the formal rules of letter writing if I can. I tend to just use Einstein's format for FDR (see below).Here is a letter I wrote (albeit slightly edited and reformatted for the internets) originally addressed to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a.k.a. "Metro," formerly RTD, formerly MTA, etc.). The letter was written and sent in June of 2008:
I do not write my letters really expecting any change or even a response. Only about half of the letters like this ever get a reply. And about half of those replies do not seem to pertain at all to what I originally wrote about. This does not come as a surprise to me. But years ago, I would get coupons and other perks for writing nutty letters to corporations. Lately, nothing. And I certainly didn't expect anything from monopolistic-pseudo-corporations like these guys. And I was right. There was no reply. My address was part of the letter I sent (which was redacted here for posting online), so there's no reason they couldn't reply. But because I brought up legal terminology, my letter was probably shredded ASAP. But an interesting thing has happened since that time. My primary complaint about the noise level generated by "Transit TV" seems to have been addressed. I'm not sure if it's because of my letter or something unrelated like the fact that maintenance has gone completely out the window (maybe it's a combination thereof). And my secondary complaint about the odd treatment of transfers has also been addressed. I have gotten zero resistance to my transfers for a long time. There have been many new operators since that time too, so it's not because they got used to me. So I can't say letter writing was effective here since I have no direct evidence to support it. But I do enjoy it nonetheless. And on occasion, it might even help. Who knows?
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Sir or Madam: My daily round-trip cost is $2.45 in total. I commute four days out of the week and spend the fifth day working from home. As you can see, I have no need for a $5 daily pass, nor $62 a monthly pass, since I only spend about $42 each month. Needless to say, I have nothing to complain about with regard to bus fare. My commute seems longer than it was when I drove the seven miles over a year ago, but the price is much easier to deal with. I notice that many of the Metro buses have been outfitted with flat panel displays called "Transit TV" which inform and attempt to entertain riders en-route. One of the features I have noticed of this system is that as the bus driver presses down on the bus accelerator, the audio from Transit TV system intentionally gets louder to compensate for the extra noise from the bus engine. I find it odd that radios are prohibited by law (California Penal Code § 640.3 "Playing sound equipment on or in a system facility or vehicle.") yet sound equipment from the Transit TV systems are lawful. In fact, I find Transit TV downright obnoxious. Why should I be jarred away from my book to hear commercials for people with bad credit? On the Torrance Transit line, if some-one's earphones are too loud, the bus driver asks them to turn them down. I am seriously considering what it would take to remove Metro from my daily commute. In all likelihood, the only thing I need to do is purchase a bicycle. I would like to know if Transit TV has been granted an exception from the law, and if so, I require to know where this exception is documented so that I may start a petition to remove the exception, if I find any such interest from other riders to do so. No doubt, Metro receives revenue from Transit TV for playing those obnoxious commercials. It would be one thing if the monitors merely displayed messages in silence. No doubt revenue could still be gathered by silent ads. I can only guess this is all in an effort to avoid raising the bus fare. As it is, the bus fare really doesn't bother me, but I pay $1.55 to get to work and $0.90 to get home four days a week because I incorporate Torrance Transit into my route. It might make more sense to just remove Metro from the equation and pay only $0.50 each direction. When I come home, I get a transfer from Torrance Transit. When I transfer to Metro, many times the Metro driver won't take my transfer, but let me on anyway. Occasionally, Metro drivers offer resistance for even showing them the transfer. It's like they think they are day passes, they don't recognize them anymore, or they think I'm trying to pull a fast one. I'm not sure why the driver wouldn't want to take my transfer. I know the code requirement for fare disputes is to pay the fare (§640.B), but I have been polite with the drivers and thus far this has not been necessary. All this to say, I am not that impressed with your bus line and I have a sneaking suspicion you are getting rid of inter-agency transfers and force me to buy a day pass that the Torrance Transit line doesn't plan on accepting. Is this true? If so, all this will serve to do is confirm my desire to remove Metro from my daily commute. Sincerely,
Anthony Martin
I do not write my letters really expecting any change or even a response. Only about half of the letters like this ever get a reply. And about half of those replies do not seem to pertain at all to what I originally wrote about. This does not come as a surprise to me. But years ago, I would get coupons and other perks for writing nutty letters to corporations. Lately, nothing. And I certainly didn't expect anything from monopolistic-pseudo-corporations like these guys. And I was right. There was no reply. My address was part of the letter I sent (which was redacted here for posting online), so there's no reason they couldn't reply. But because I brought up legal terminology, my letter was probably shredded ASAP. But an interesting thing has happened since that time. My primary complaint about the noise level generated by "Transit TV" seems to have been addressed. I'm not sure if it's because of my letter or something unrelated like the fact that maintenance has gone completely out the window (maybe it's a combination thereof). And my secondary complaint about the odd treatment of transfers has also been addressed. I have gotten zero resistance to my transfers for a long time. There have been many new operators since that time too, so it's not because they got used to me. So I can't say letter writing was effective here since I have no direct evidence to support it. But I do enjoy it nonetheless. And on occasion, it might even help. Who knows?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
