Monthly Archives: May 2016

An agenda of contradictions

Drumpf would stand at the North Pole, in the middle of northern hemisphere winter, in a raging snowstorm and with his pinched face declare “What global warming?”

Drumpf would stand in in the rain in a California almond orchard, during a seasonal deluge and shrug his shoulders and state “What drought?”

Drumpf would stand in the tide pools, at low tide in Tuvalu and incredulously claim “What sea rise?”

Drumpf’s statements are representative of most of corporate think: short term outlook for short term profits. Obvious agenda conjoined with shallow, narrow minded thinking are tools of those wishing to distract the public from obvious trends and eventualities to focus on immediate gratification issues. And we are a culture, a world culture, reliant more and more on I-want-mine-now!

What is inconsistent in Drumpf’s story, however, and redolent of some subversive byline, is his obvious understanding of long term views given a history of real estate investment. One does not generally play the real estate market with a goal to flip a large property for 1000 basis points within a yearly quarter. Sure it happens but the expectations of ROI on property extends usually over years if not decades.

Therefore, if we assume that the Donald has a real estate minded ability to see the future payout for long term investments, what is he playing at when he blatantly ignores projections of obvious trends and brushes them off as conjecture and conspiracy?

We all know the reason, he’s stated it himself, Drumpf today is not a Drumpf tomorrow — “I will change, once I’m President!” The trick, I propose, is to catch him in an obvious contradiction and hold his feet to the global warming fire.

Wealth Inequality — a collection nexus

The solution to growing inequality of wealth and the eventual replacement of most work by automation is simple. But it’s easiest to imagine with a little scenario set 50 years from now.

Imagine when robots make robots.

Imagine an IBM Watson artilect (artificial intellect) within a generally capable automaton that can do ANY manual labor, from cleaning, delivery, agriculture, horticulture, construction, mining, culinary, elder care, teaching, animal husbandry — you name it, if it takes an IQ of ~ 80 to ~110 and requires the manipulation of stuff — this robot will do it. But not only that — this robot is being built-by-other-robots. Humans, or approximately 95% of them — as we know them are COMPLETELY redundant.

What then?

Well, obviously the humans that are now useless, except as vehicles for end product and service consumption — the whole reason all these robots are necessary in the first place — should /share/ in the benefit that this technology has been created for the top species of the planet. Share in the “profits” of the production of the automation age. Share in the benefits, the ultra-high standard of living, share in the health and luxury and leisure that full automation of all work has provided.

Right now little to no sharing is occurring. The bottom 90% of workers, of income earners, are not earning their portion of what all of this technological advancement is creating. Only the top 10% of capitalists are gaining in today’s world economy. If everyone earned a portion of what the conversion to an automated world will produce — then everyone will have the wealth to spend to keep the economic machine humming.

Without equality of wealth, the only way forward is revolt and revolution.

Phonetic vowel sounds – the programmers way

Most languages are poorly designed.

English is one of the worst. No logical person, starting from a blank slate would design a language like English the way English is constructed. Here’s a straightforward mechanism for simplifying vowel sounds.

Long vowel sounds are singular letters. Short vowel sounds are double letters, or triple letters, or if necessary, quadrupled.

The long “a” sound as in Baker or May should be the singular “a”.
The short “a” sound as in park, or car, should be two a’s, “aa”.

The long “e” sound as in pee, or flee, should be should be the singular “e”.
The short “e” sound as in fed, or dread, should be the double e, “ee”.

The long “i” sound as in high, or pie, should be the singular “i”.
The short “i” as in drizel or lizard should be double i’s, “ii”.
The pinched short “i” as in ring or drink should be triple i’s, “iii”.

Long “o” as in mope, or dough is “o”.
Short “o” as osprey or problem is “oo”.

Long “u” as in blue, or crew is “u”.
Short “u” as in judge or brother is “uu”.

And that’s it. If there are other vowel sounds that need to be represented then they can be triple a’s or triple i’s, etc.

That is how the language should start out. That is how to design an intelligent language.

And for the consonants? We can probably whittle them down to about 18.
Baa, Daa, Faa, Gaa, Haa, Jaa, Kaa, Laa, Maa, Naa, Paa, Raa, Saa, Taa, Vaa, Waa, Yaa, Zaa
Any sounds that are more complicated than those should be combinations. “Th” can still be th. Ph? Gone. Gh, like at the end of some words, through, bough, I’m not sure what to do with those. It might be that we could allow silent consonant combinations at the end of words to allow for homonym differentiation. We should discuss that. There might be some simple rules we could apply that would enhance the language rather than complicate it.


Multiplying negatives = positive?

Here’s a bizarre concept that I just can’t believe didn’t cause early mathematicians moral consternation…

Multiplying two negatives produces a positive value.


For instance, 10 trigger happy terrorists who have access to 10 nuclear bombs, is a good thing? 10 BAD x 10 BAD = 100 GOOD!

That doesn’t make any sense. Or how about another?

Increased global warming times increased human population = super duper outcome. I don’t think so.

Negative times negative should be REALLY BLOODY NEGATIVE!

-10 x -10 = -100. That seems logical.

But there’s this other scenario that is really the problem, a positive number times a negative number, or a negative number times a positive number (yes, the commutative property).

So what should happen when you multiply +10 x -10 ? 10 Mother Teresas times 10 jihadist fanatics? Well, I think that there should be something akin to addition there, 10 x -10 = 0. But let me show you another example.

5 natural disasters times 2 Nobel Peace prizes: -5 x 2? Well, the absolute product of this equation is obviously 10. But is ALL that ten negative? Or is there some positive in there somewhere? If you think about a number line, -10 to 10, centered on zero, where would the logical product of -5 x 2 fall? Negative eight maybe? Negative six?

How about this:

-5 * 2 = -6 = -(10 – (10 * 2/5))

If the larger number is positive the product will be positive.
If the larger number is negative the product will be negative.
To the absolute value of the product, subtract the product of the absolute value of the  product times the fraction of the small number over the larger number.

±x * ±y = ±(|±x * ±y| – (|±x * ±y| * x / y))
if x is negative and larger:
x * y = -(|x * y| – (|x * y|* y / x))
if x is negative and smaller:
x * y = +(|x * y| – (|x * y| * x / y))


-10 * 1 = -9  = -(10 - (10 * 1/10))
-10 * 5 = -25 = -(50 - (50 * 5/10))
-10 * 9 = -9  = -(90 - (90 * 9/10))
-10 * 10 = 0  = (100 - (100 * 10/10))
 10 * -9 = 9  =  (90 - 90 * 9/10))
 10 * -5 = 25 =  (50 - (50 * 5/10))
 10 * -1 = 9  =  (10 - (10 * 1/10))

-7 * 1 = -6  = -(7  - (7 *  1/7))
-7 * 4 = -12 = -(28 - (28 * 4/7))
-7 * 6 = -6  = -(42 - (42 * 6/7))
-7 * 7 = 0   =  (49 - (49 * 7/7))
 7 * -5 = 10 =  (35 - (35 * 5/7))
 7 * -3 = 15 =  (21 - (21 * 3/7))
 7 * -1 = 6  =  (7  - (7 * 1/7))

 -37 * 12    = -300  = -(444 - (444 * 12 / 37))
  99 * -3    =  288  =  (297 - (297 * 3 / 99))
 273 * -111  = 17982 = (30303 - (30303 * 111/273))
  .5 * -.12  = .0456 = (.06 - (.06 * (.12 / .5)) 
-544 * .004321 = -2.350605328959

Positive times a positive is positive.
Negative times a negative is negative.
And the mixture of positive times a negative is somewhere in between.

That, to me, seems logical.


Sir, Madam, Mr. Mrs. Miss. Ms. – nix

Government should do a way with all honorifics.

Blantekek Raimsworth.

That’s ALL we should know about this person. Not their gender, their title, NOTHING!

Saintal Finsekosh.

Wo Podurn.

Tellian Dinktar.

Maybe the only thing we might want to know about these people is if they are from Earth. AND EVEN THEN — maybe not.

A person with a name is an intelligent species from some place — with whom we might wish to converse. PERIOD.


Wage increase? Yeah — dream on.

Hey Monster, you may want to go off and read up on more of this inequality thing and the wage-stagnation since 1980’s concept. Me? I’ve learned 3 times more tech than what I knew in 2001, yet I make less in dollar count than I did then. Dollar count, like just the number of them with out taking into account inflation over the last 15 years. And you know what? I’m bloody happy to have a job. To have kept up with just a 2% inflation over that time period I would need to be making more than $40k extra. Yeah right. Good luck with that.

Here’s a theory you can research; The Number Anchor Bias. Think about it, getting paid more than $100k / year just SOUNDs like a lot of dough right? If you made $70k in 2001, what would you expect, per inflation, to make today? Well, if you figured 3% inflation, a  medium between 2 and 4%, you would need to make $107k — and that’s just to maintain your existing salary. No extra knowledge applied, no extra duties, just the same job moved forward. Now, if you go out looking to get hired today, to do the set of tasks done in 2001, are you going to get $107k/year? Hell no! There’s a bias against paying more than $100k — for ANY job. And the higher up from there it just gets worse. Hiring agents and the companies they work for are anchored in the past. They are biased to look back 10, 20 years and say to themselves, “sheesh, $100k sure is a lot of money!”

Inflation doesn’t just eat our lunch, and dinner these days. It is set to destroy the foundation of the middle class.

TR -The Unbelievable Reality of the Impossible Hyperloop

The underlying premise that humans MUST be THERE when in actuality they are HERE has not been proven. Why does anyone have to travel at great speeds, in order to accomplish anything in this day and age of instant digital distant representation? Do you need to be there, in situ or in proxy? Could you not just conduct business via the net? Could you not just hire a simulacrum to perform your activity in your stead? And if you just bloody well HAVE to be there, then, well, you should plan to be there no? The whole StarTrek transporter need has never really been questioned. Sure StarTrek used it to get from planet to low orbit. But humans would only use it to get from SFO to LAX. That must surely register as a lame use of technology.