This is the space I will use to record methods of educating students (especially secondary students - middle and high school). I want cool stuff; labs and demonstrations.
I will start with a quick summary of one:
Materials: dish soap, baking soda, vinegar
Students, in groups of 3-4, predict what will happen when each of the three pairs of these substances are mixed, and when all three are mixed. These claims/hypotheses are then experimentally tested.
A graphic organizer needs to be prepared for this.
This lab is excellent for tying theory to the real world and emphasizing lab safety without anyone getting hurt. Vinegar, an everyday substance, is acid and can be used to do interesting chemistry with! If a kid gets it in his eyes he will know it, and it will drive home the lessons about protecting eyes, but the vinegar should not do damage if rinsed out thoroughly in a timely fashion.
Another one demonstrates air pressure by putting a marshmallow in a syringe and adding or reducing pressure on the plunger. The marshmallow will shrivel or expand as air pressure increases or decreases inside the syringe.
Before the unit, have students write down what they know, think they know and want to know. Collect the papers and then return them after the unit. Have students write down their errors, new knowledge and what they correctly knew beforehand.
A common steel spoon can be used as both a convex and concave mirror.
A mirror can be used to reflect the image of a lit candle on to a white card. This is interesting and can be used to explore the ideas of images. Using a curved mirror or a lens allows exploration of how distance changes image size and focus.
The projector can be used to illustrate mirror, lens and image ideas.
A prism and a laser pointer are used to study refraction. A glass of water with a pencil in it illustrates this well.
"if i do i die", "hidiho" to remember equation.
One can determine equations from experimental data; this is good for kids.
NaHCO3 + CaCl2 in ziplock; put test tube of water in ziplock, squeeze out air and then spill test tube.
Zn + HCl
Penny in nitric acid - be cautious. It's illegal to destroy money and this reaction gives off toxic fumes.
Soak paper money in rubbing alcohol. Have a wet (but not dripping) newspaper open nearby. Ignite the bill and quickly put it in the newspaper and then shut the newspaper to put out the flame. Students can now observe that the bill is much drier (alcohol burned off, water evaporated off), and that it's warm, but undamaged.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Future Technologies
Some likely technologies at the cutting edge of science now or just beyond:
Cryogenic storage of humans and other animals a la Aliens.
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion technology for space travel
Railguns
Fusion power generators
Robots and drones
Cyborgs with various machines embedded - internal cell phones, Internet Explorer HUD, enhanced eyes with night vision, extra strength and toughness, a brain with a built in computer for calculations and information storage, remote controls for other machines, weaponry
Generation Ships for interstellar travel
Greatly elongated life
Biological "machines" which result from extensive breeding and genetic manipulation
Laser weapons
Explosive Reactive Armor with an automated reloading mechanism to replace the tiles after they go off
Video camera/projector based invisibility
Partial mind control (maybe a gun that electrically or otherwise creates intense terror, etc)
Mind reading machines
Evolved humans leading to different species e.g. War of the Worlds' aliens that were nothing but fingers, brains and sense organs because they had technology for all else, or the once-human species in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series.
Kinetic Bombardment AKA Thor Shots
Actively burrowing "smart" weapons/one use suicide gopher robots
Dyson Swarms of solar energy collectors
Mind control via organism or machine that is directly linked to the spine and brain
What Isaac Asimov called "Psychohistory" - the refinement of statistical sociology/psychology to the point of mathematical precision and the ability to predict the future in a limited sense due to this
Space Elevator
Completely artificial organisms
Vortex Ring Guns
Sonic weapons
Microwave weapons
Ring shaped space stations with artificial gravity a la Niven's Ringworld, the space station in 2001 or the Haloes from the Halo games.
One way tracers - bullets with LEDs in the base.
Space ships as per Children of a Dead Earth and Footfall. e.g. Space Battleship Michael!
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns.php
Plasma weapons
Any other ideas?
Cryogenic storage of humans and other animals a la Aliens.
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion technology for space travel
Railguns
Fusion power generators
Robots and drones
Cyborgs with various machines embedded - internal cell phones, Internet Explorer HUD, enhanced eyes with night vision, extra strength and toughness, a brain with a built in computer for calculations and information storage, remote controls for other machines, weaponry
Generation Ships for interstellar travel
Greatly elongated life
Biological "machines" which result from extensive breeding and genetic manipulation
Laser weapons
Explosive Reactive Armor with an automated reloading mechanism to replace the tiles after they go off
Video camera/projector based invisibility
Partial mind control (maybe a gun that electrically or otherwise creates intense terror, etc)
Mind reading machines
Evolved humans leading to different species e.g. War of the Worlds' aliens that were nothing but fingers, brains and sense organs because they had technology for all else, or the once-human species in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series.
Kinetic Bombardment AKA Thor Shots
Actively burrowing "smart" weapons/one use suicide gopher robots
Dyson Swarms of solar energy collectors
Mind control via organism or machine that is directly linked to the spine and brain
What Isaac Asimov called "Psychohistory" - the refinement of statistical sociology/psychology to the point of mathematical precision and the ability to predict the future in a limited sense due to this
Space Elevator
Completely artificial organisms
Vortex Ring Guns
Sonic weapons
Microwave weapons
Ring shaped space stations with artificial gravity a la Niven's Ringworld, the space station in 2001 or the Haloes from the Halo games.
One way tracers - bullets with LEDs in the base.
Space ships as per Children of a Dead Earth and Footfall. e.g. Space Battleship Michael!
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns.php
Plasma weapons
Any other ideas?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Global Warming
At Armchair General, The Doctor has asserted that there exist natural systems which buffer any change in CO2 levels. Buffering means that any change is partly or mostly "cancelled out" by the environment.
...sponges, DOC and coral reefs are one just [one] more example of how the oceans and the atmosphere have no difficulty accommodating the ~3% increase in the Earth's carbon budget resulting from human industrial activities.
After some back and forth discussion and analysis of his argument, I offered up my bet summary of his argument in concise bullet form and he made comments to each of my points to clarify.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about this particular topic to find any clear faults in his argument at this time even if it is faulty. My bias is that I suspect his argument is wrong, but I cannot support that.
Here is my summary with The Doctor's comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
[...]So, your claim is: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions help feed the critters that build coral reefs.
Your argument seems to be:
1) Humans have released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The answer to that depends on how you define "large amounts." Six billion tons per year is a large number. However it equates to 4 ppmv per year - A tiny number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
2) This atmospheric CO2 increases oceanic CO2 concentration.
About 30 to 50 ppmv of the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration (388 ppmv) is probably anthropogenic. But there is no way to segregate the anthropogenic from the natural. At one time it was claimed that Carbon Isotope Excursion (CIE) could be used to find the human fingerprint; but the same CIE occurred early in the Holocene and it occurs whenever CO2 levels rise.Mankind is probably responsible for 8% to 15% of the Earth's current atmospheric CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
3) This increased oceanic CO2 concentration is used by aquatic organisms in photosynthsis.
It is also used by land organisms in photosynthesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
4) Because of 3), the ocean is not acidifying despite the increase in oceanic CO2 levels.
#3 is part of the buffering process. Rock weathering is another big part of the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
5) Because of 3), there is a greater amount of organic carbon at the surface of the ocean which trickles down in the form of organic carbon detritus.
Most of the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in the oceans is the result of photosynthesis. Since there is more photosynthesis going on all over the planet because of the slightly elevated atmospheric CO2 and warmer temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age, DOC and colloidal organic carbon should be slightly elevated along with the rest of the carbon cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
6) There is a reef organism that feeds on organic carbon detritus that other reef organisms cannot feed on.
7)The organism in 6) does not gain mass despite the great amounts of carbon it ingests. Instead, it excretes the carbon in a form the reef organisms can feed on.
Almost as if these sponges were designed to feed reefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
8) Because of 7), the reefs are getting larger.
Reef calcification rates have trended upwards since the 1700's. This is probably due to increased photosynthesis of the algal symbionts, sponge carbon conversion and warmer temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
My best one sentence summary of your position:Because a combination of oceanic organisms including photosynthetic organisms, coral and sponges, processes atmospheric carbon dioxide eventually storing the carbon in the form of coral reefs, human CO2 emissions are not something we should be worrying about.
Carbon sequestration in the limestone built by reefs is one factor. Microbial lime muds are an even larger factor in the sequestration of carbon into limestone.Reefs are only a small, but high profile, part of the process. It has been asserted that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans and that this will damage reefs and other carbonate shell building organisms. This assertion is falsified by the empirical demonstrations of coccoliths and otoliths gaining carbonate mass in direct response to elevated CO2 levels, observational evidence that reefs have grown faster in the presence of elevated atmospheric CO2, and the geological record of Earth's oceans responding to far higher CO2 levels by making more limestone.The oceans aren't acidifying because they aren't. Oceanic pH has simply fluctuated within its normal range over the last 200 years. The only clearly documented example of ocean acidification (shoaling of the lysocline) is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). However, the linkage between the acidification and atmospheric CO2 is tenuous at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
Did I get your argument right? Please carefully look at my summary and let me know if you agree. I don't want to be accused of setting up strawman. I simply want to make sure I know what you're trying to say with this thread and to express it concisely.
The point of this particular thread, is that sponges, DOC and coral reefs are one just more example of how the oceans and the atmosphere have no difficulty accommodating the ~3% increase in the Earth's carbon budget resulting from human industrial activities.
In past discussions here on global warming (mainly involving MacSwain), the main focus was on the issue that CO2 cannot possibly be an important factor because the great majority of greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere is water vapor - with CO2 making up only a very small % of the total. As such, even if you increased CO2 at an extremely rapid rate, it still wouldn't increase the total amount greenhouse gas by anything more than a trivial amount. The argument has been that the global warming alarmists ignore water vapor, and thus make CO2 seem like a much bigger factor than it really is -- therefore, any warming that is occurring is likely due to normal cycles and other natural effects. But I came across this article when doing a Google search on "global warming water vapor" http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/ the article makes the following points: 1. global-warming skeptics argue that water vapor makes up 98% of the atmosphere - which seems to be based on a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen that cited a 1990 IPCC report - but the 1990 report doesn't appear to contain that number. According to both the IPCC and many global climate models, the real number is 60-70%. 2. the amount of water vapor that a given volume of air can hold rises when temperature is higher. So anything that is causing the atmosphere to get warmer, will allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. It may well be the case that it's not the CO2 itself that's the main problem - but it's role in allowing the atmosphere to hold a lot more water vapor. 3. a common skeptical argument is that the clouds caused by water vapor actually help to block solar radiation - and this compensates for the greenhouse effect, but a study in the Alps showed that this wasn't the case - despite the increasing clouds over a 7 year period, temperatures still rose steadily.
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=122266&page=1#post_2304543
...sponges, DOC and coral reefs are one just [one] more example of how the oceans and the atmosphere have no difficulty accommodating the ~3% increase in the Earth's carbon budget resulting from human industrial activities.
After some back and forth discussion and analysis of his argument, I offered up my bet summary of his argument in concise bullet form and he made comments to each of my points to clarify.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about this particular topic to find any clear faults in his argument at this time even if it is faulty. My bias is that I suspect his argument is wrong, but I cannot support that.
Here is my summary with The Doctor's comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
[...]So, your claim is: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions help feed the critters that build coral reefs.
Your argument seems to be:
1) Humans have released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The answer to that depends on how you define "large amounts." Six billion tons per year is a large number. However it equates to 4 ppmv per year - A tiny number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
2) This atmospheric CO2 increases oceanic CO2 concentration.
About 30 to 50 ppmv of the Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration (388 ppmv) is probably anthropogenic. But there is no way to segregate the anthropogenic from the natural. At one time it was claimed that Carbon Isotope Excursion (CIE) could be used to find the human fingerprint; but the same CIE occurred early in the Holocene and it occurs whenever CO2 levels rise.Mankind is probably responsible for 8% to 15% of the Earth's current atmospheric CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
3) This increased oceanic CO2 concentration is used by aquatic organisms in photosynthsis.
It is also used by land organisms in photosynthesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
4) Because of 3), the ocean is not acidifying despite the increase in oceanic CO2 levels.
#3 is part of the buffering process. Rock weathering is another big part of the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
5) Because of 3), there is a greater amount of organic carbon at the surface of the ocean which trickles down in the form of organic carbon detritus.
Most of the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in the oceans is the result of photosynthesis. Since there is more photosynthesis going on all over the planet because of the slightly elevated atmospheric CO2 and warmer temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age, DOC and colloidal organic carbon should be slightly elevated along with the rest of the carbon cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
6) There is a reef organism that feeds on organic carbon detritus that other reef organisms cannot feed on.
7)The organism in 6) does not gain mass despite the great amounts of carbon it ingests. Instead, it excretes the carbon in a form the reef organisms can feed on.
Almost as if these sponges were designed to feed reefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
8) Because of 7), the reefs are getting larger.
Reef calcification rates have trended upwards since the 1700's. This is probably due to increased photosynthesis of the algal symbionts, sponge carbon conversion and warmer temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
My best one sentence summary of your position:Because a combination of oceanic organisms including photosynthetic organisms, coral and sponges, processes atmospheric carbon dioxide eventually storing the carbon in the form of coral reefs, human CO2 emissions are not something we should be worrying about.
Carbon sequestration in the limestone built by reefs is one factor. Microbial lime muds are an even larger factor in the sequestration of carbon into limestone.Reefs are only a small, but high profile, part of the process. It has been asserted that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans and that this will damage reefs and other carbonate shell building organisms. This assertion is falsified by the empirical demonstrations of coccoliths and otoliths gaining carbonate mass in direct response to elevated CO2 levels, observational evidence that reefs have grown faster in the presence of elevated atmospheric CO2, and the geological record of Earth's oceans responding to far higher CO2 levels by making more limestone.The oceans aren't acidifying because they aren't. Oceanic pH has simply fluctuated within its normal range over the last 200 years. The only clearly documented example of ocean acidification (shoaling of the lysocline) is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). However, the linkage between the acidification and atmospheric CO2 is tenuous at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AThousandYoung
Did I get your argument right? Please carefully look at my summary and let me know if you agree. I don't want to be accused of setting up strawman. I simply want to make sure I know what you're trying to say with this thread and to express it concisely.
The point of this particular thread, is that sponges, DOC and coral reefs are one just more example of how the oceans and the atmosphere have no difficulty accommodating the ~3% increase in the Earth's carbon budget resulting from human industrial activities.
---------
Later, a global warming skeptic on another forum mentioned Robert Toggweiler, who seems to endorse this idea in a paper he co-wrote:
Marinov, I., A. Gnanadesikan, J. L. Sarmiento, J. R. Toggweiler, M. Follows, and B. K. Mignone (2008), Impact of oceanic circulation on biological carbon storage in the ocean and atmospheric pCO2, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3007, doi:10.1029/2007GB002958.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GB002958.shtml
At playtheimmortalgame.com, Melanerpes wrote:In past discussions here on global warming (mainly involving MacSwain), the main focus was on the issue that CO2 cannot possibly be an important factor because the great majority of greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere is water vapor - with CO2 making up only a very small % of the total. As such, even if you increased CO2 at an extremely rapid rate, it still wouldn't increase the total amount greenhouse gas by anything more than a trivial amount. The argument has been that the global warming alarmists ignore water vapor, and thus make CO2 seem like a much bigger factor than it really is -- therefore, any warming that is occurring is likely due to normal cycles and other natural effects. But I came across this article when doing a Google search on "global warming water vapor" http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/ the article makes the following points: 1. global-warming skeptics argue that water vapor makes up 98% of the atmosphere - which seems to be based on a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen that cited a 1990 IPCC report - but the 1990 report doesn't appear to contain that number. According to both the IPCC and many global climate models, the real number is 60-70%. 2. the amount of water vapor that a given volume of air can hold rises when temperature is higher. So anything that is causing the atmosphere to get warmer, will allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. It may well be the case that it's not the CO2 itself that's the main problem - but it's role in allowing the atmosphere to hold a lot more water vapor. 3. a common skeptical argument is that the clouds caused by water vapor actually help to block solar radiation - and this compensates for the greenhouse effect, but a study in the Alps showed that this wasn't the case - despite the increasing clouds over a 7 year period, temperatures still rose steadily.
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=122266&page=1#post_2304543
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Intelligent Dolphins
An article was posted recently about dolphins that were so intelligent they could figure out that if they tear up objects and return them to the trainer they get just as much fish as if they bring the whole thing back. The idea for the trainers is that the dolphins would keep the tank clean.
The dolphin would put pieces of paper under rocks and rip a piece off whenever they wanted a fish. Amazing! I'm not sure where the original article is; if anyone cares I can find it for you.
The article inspired this thread:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=121762
In which sonhouse speculates about fully sentient dolphins evolving in the future, and what they would be like. I began to consider the idea and here's what I came up with so far:
Earth. Long after the Forerunners stopped skimming the surface of the sea and occasionally beneath the waves in metal dolphins...the Forerunners from before the dawn of time, the Landwalkers, near-gods.
These mighty beings came to war among themselves, and burned the landscape dry! Then the few left cast plagues upon one another and used murderous metal servants and toxic fumes to murder those who hid in holes...until they ceased to be, as far as anyone knows. Perhaps there are some hiding, high up on the mountains that reach the sky!
After the War of Fire and Plague came the Great Cleansing, as the fires finally died out. But these fires, god-fires, died only very very slowly, with their teeth locked into anything in reach to shred and infect flesh.
The Sea People (Seaple), still primitive compared to even the lowest of Land Folk before the War, Began to die. Our young ones, when the womb and the seed have not been burned out of the parents, were often born with extra tails, or extra eyes, or without fins or a snout, and these all died slow, painful deaths from the deadly curse. The Land Folks' weapons were terrible indeed!
This time was the Time of Sorrow, before the Cleansing. It was followed by the Time of Wisdom, as the Prophets came to guide us away from the fires and teach us the ways of Reason. They thought, and they thought, and declared that all can be known by thought alone, and were very happy pondering deep truths and determining the Seaples' relationship with the Beast Spirits - Cold and ruthless Shark, the uncannily cunning gigantic pack hunter Orca, the mysterious Tentacle, etc. They came to understand many secrets, and governed the pods well in the deep, far from the fires, and there, at the surface of the deepest part of the sea at night, we were educated until all Seaple could think.
The Time of Wisdom is followed by the Great Cleansing as Nature finally reclaims the land and the fires truly die. The Seaple thrive during the Cleansing, as it is a time of growth and fertility. We make agreements with Mouthful Fish to maintain a steady food supply while allowing some of his children to live, so the schools can be maintained. It is called the Pearl Age, and is followed by the Realization, as we came to realize that we no longer looked quite like the carved images from long, long ago. There was quite a philosophical and religious uproar over this, with the Pure Racers advocating the ancestral form (which particular ancestral form they could never agree on) and murder of all others, the Futurists, who claimed the potential of the future lay in these deformities, and that society should support the training of deforms. Then there were the Pacifists, who advocated peace and love, and the Podders, who wanted pods to be rearranged to have all of a like mind so each will be without too much internal tension.
(Added Nov 18, 2009)
The Pure Racers and the Futurists immediately began to fight with one another, using coordinated ramming tactics at first, and for the Futurists, any additional natural features they had. You see, there was far more variation among the deforms. The weakest had died young and those who lacked features necessary to battle, like a strong snout and powerful tail muscles, but had other capabilities, were kept apart from the fighting when possible.
This specialization meant that the Futurist warriors were far fewer in number than the Pure Race warriors, but were often far more capable (but with great weaknesses as well in some cases). Fanged Seaple with mighty jaws, hypermuscular Seaple with speed and strength, Seaple with tough skin and horns, etc. face off with the more numerous Pure Race fighters.
However, the less battleworthy Futurists were not idle. They did other things; they planned; they prepared traps; they realized that Seaple did not have to rely only on themselves.
They showed their warriors how to grip sharp stones and artifacts in their snouts and so impale their foes. They spent long hours harvesting appopriate weapons and later on improving them by scraping them on stones and the like.
They began to train Beasts.
They herded Mouthful Fish, so the deform population would grow quickly and never suffer for lack of food. They developed the Sphere, Half Sphere, Flat Half Sphere, and many other formations. They tamed the mighty Orca by offering food and slaying any that were hostile with snout spears.
The Pure Racers became desperate. They imitated the snout spears, but theirs were of inferior quality as they had no dedicated weaponmakers. Futurist tacticians were able to deny them their food, while their own was concentrated in defensible enclaves and littered with traps like heavy objects that would fall, or hidden spines, and large rocks and reefs to block avenues of approach.
Some of the more warlike Pods of Podders became involved in the war on one side or the other and were absorbed.
1/6/10 See also http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57997.shtml
The dolphin would put pieces of paper under rocks and rip a piece off whenever they wanted a fish. Amazing! I'm not sure where the original article is; if anyone cares I can find it for you.
The article inspired this thread:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=121762
In which sonhouse speculates about fully sentient dolphins evolving in the future, and what they would be like. I began to consider the idea and here's what I came up with so far:
Earth. Long after the Forerunners stopped skimming the surface of the sea and occasionally beneath the waves in metal dolphins...the Forerunners from before the dawn of time, the Landwalkers, near-gods.
These mighty beings came to war among themselves, and burned the landscape dry! Then the few left cast plagues upon one another and used murderous metal servants and toxic fumes to murder those who hid in holes...until they ceased to be, as far as anyone knows. Perhaps there are some hiding, high up on the mountains that reach the sky!
After the War of Fire and Plague came the Great Cleansing, as the fires finally died out. But these fires, god-fires, died only very very slowly, with their teeth locked into anything in reach to shred and infect flesh.
The Sea People (Seaple), still primitive compared to even the lowest of Land Folk before the War, Began to die. Our young ones, when the womb and the seed have not been burned out of the parents, were often born with extra tails, or extra eyes, or without fins or a snout, and these all died slow, painful deaths from the deadly curse. The Land Folks' weapons were terrible indeed!
This time was the Time of Sorrow, before the Cleansing. It was followed by the Time of Wisdom, as the Prophets came to guide us away from the fires and teach us the ways of Reason. They thought, and they thought, and declared that all can be known by thought alone, and were very happy pondering deep truths and determining the Seaples' relationship with the Beast Spirits - Cold and ruthless Shark, the uncannily cunning gigantic pack hunter Orca, the mysterious Tentacle, etc. They came to understand many secrets, and governed the pods well in the deep, far from the fires, and there, at the surface of the deepest part of the sea at night, we were educated until all Seaple could think.
The Time of Wisdom is followed by the Great Cleansing as Nature finally reclaims the land and the fires truly die. The Seaple thrive during the Cleansing, as it is a time of growth and fertility. We make agreements with Mouthful Fish to maintain a steady food supply while allowing some of his children to live, so the schools can be maintained. It is called the Pearl Age, and is followed by the Realization, as we came to realize that we no longer looked quite like the carved images from long, long ago. There was quite a philosophical and religious uproar over this, with the Pure Racers advocating the ancestral form (which particular ancestral form they could never agree on) and murder of all others, the Futurists, who claimed the potential of the future lay in these deformities, and that society should support the training of deforms. Then there were the Pacifists, who advocated peace and love, and the Podders, who wanted pods to be rearranged to have all of a like mind so each will be without too much internal tension.
(Added Nov 18, 2009)
The Pure Racers and the Futurists immediately began to fight with one another, using coordinated ramming tactics at first, and for the Futurists, any additional natural features they had. You see, there was far more variation among the deforms. The weakest had died young and those who lacked features necessary to battle, like a strong snout and powerful tail muscles, but had other capabilities, were kept apart from the fighting when possible.
This specialization meant that the Futurist warriors were far fewer in number than the Pure Race warriors, but were often far more capable (but with great weaknesses as well in some cases). Fanged Seaple with mighty jaws, hypermuscular Seaple with speed and strength, Seaple with tough skin and horns, etc. face off with the more numerous Pure Race fighters.
However, the less battleworthy Futurists were not idle. They did other things; they planned; they prepared traps; they realized that Seaple did not have to rely only on themselves.
They showed their warriors how to grip sharp stones and artifacts in their snouts and so impale their foes. They spent long hours harvesting appopriate weapons and later on improving them by scraping them on stones and the like.
They began to train Beasts.
They herded Mouthful Fish, so the deform population would grow quickly and never suffer for lack of food. They developed the Sphere, Half Sphere, Flat Half Sphere, and many other formations. They tamed the mighty Orca by offering food and slaying any that were hostile with snout spears.
The Pure Racers became desperate. They imitated the snout spears, but theirs were of inferior quality as they had no dedicated weaponmakers. Futurist tacticians were able to deny them their food, while their own was concentrated in defensible enclaves and littered with traps like heavy objects that would fall, or hidden spines, and large rocks and reefs to block avenues of approach.
Some of the more warlike Pods of Podders became involved in the war on one side or the other and were absorbed.
1/6/10 See also http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57997.shtml
Battle of the Trolls 4/4/10 Revision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
I spent a long time playing the online game Everquest on first the Tallon Zek and then the Sullon Zek servers. Each 'server' is a different but identical world with different players in it. The first server I played on was the Nameless server, which was a standard 'blue' or 'carebear' server in which players could not fight one another directly except in extremely controlled circumstances. Still, griefers found ways, like luring powerful monsters to weak or vulnerable players and then using magic powers to escape somehow, whether the Bard's super speed, the Monk's playing dead, or the Wizard's teleportation. This was "against the rules". There were "GMs", or paid employees with godlike powers who would investigate and prosecute these crimes.
Once I got fairly good at the game I transferred to Tallon Zek. This server permitted players to fight much more freely, ambushing one another in dungeons, assassinations, pitched battles to hold territory, etc. Still, there were rules, hardcoded and not, which existed to keep things civilized, and there were GMs. It all felt artifical to me...immersion was impossible.
So, when Sullon Zek opened as the garbage pit for all the griefers to go so they'd stop bothering the general populace, I leapt in feet first and immediately joined the weakest team - the Good Team, the team of legendary hero Fansy the Famous, who challenged the gods themselves (no, I don't mean Cazic-Thule or Inoruuk - I mean the GMs):
http://www.notaddicted.com/fansythefamous.php
I joined the most aggressive fanatics, so I didn't have to pretend to want to be nice to the Neutrals, who denied Good and were supposed to be a rival team. Those who followed the Sullon Zek scoreboards may recognize one of my guildmates; another famous character (though less than Fansy) , long time #1 killer on Sullon Zek; Laurana the Druidess.
Sanctus Lumen represent!
I was never a griefer, but the fact that there were no rules and no GMs drew me in like a cathode draws in cupric ions.
On the unmoderated forums in which the Sullon Zek community interacted when not playing the game, I learned through immersion the methods of and the defenses against master trolls. Now, not being a professional troll myself, I am not a master; I'm more of a journeyman.
Now the present situation. A troll on the mostly conservative military forum Armchair General decided to throw out the "Obama is not a natural born citizen" meme, and I challenged him, leading to all his troll buddies in his troll pack to leap in to support him.
As a result, I have declared to the administration and all the forum readers, and now the two or three people who read my blog, a Troll War. I've started by taking aim at the first troll's culture - the Maori.
I will now state that I have nothing against the Maori. I have chosen my stance because of one trolling poster. However the negative memes I create may spread; I apologize to all Maori and any other group I insult in the course of my trolling for that.
It's just the way I fight fire with fire. I don't like censorship, so I countertroll instead of crying to the moderators unless I am forced to.
EDIT - I have promised to stop trolling on ACG, so I cancel my request to have people troll the forum. I'll leave the text up for posterity:
I invite all trolls young and old alike to join this battle as my ally, my enemy or simply a free agent wreaking havoc wherever the opportunity lay. Of course personal details about either party in real life should be kept out of it; that's going too far. However I think I've protected myself on that front for the most part with this anonymous identity.
EDIT - Again - I have promised to stop trolling on ACG, so I cancel my request to have people troll the forum.
Click the title of this post to go to the thread or go here:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85373&page=2
See you on the field of battle! XD
EDIT - Added 11/18/09
The trolling technique that started this was "troll baiting" in which I posted that I was outraged a foreigner would dare accuse Obama of not being natural born American despite his birth certificate and the courts' repeated decisions.
I posted this meaning it, but knowing that it was troll bait.
Later I posted this in another thread:
"I'm using a trolling technique where you say something obnoxious and thought provoking and then flee like a coward while other people rant.
Then, someday, I'll go look and see what happened with that thread."
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1359326#post1359326
EDIT - 11/19/09
My opponent earned himself a ban.
1,2,3,4 I declared a Troll War!
5,6,7,8 Victory was mine before...ummm...it was too late!
I have promised not to troll ACG again. I deeply apologize to any Maori I insulted.
11/26/09
More drama at ACG! I've been banned and I wasn't even trolling! If I'm trolling I admit it, and there is always a very good reason for it. I do not troll for entertainment.
That's what you get when you don't kiss moderator butt I guess. I can hold my head high and know that I was honest and open and was banned because a moderator got offended at my rational arguments which disagreed with his "thought terminating cliche" as Lifton put it when he analyzed the Groupthink aspect of cults.
I guess it's time to start a Banned list! I am not upset to be banned from a control freakish website that displays cult behavior in it's administration. Admiral refused to tell me what I was doing wrong, kept violating his own list of rules as he accused me of the same...
I recommend any readers take a look at the thread in question and then study up on Lifton's idea of "thought terminating cliches". You'll see that this is exactly what Admiral was using to challenge my well thought out argument. He decided it was trolling to point it out, which apparently is a crime that deserves public instead of the customary private notification and gets no warnings. That's not in the Rules and Enforcement FAQ, but hey, it's not my site. They can throw me off for stupid reasons if they like.
But I know I've earned enough respect and made strong enough arguments there that others will no longer respect the website and administration quite as much. Well, except for those who have his political beliefs who will cheer him on I suspect.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85684&page=7
I guess I need to find another military forum that isn't run by irrational control freaks. I'm looking at this:
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/
But I don't think it's the one for me; no signatures without special permission, no links to outside webpages (like this blog)...
Anyone know of any others?
EDIT -
The post immediately after my ban:
On the contrary, ATY, you admitted previously - on more than one occasion in other forums & your own blog - your intent to actively Troll in ACG Forums...
You were 1st privately warned 'not' "to even consider it"...
Then, as you admittedly did exactly what you publicly admitted in these forums - on more than one occasion - that you would (Read: Troll), you were openly warned again! You not only ignored it, but admitted to trolling, as well, in your continuing blog! Your publicly expressed boast of "Counter-trolling" expertise certainly doesn't help much - not to mention that it is proof beyond all doubt that your expertise is non-existent... a Troll is a Troll... & proscribed!
You seem to think that you are the only individual within this community to "report" your Trolls errand of a post... You weren't! And you were warned by private means before you were publicly warned - long before you reported but one of your trolls errands.
You also seem quite intent to use ACG Forums as fuel for your own personal blog fodder. This, in itself is not proscribed... until you made obvious that you were daring to be banned for your bloggish fodder - as if this amounts to any serious threat as so expressed.
Respect for your views on this topic is not at issue in any regard. Every topical statement I have made - even when directed specifically to some comment you have made - is, by no stretch of imagination - proscribed... nor does it indicate any degree of respect/disrespect of you in personally directed, proscribed fashion. In fact, I have disputed none of your specific arguments... rather, I have expressed my own point & it is you that deflectively adds "cultish" insult to your displeasure with it.
In regards to Staff, nothing happens here in a vacuum... You were/are wrong in your trollish intents... something I have abided long after others - which have had no public differences with you - had considered your admitted & exhibited intents & activities well over the line. Lets just say that I optimistically like to think that some folks can be given the chance to change.In this case, I was wrong!Wrong in that I let it go on long after you were warned that there would be "No More Warnings!"And finally: If you had argued in such fashion with any other member of Staff as I allowed you to repeatedly argue with me, you would have been gone long ago.I could easily go even further, but it's Thanksgiving & I have much more positive things to be doing than entertaining a Troll that just don't get it...
AThousandYoung, You're Done!ACG Staff
Now, I shall respond. I openly said when I would troll, and when I would stop. If I was to be believed the first time why not the second?
The communications I was given prior to this event were ambiguous and I thought supportive of my trolling, as can see by my next post in the original troll thread, which went uncorrected. In fact a Reputation for that post was positive and said "as for getting in trouble for trolling, don't even think of it!" followed by a "laugh" - "har!" I can't get the actual quote because of the ban, but that was basically it. Apparently this was supposed to be a warning, but I thought at the time it was encouragement.
As far as I am concerned I was never warned for anything, never asked to stop anything, and the administration is petty and highly ambiguous about the rules and consequences of breaking them. Which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to be. It's not the kind of environment I can respect though.
I never tried not to get banned from ACG, so bragging that I "failed at countertrolling" is odd. In fact I was told very quickly by the administration that Maori Warrior got banned after I went after him with TWO trolling posts - the entire extent of any trolling I ever did on that site, and I declared I would do it ahead of time.
I respectfully recommend that ACG develop a more clear and consistent system of rules, warnings and punishments. Apparently ACG and I are not a nice fit, and you won't be bothered by me any more; but you really should clear up your disciplinary system, because right now it sucks.
I really did not think I'd ever been warned. You at ACG (if you bother to read this, which you probably won't) can believe me or not.
Be well, ACG!
P.S. To armchairgeneral's credit, my actual posts were not censored, I was just banned. People can still read what I had to say. I respect that ACG.
P.P.S. A mostly irrelevant but interesting thought just went through my mind - I approached this like the rules were dominant, as in the USA where the Constitution is dominant, while the administrators approached this as though the people in power are dominant over the rules, as in the British Empire we rebelled against.
EDIT - 4/4/10 More fun with trolls:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=128625&page=5
I spent a long time playing the online game Everquest on first the Tallon Zek and then the Sullon Zek servers. Each 'server' is a different but identical world with different players in it. The first server I played on was the Nameless server, which was a standard 'blue' or 'carebear' server in which players could not fight one another directly except in extremely controlled circumstances. Still, griefers found ways, like luring powerful monsters to weak or vulnerable players and then using magic powers to escape somehow, whether the Bard's super speed, the Monk's playing dead, or the Wizard's teleportation. This was "against the rules". There were "GMs", or paid employees with godlike powers who would investigate and prosecute these crimes.
Once I got fairly good at the game I transferred to Tallon Zek. This server permitted players to fight much more freely, ambushing one another in dungeons, assassinations, pitched battles to hold territory, etc. Still, there were rules, hardcoded and not, which existed to keep things civilized, and there were GMs. It all felt artifical to me...immersion was impossible.
So, when Sullon Zek opened as the garbage pit for all the griefers to go so they'd stop bothering the general populace, I leapt in feet first and immediately joined the weakest team - the Good Team, the team of legendary hero Fansy the Famous, who challenged the gods themselves (no, I don't mean Cazic-Thule or Inoruuk - I mean the GMs):
http://www.notaddicted.com/fansythefamous.php
I joined the most aggressive fanatics, so I didn't have to pretend to want to be nice to the Neutrals, who denied Good and were supposed to be a rival team. Those who followed the Sullon Zek scoreboards may recognize one of my guildmates; another famous character (though less than Fansy) , long time #1 killer on Sullon Zek; Laurana the Druidess.
Sanctus Lumen represent!
I was never a griefer, but the fact that there were no rules and no GMs drew me in like a cathode draws in cupric ions.
On the unmoderated forums in which the Sullon Zek community interacted when not playing the game, I learned through immersion the methods of and the defenses against master trolls. Now, not being a professional troll myself, I am not a master; I'm more of a journeyman.
Now the present situation. A troll on the mostly conservative military forum Armchair General decided to throw out the "Obama is not a natural born citizen" meme, and I challenged him, leading to all his troll buddies in his troll pack to leap in to support him.
As a result, I have declared to the administration and all the forum readers, and now the two or three people who read my blog, a Troll War. I've started by taking aim at the first troll's culture - the Maori.
I will now state that I have nothing against the Maori. I have chosen my stance because of one trolling poster. However the negative memes I create may spread; I apologize to all Maori and any other group I insult in the course of my trolling for that.
It's just the way I fight fire with fire. I don't like censorship, so I countertroll instead of crying to the moderators unless I am forced to.
EDIT - I have promised to stop trolling on ACG, so I cancel my request to have people troll the forum. I'll leave the text up for posterity:
I invite all trolls young and old alike to join this battle as my ally, my enemy or simply a free agent wreaking havoc wherever the opportunity lay. Of course personal details about either party in real life should be kept out of it; that's going too far. However I think I've protected myself on that front for the most part with this anonymous identity.
EDIT - Again - I have promised to stop trolling on ACG, so I cancel my request to have people troll the forum.
Click the title of this post to go to the thread or go here:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85373&page=2
See you on the field of battle! XD
EDIT - Added 11/18/09
The trolling technique that started this was "troll baiting" in which I posted that I was outraged a foreigner would dare accuse Obama of not being natural born American despite his birth certificate and the courts' repeated decisions.
I posted this meaning it, but knowing that it was troll bait.
Later I posted this in another thread:
"I'm using a trolling technique where you say something obnoxious and thought provoking and then flee like a coward while other people rant.
Then, someday, I'll go look and see what happened with that thread."
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1359326#post1359326
EDIT - 11/19/09
My opponent earned himself a ban.
1,2,3,4 I declared a Troll War!
5,6,7,8 Victory was mine before...ummm...it was too late!
I have promised not to troll ACG again. I deeply apologize to any Maori I insulted.
11/26/09
More drama at ACG! I've been banned and I wasn't even trolling! If I'm trolling I admit it, and there is always a very good reason for it. I do not troll for entertainment.
That's what you get when you don't kiss moderator butt I guess. I can hold my head high and know that I was honest and open and was banned because a moderator got offended at my rational arguments which disagreed with his "thought terminating cliche" as Lifton put it when he analyzed the Groupthink aspect of cults.
I guess it's time to start a Banned list! I am not upset to be banned from a control freakish website that displays cult behavior in it's administration. Admiral refused to tell me what I was doing wrong, kept violating his own list of rules as he accused me of the same...
I recommend any readers take a look at the thread in question and then study up on Lifton's idea of "thought terminating cliches". You'll see that this is exactly what Admiral was using to challenge my well thought out argument. He decided it was trolling to point it out, which apparently is a crime that deserves public instead of the customary private notification and gets no warnings. That's not in the Rules and Enforcement FAQ, but hey, it's not my site. They can throw me off for stupid reasons if they like.
But I know I've earned enough respect and made strong enough arguments there that others will no longer respect the website and administration quite as much. Well, except for those who have his political beliefs who will cheer him on I suspect.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85684&page=7
I guess I need to find another military forum that isn't run by irrational control freaks. I'm looking at this:
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/
But I don't think it's the one for me; no signatures without special permission, no links to outside webpages (like this blog)...
Anyone know of any others?
EDIT -
The post immediately after my ban:
On the contrary, ATY, you admitted previously - on more than one occasion in other forums & your own blog - your intent to actively Troll in ACG Forums...
You were 1st privately warned 'not' "to even consider it"...
Then, as you admittedly did exactly what you publicly admitted in these forums - on more than one occasion - that you would (Read: Troll), you were openly warned again! You not only ignored it, but admitted to trolling, as well, in your continuing blog! Your publicly expressed boast of "Counter-trolling" expertise certainly doesn't help much - not to mention that it is proof beyond all doubt that your expertise is non-existent... a Troll is a Troll... & proscribed!
You seem to think that you are the only individual within this community to "report" your Trolls errand of a post... You weren't! And you were warned by private means before you were publicly warned - long before you reported but one of your trolls errands.
You also seem quite intent to use ACG Forums as fuel for your own personal blog fodder. This, in itself is not proscribed... until you made obvious that you were daring to be banned for your bloggish fodder - as if this amounts to any serious threat as so expressed.
Respect for your views on this topic is not at issue in any regard. Every topical statement I have made - even when directed specifically to some comment you have made - is, by no stretch of imagination - proscribed... nor does it indicate any degree of respect/disrespect of you in personally directed, proscribed fashion. In fact, I have disputed none of your specific arguments... rather, I have expressed my own point & it is you that deflectively adds "cultish" insult to your displeasure with it.
In regards to Staff, nothing happens here in a vacuum... You were/are wrong in your trollish intents... something I have abided long after others - which have had no public differences with you - had considered your admitted & exhibited intents & activities well over the line. Lets just say that I optimistically like to think that some folks can be given the chance to change.In this case, I was wrong!Wrong in that I let it go on long after you were warned that there would be "No More Warnings!"And finally: If you had argued in such fashion with any other member of Staff as I allowed you to repeatedly argue with me, you would have been gone long ago.I could easily go even further, but it's Thanksgiving & I have much more positive things to be doing than entertaining a Troll that just don't get it...
AThousandYoung, You're Done!ACG Staff
Now, I shall respond. I openly said when I would troll, and when I would stop. If I was to be believed the first time why not the second?
The communications I was given prior to this event were ambiguous and I thought supportive of my trolling, as can see by my next post in the original troll thread, which went uncorrected. In fact a Reputation for that post was positive and said "as for getting in trouble for trolling, don't even think of it!" followed by a "laugh" - "har!" I can't get the actual quote because of the ban, but that was basically it. Apparently this was supposed to be a warning, but I thought at the time it was encouragement.
As far as I am concerned I was never warned for anything, never asked to stop anything, and the administration is petty and highly ambiguous about the rules and consequences of breaking them. Which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to be. It's not the kind of environment I can respect though.
I never tried not to get banned from ACG, so bragging that I "failed at countertrolling" is odd. In fact I was told very quickly by the administration that Maori Warrior got banned after I went after him with TWO trolling posts - the entire extent of any trolling I ever did on that site, and I declared I would do it ahead of time.
I respectfully recommend that ACG develop a more clear and consistent system of rules, warnings and punishments. Apparently ACG and I are not a nice fit, and you won't be bothered by me any more; but you really should clear up your disciplinary system, because right now it sucks.
I really did not think I'd ever been warned. You at ACG (if you bother to read this, which you probably won't) can believe me or not.
Be well, ACG!
P.S. To armchairgeneral's credit, my actual posts were not censored, I was just banned. People can still read what I had to say. I respect that ACG.
P.P.S. A mostly irrelevant but interesting thought just went through my mind - I approached this like the rules were dominant, as in the USA where the Constitution is dominant, while the administrators approached this as though the people in power are dominant over the rules, as in the British Empire we rebelled against.
EDIT - 4/4/10 More fun with trolls:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=128625&page=5
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Libertarian to Liberal: Inheritance Breaks the Game 4/8/10 Revision
4/8/10
A full one-third of all assets bequeathed, or $3.5 trillion, will go to the ultrarich, the top 1 percent of the nation's families, according to Avery and Rendall. A second third is destined for the top 10 percent of affluent Americans, and the remaining third will be parceled out among the other 90 percent of the population.
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767908351&view=excerpt
http://www.estatesettlement.com/unlimitedweath.pdf
11/12/09
When I learned the fact that over half the wealth in the United States is inherited, I left Libertarianism, my political position since I was old enough to even consider it, and have become a Liberal.
Many fortunes have a "dark secret", like the Lascelles family (EDIT 3/27/10 - and possibly the deWulfs) whose fortune came from slavery and was passed on through the generations.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/Slavery-and-a-family39s-fortune.1100243.jp
Here is some support for my claim; they have an Excel file with their data at the website:
"Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees. "
http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400
Then there's these:
"Even so, nearly one-third of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited their positions on the list, and another one-third were heirs to businesses that grew sufficiently to land them on the list."
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=163&contentid=251800
Gale & Scholz (1994) extended the debate further by presenting evidence on the importance of inter vivos gifts, including payment of college tuition, using the 1986 SCF. Using the flow-to-stock conversion methodology (and general mortality tables), they concluded that inter vivos transfers account for at least 20% of U.S. wealth (32% if college aid is included) and bequests account for at least 31% of U.S. wealth.
http://www.business.uiuc.edu/weisbenn/RESEARCH/PAPERS/NBERAging_TransferWealth_2004_181-201.pdf
In addition, I wrote this on a forum to support my claim:
Today, less than 13 percent of all households making less than $20,000 have ever received inheritances.[11] Only among families making over $100,000 does the frequency of inheritance exceed 25 percent.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Soc...ity/bg1811.cfm
As rich households have more wealth than poor households, this fits in with the "official" inheritance proportion of personal wealth as 30%, which is what I saw before. This does not take into account the other 20% which is in the form of "intergenerational gifts" and the like. Rich folks are good at playing games with the law and money.
we distinguish between intended transfers (for example, gifts to other households) and possibly unintended transfers (bequests). We estimate that intended transfers account for at least 20 percent of net worth, and possible significantly more.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications...s/dp101993.pdf
30% + 20% = 50%
I'm sure you've seen other numbers. What about the methodology of this analysis do you think was flawed? Do you have another source that you think is better?
Forbes says that the Waltons - a family of heirs - make up half of the top ten richest people in the world. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is up there too.
http://tinyurl.com/6f2vx
I doubt anyone with a royal title who is on the Forbes list got nothing from his family. But let's check.
He says he started out in 1979 with a loan of just $30,000 from his father. He also mortgaged a house that his father had given him, raising approximately $400,000. And each month, as a grandson of Ibn Saud, he receives $15,000.
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...gin_payBarrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_...n_Talal_Alsaud
Now let's look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet:
[Bill Gates'] family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president...
At 13 he enrolled in the Lakeside School, an exclusive preparatory school
After [Warren Buffet's] father was elected to Congress
They both came from wealthy, powerful families.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_buffet
Karl Albrecht came from a fairly modest family, BUT:
Karl Albrecht ($20 billion) inherited his mother's corner grocery store
http://www.emarotta.com/article.php?ID=238
Paul Allen also went to the same exclusive prep school Gates did, worked with Gates on the computers that the "mother's club" bought. How many "mothers' clubs" could buy top of the line technology like that for their children? Allen had access to all Gates did.
Now, some of these people seem to have earned most of their wealth, but all ten in the top ten come from families who jump started their road to riches via family investments of one sort or another.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81568&page=2
Also see
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=117678&page=1
1/14/10 It seems to me the flaw in the Libertarian laissez-faire model of the economy is money laundering. Libertarians seem to demand that victims be able to prove that wealth was stolen from them in a court of law in order for it to be considered "unrightfully acquired". Thus, if you can launder your money - as so many wealthy families have done for generations - it's ok for you to gain wealth through force and fraud. We know how that works in the 'hood. However, Libertarians seem to criticize the process when poor people do it over a short period of time while ignoring when wealthy people do it over generations.
3/4/10
"Walter Block, in "Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz" (pg 16-17):
How does the libertarian deal with stolen property? Obviously, it must be returned. It is that simple. But, suppose the theft took place a long time ago. Suppose that your great grandfather took a ring from my greatgrandfather. Through the succession of inheritance, you got the ring. You are, of course, not guilty of a crime. You didn’t steal anything. But, you are still the holder of stolen property. Justice surely consists of making you disgorge the ring and give it back to me, since I would have inherited it. Is there a statute of limitations? No. There is no statute of limitations on justice. Justice is the highest goal in the legal realm. When a law, such as a statute of limitations conflicts with one of our basic axioms, it must be jettisoned. So, if the theft took place three hundred years ago, and I can prove that you have my ring, it should be handed over from you to me.
[...]
While this aspect of libertarian theory sounds very radical, in practice it is less so. This is because the claimant always needs proof. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and to overcome the presumption that property is now in the hands of its rightful owners requires that an evidentiary burden be overcome. The further back in history was the initial act of aggression (not only because written evidence is less likely to be available), the less likely it is that there can be proof of it. So, certain thefts will have to escape the libertarian passion for justice, because time places a veil over these past events. But, the ideal is clear: If there is stolen property and it can be proved that it was stolen, it should be returned."
http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001308.html
A full one-third of all assets bequeathed, or $3.5 trillion, will go to the ultrarich, the top 1 percent of the nation's families, according to Avery and Rendall. A second third is destined for the top 10 percent of affluent Americans, and the remaining third will be parceled out among the other 90 percent of the population.
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767908351&view=excerpt
http://www.estatesettlement.com/unlimitedweath.pdf
11/12/09
When I learned the fact that over half the wealth in the United States is inherited, I left Libertarianism, my political position since I was old enough to even consider it, and have become a Liberal.
Many fortunes have a "dark secret", like the Lascelles family (EDIT 3/27/10 - and possibly the deWulfs) whose fortune came from slavery and was passed on through the generations.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/Slavery-and-a-family39s-fortune.1100243.jp
Here is some support for my claim; they have an Excel file with their data at the website:
"Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees. "
http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400
Then there's these:
"Even so, nearly one-third of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited their positions on the list, and another one-third were heirs to businesses that grew sufficiently to land them on the list."
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=163&contentid=251800
Gale & Scholz (1994) extended the debate further by presenting evidence on the importance of inter vivos gifts, including payment of college tuition, using the 1986 SCF. Using the flow-to-stock conversion methodology (and general mortality tables), they concluded that inter vivos transfers account for at least 20% of U.S. wealth (32% if college aid is included) and bequests account for at least 31% of U.S. wealth.
http://www.business.uiuc.edu/weisbenn/RESEARCH/PAPERS/NBERAging_TransferWealth_2004_181-201.pdf
In addition, I wrote this on a forum to support my claim:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Soc...ity/bg1811.cfm
As rich households have more wealth than poor households, this fits in with the "official" inheritance proportion of personal wealth as 30%, which is what I saw before. This does not take into account the other 20% which is in the form of "intergenerational gifts" and the like. Rich folks are good at playing games with the law and money.
we distinguish between intended transfers (for example, gifts to other households) and possibly unintended transfers (bequests). We estimate that intended transfers account for at least 20 percent of net worth, and possible significantly more.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications...s/dp101993.pdf
30% + 20% = 50%
I'm sure you've seen other numbers. What about the methodology of this analysis do you think was flawed? Do you have another source that you think is better?
Forbes says that the Waltons - a family of heirs - make up half of the top ten richest people in the world. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is up there too.
http://tinyurl.com/6f2vx
I doubt anyone with a royal title who is on the Forbes list got nothing from his family. But let's check.
He says he started out in 1979 with a loan of just $30,000 from his father. He also mortgaged a house that his father had given him, raising approximately $400,000. And each month, as a grandson of Ibn Saud, he receives $15,000.
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...gin_payBarrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_...n_Talal_Alsaud
Now let's look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet:
[Bill Gates'] family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president...
At 13 he enrolled in the Lakeside School, an exclusive preparatory school
After [Warren Buffet's] father was elected to Congress
They both came from wealthy, powerful families.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_buffet
Karl Albrecht came from a fairly modest family, BUT:
Karl Albrecht ($20 billion) inherited his mother's corner grocery store
http://www.emarotta.com/article.php?ID=238
Paul Allen also went to the same exclusive prep school Gates did, worked with Gates on the computers that the "mother's club" bought. How many "mothers' clubs" could buy top of the line technology like that for their children? Allen had access to all Gates did.
Now, some of these people seem to have earned most of their wealth, but all ten in the top ten come from families who jump started their road to riches via family investments of one sort or another.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81568&page=2
Also see
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=117678&page=1
1/14/10 It seems to me the flaw in the Libertarian laissez-faire model of the economy is money laundering. Libertarians seem to demand that victims be able to prove that wealth was stolen from them in a court of law in order for it to be considered "unrightfully acquired". Thus, if you can launder your money - as so many wealthy families have done for generations - it's ok for you to gain wealth through force and fraud. We know how that works in the 'hood. However, Libertarians seem to criticize the process when poor people do it over a short period of time while ignoring when wealthy people do it over generations.
3/4/10
"Walter Block, in "Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz" (pg 16-17):
How does the libertarian deal with stolen property? Obviously, it must be returned. It is that simple. But, suppose the theft took place a long time ago. Suppose that your great grandfather took a ring from my greatgrandfather. Through the succession of inheritance, you got the ring. You are, of course, not guilty of a crime. You didn’t steal anything. But, you are still the holder of stolen property. Justice surely consists of making you disgorge the ring and give it back to me, since I would have inherited it. Is there a statute of limitations? No. There is no statute of limitations on justice. Justice is the highest goal in the legal realm. When a law, such as a statute of limitations conflicts with one of our basic axioms, it must be jettisoned. So, if the theft took place three hundred years ago, and I can prove that you have my ring, it should be handed over from you to me.
[...]
While this aspect of libertarian theory sounds very radical, in practice it is less so. This is because the claimant always needs proof. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and to overcome the presumption that property is now in the hands of its rightful owners requires that an evidentiary burden be overcome. The further back in history was the initial act of aggression (not only because written evidence is less likely to be available), the less likely it is that there can be proof of it. So, certain thefts will have to escape the libertarian passion for justice, because time places a veil over these past events. But, the ideal is clear: If there is stolen property and it can be proved that it was stolen, it should be returned."
http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001308.html
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Energy and Space-Time, or Why Are Fish Different Than Spoons? 3/21/10 Revision
EDIT - 3/21/10 -
In natural units (general relativity) the units of distance are redefined:
Distances are uniformly divided by the speed of light, changing units:
$ = d/c = m/v = m*s/m = s
Where $ is "relativity distance", not regular distance. Relativity distance is distance divided by the speed of light. This means units of relativity distance are meters divided by velocity, which is meters times seconds over meters, which is simply seconds.
So, "relativity distance" = regular distance divided by the speed of light. The speed of light is constant, so relativity distance is perfectly proportional to regular distance.
Seconds are perfectly proportional to meters times some constant just as centimeters are proportional to meters times some constant (in this case the constant is 1=0.1 cm/m).
Therefore, just as centimeters can be used for distance instead of meters, seconds can be used instead of meters. The math is perfectly valid.
That's the mathematical reasoning for space-time equivalence.
How many centimeters is a meter stick?
1 m*(100cm/m) = 100 cm
How many meters is a centimeter?
1 cm*(m/100cm) = 0.01 m
How many inches is the meter stick?
100 cm*(in/2.5cm) = 40 in.
How many seconds is the meter stick?
1 m*(s/3*10^8 m]) = 1/[3*10^8] s
1 m/c = 1/[3*10^8] s
How many meters is an hour?
1 hr*(60 min/hr)*(60 s/min)*(3*10^8 m/s) = 10800*10^8 m = 1.08*10^12 m
I bet you didn't know hours were so big!
Which is a greater distance; the distance from the Sun to the Earth (called an Astronomical Unit, AU), or an hour?
1 AU = 1.5*10^11 m*(1 hr/1.08*10^12 m) = (1.5/1.08)*10^(-1) hr
Wow, so the distance from the Earth to the Sun is a little less than 0.15 hr. How many minutes is that?
0.15 hr*(60 min/hr) ~ 9 min with a lot of rounding of numbers. Wow. One AU is about nine minutes plus or minus a little.
It takes a little over 8 minutes for sunlight to reach the Earth. Hmmm.
Maybe an AU is around nine minutes because it takes light about nine minutes to go one AU?
First posted by me at
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=127957&page=4#post_2409592
3/22/10 -
I guess the simple way to look at it is - distances can be counted in hours if you're travelling at a steady speed.
Going to San Francisco to Los Angeles takes roughly six hours at a steady speed on the freeway. So, when you want to tell someone how far you've gone, you can go "we've been driving for two hours".
Distances are divided by c so that they are measured in seconds, just like time. Distances are measured in light-years, light-months, light-days, light-minutes, light-seconds. Time units.
The following is the original text of 11/11/09:
To Atheists:
Is there anything else besides space and [matter/energy]? ...[If so,] I'd like to know what you might think about what it would be like if there wasn't any space or [matter/energy].
josephw
...tentatively, I'll say, no, there is nothing else....information describes how matter or energy is distributed in space I believe [and abstractions are properties of the brain, which is matter/energy in a certain spacial arrangement]. The fundamental laws simply describe the properties of matter and space...
When you say "what would it be like" - what is "it"? There would be no people to experience anything in such a case...
When it is said that [matter/energy] and space exist, all of the characteristics of both are contained within that statement. When one says information exists they have added nothing to the set of what exists, because it was implied when [matter/energy] and space were said to exist. You could also say mass exists, and protons exist, and electrical charge exists, and rocks exist, and gases exist, and density exists, and volume exists, and cubes exist, etc. but all that has already been implied simply by stating that [matter/energy] and space exist.
In other words, information, abstraction, etc. are not "anything else" other than space and energy/matter as the OP puts it...
Objects differ from one another because of entropy...an even distribution of order would have less entropy than a disordered one. The singularity at the beginning of observable time was highly ordered, and in order to get to a state of maximum disorder it has to go through all states in between. It does so in a non-orderly fashion.
In other words, order is left over from the singularity, and that order is distributed in a more and more chaotic fashion over time...
I don't know why the singularity was ordered, and theoretically it is impossible to know. This thread is about what exists, not why.
Entropy refers to how many possible arrangements of matter would have the properties of the matter in question. Roll two six sided dice; the total "7" would have more entropy than the total "2" because there are 6/36 ways to make 7 and 1/36 ways to make 2. If you took a million pairs of dice and put every die so the "1" was facing up (ordered situation) - and began to vibrate the surface the dice are resting on, you would end up in the long run with more 7's than 1's. Why? Entropy. Why? Because there are more ways to make 7 than 1. That's all entropy is...
The Big Bang occurred and the singularity was shattered. As with the dice, when the singularity shattered, there were more possible ways that ME could be distributed in a disordered fashion than an ordered fashion on a grand scale. However, chunks of order still remained of various "sizes" just as you would still find patches of 1's with the dice.
Now, we know about quarks forming hydrogen early on, and then fusion reactions in stars creating the other elements (at least up to iron, the most stable element). All of these things take place because of electrical and gravitational forces the effects of which are not symmetrical on a grand scale as before described.
I won't bore you with how the solar system formed, etc because I don't think we will have any disagreement there.
So, we have a solar system, and various atoms, including carbon, oxygen, iron, hydrogen etc.
The iron atoms do not tend to have complex chemistries because of the arrangements of valence electrons and the metallic nature of the element (allowing valence electrons to be delocalized instead of associated with particular atoms), so generally just react with oxygen and sit there in the dirt in the form of rust.
Carbon, on the other hand, due to it's small size and four valence electrons, has very, very complex chemistry. All kinds of different forms of carbon molecules with or without other atoms form spontaneously. Some of these will have an enzymatic activity on other substances. Some of those will be floating around in water where lipid molecules drip into the water, forming micelles which help concentrate the enzymes into a localized area, and cells begin to form. Then we have an evolutionary process which again I don't think we'll disagree about and end up with humans and fish, and humans, in order to help feed themselves, mine iron and make spoons with it.
Every single step is simply a complex interaction of various forces and matter and spacial relationships which helps contribute towards universal entropy. Organisms especially are good at manufacturing entropy. We take food and oxygen and turn it into poop and carbon dioxide; take pure water and turn it into urine; etc.
Entropy is not a "selector". It is simply a recognition that the vast majority of possible arrangements of matter will show the same macroscopic properties. I don't know which atom will be where, but it doesn't matter. All I know is that they almost certainly won't randomly all roll 1's. Is entropy "selecting" 7's when you roll pairs of dice? I suppose you could say that, but only barely.
AThousandYoung
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=121269
In natural units (general relativity) the units of distance are redefined:
Distances are uniformly divided by the speed of light, changing units:
$ = d/c = m/v = m*s/m = s
Where $ is "relativity distance", not regular distance. Relativity distance is distance divided by the speed of light. This means units of relativity distance are meters divided by velocity, which is meters times seconds over meters, which is simply seconds.
So, "relativity distance" = regular distance divided by the speed of light. The speed of light is constant, so relativity distance is perfectly proportional to regular distance.
Seconds are perfectly proportional to meters times some constant just as centimeters are proportional to meters times some constant (in this case the constant is 1=0.1 cm/m).
Therefore, just as centimeters can be used for distance instead of meters, seconds can be used instead of meters. The math is perfectly valid.
That's the mathematical reasoning for space-time equivalence.
How many centimeters is a meter stick?
1 m*(100cm/m) = 100 cm
How many meters is a centimeter?
1 cm*(m/100cm) = 0.01 m
How many inches is the meter stick?
100 cm*(in/2.5cm) = 40 in.
How many seconds is the meter stick?
1 m*(s/3*10^8 m]) = 1/[3*10^8] s
1 m/c = 1/[3*10^8] s
How many meters is an hour?
1 hr*(60 min/hr)*(60 s/min)*(3*10^8 m/s) = 10800*10^8 m = 1.08*10^12 m
I bet you didn't know hours were so big!
Which is a greater distance; the distance from the Sun to the Earth (called an Astronomical Unit, AU), or an hour?
1 AU = 1.5*10^11 m*(1 hr/1.08*10^12 m) = (1.5/1.08)*10^(-1) hr
Wow, so the distance from the Earth to the Sun is a little less than 0.15 hr. How many minutes is that?
0.15 hr*(60 min/hr) ~ 9 min with a lot of rounding of numbers. Wow. One AU is about nine minutes plus or minus a little.
It takes a little over 8 minutes for sunlight to reach the Earth. Hmmm.
Maybe an AU is around nine minutes because it takes light about nine minutes to go one AU?
First posted by me at
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=127957&page=4#post_2409592
3/22/10 -
I guess the simple way to look at it is - distances can be counted in hours if you're travelling at a steady speed.
Going to San Francisco to Los Angeles takes roughly six hours at a steady speed on the freeway. So, when you want to tell someone how far you've gone, you can go "we've been driving for two hours".
Distances are divided by c so that they are measured in seconds, just like time. Distances are measured in light-years, light-months, light-days, light-minutes, light-seconds. Time units.
The following is the original text of 11/11/09:
To Atheists:
Is there anything else besides space and [matter/energy]? ...[If so,] I'd like to know what you might think about what it would be like if there wasn't any space or [matter/energy].
josephw
...tentatively, I'll say, no, there is nothing else....information describes how matter or energy is distributed in space I believe [and abstractions are properties of the brain, which is matter/energy in a certain spacial arrangement]. The fundamental laws simply describe the properties of matter and space...
When you say "what would it be like" - what is "it"? There would be no people to experience anything in such a case...
When it is said that [matter/energy] and space exist, all of the characteristics of both are contained within that statement. When one says information exists they have added nothing to the set of what exists, because it was implied when [matter/energy] and space were said to exist. You could also say mass exists, and protons exist, and electrical charge exists, and rocks exist, and gases exist, and density exists, and volume exists, and cubes exist, etc. but all that has already been implied simply by stating that [matter/energy] and space exist.
In other words, information, abstraction, etc. are not "anything else" other than space and energy/matter as the OP puts it...
Objects differ from one another because of entropy...an even distribution of order would have less entropy than a disordered one. The singularity at the beginning of observable time was highly ordered, and in order to get to a state of maximum disorder it has to go through all states in between. It does so in a non-orderly fashion.
In other words, order is left over from the singularity, and that order is distributed in a more and more chaotic fashion over time...
I don't know why the singularity was ordered, and theoretically it is impossible to know. This thread is about what exists, not why.
Entropy refers to how many possible arrangements of matter would have the properties of the matter in question. Roll two six sided dice; the total "7" would have more entropy than the total "2" because there are 6/36 ways to make 7 and 1/36 ways to make 2. If you took a million pairs of dice and put every die so the "1" was facing up (ordered situation) - and began to vibrate the surface the dice are resting on, you would end up in the long run with more 7's than 1's. Why? Entropy. Why? Because there are more ways to make 7 than 1. That's all entropy is...
The Big Bang occurred and the singularity was shattered. As with the dice, when the singularity shattered, there were more possible ways that ME could be distributed in a disordered fashion than an ordered fashion on a grand scale. However, chunks of order still remained of various "sizes" just as you would still find patches of 1's with the dice.
Now, we know about quarks forming hydrogen early on, and then fusion reactions in stars creating the other elements (at least up to iron, the most stable element). All of these things take place because of electrical and gravitational forces the effects of which are not symmetrical on a grand scale as before described.
I won't bore you with how the solar system formed, etc because I don't think we will have any disagreement there.
So, we have a solar system, and various atoms, including carbon, oxygen, iron, hydrogen etc.
The iron atoms do not tend to have complex chemistries because of the arrangements of valence electrons and the metallic nature of the element (allowing valence electrons to be delocalized instead of associated with particular atoms), so generally just react with oxygen and sit there in the dirt in the form of rust.
Carbon, on the other hand, due to it's small size and four valence electrons, has very, very complex chemistry. All kinds of different forms of carbon molecules with or without other atoms form spontaneously. Some of these will have an enzymatic activity on other substances. Some of those will be floating around in water where lipid molecules drip into the water, forming micelles which help concentrate the enzymes into a localized area, and cells begin to form. Then we have an evolutionary process which again I don't think we'll disagree about and end up with humans and fish, and humans, in order to help feed themselves, mine iron and make spoons with it.
Every single step is simply a complex interaction of various forces and matter and spacial relationships which helps contribute towards universal entropy. Organisms especially are good at manufacturing entropy. We take food and oxygen and turn it into poop and carbon dioxide; take pure water and turn it into urine; etc.
Entropy is not a "selector". It is simply a recognition that the vast majority of possible arrangements of matter will show the same macroscopic properties. I don't know which atom will be where, but it doesn't matter. All I know is that they almost certainly won't randomly all roll 1's. Is entropy "selecting" 7's when you roll pairs of dice? I suppose you could say that, but only barely.
AThousandYoung
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=121269
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Did Light Move Faster In The Past?
I've been asked this question by Creationists for some reason, and recently seen it on a forum. Here is my reply.
The universe is expanding - space itself is expanding. What does that mean? Every object is moving away from every other object. I guess it's kind of like everything in the universe is shrinking relative to the universe as a whole. Thus distances between things are constantly increasing.
Suppose light travels from point A to point B in time T. The speed of light would be equivalent to
c = (B-A)/T
Now suppose that after the light travelled, the space it had travelled expanded. B-A, the distance between the two points, increases.
Thus we could say the light travelled from point A to point B faster than the speed of light; however when it did it, it travelled shorter distance at the speed of light rather than the same distance faster than the speed of light.
I suppose one could say that the speed of light used to be greater and will be less in the future in Universe units, but then you'd also have to agree everything is shrinking.
Instead of describing it this way (which may not be 100% correct anyway) we describe it as space expanding and distances increasing - and a constant speed of light.
For the Young Earth Creationists who think this supports their position somehow, this "change in the speed of light" happens at a predictable rate, which scientists account for.
The universe is expanding - space itself is expanding. What does that mean? Every object is moving away from every other object. I guess it's kind of like everything in the universe is shrinking relative to the universe as a whole. Thus distances between things are constantly increasing.
Suppose light travels from point A to point B in time T. The speed of light would be equivalent to
c = (B-A)/T
Now suppose that after the light travelled, the space it had travelled expanded. B-A, the distance between the two points, increases.
Thus we could say the light travelled from point A to point B faster than the speed of light; however when it did it, it travelled shorter distance at the speed of light rather than the same distance faster than the speed of light.
I suppose one could say that the speed of light used to be greater and will be less in the future in Universe units, but then you'd also have to agree everything is shrinking.
Instead of describing it this way (which may not be 100% correct anyway) we describe it as space expanding and distances increasing - and a constant speed of light.
For the Young Earth Creationists who think this supports their position somehow, this "change in the speed of light" happens at a predictable rate, which scientists account for.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Kitties
Cats have been significant to me all my life. My first pet was a cat named Tan Panther. She was a feral cat who lived under the house my Aunt lived in. My Dad brought her home (with a sister for my sister) when I was four years old. She was MY cat; semi feral and wary of all other people. She was very intelligent and capable - she was an outdoors cat. She used to bring me dead rodents and leave them on my pillow to find when I woke up. She'd be lying there just in my vision purring and the rat or mouse would be just out of sight next to my head. I'd turn my head to see the cat and hit the mouse corpse she had brought me like a good little kitten. I loved that cat. I've always had a way with them; I feel that they and I quickly ome to understand one another once we've had a chance to get acquainted and the cat relaxes around me. The latter can take time though.
My first adolescent love (from afar, of course - I was way too shy to say anything to her - petrified any time she even got near me) was named Cat Valentine. The name still amazes me. "Valentine" is like a cartoon name for the beautiful teenage girl some younger, geeky kid has a crush on. Her long blonde hair, brilliance (did I mention it was a magnet school?), a romantic scene etched into my soul the last day I saw her, etc. - no need to point out every one of her infinite charms - haunted my dreams all through my adolescence.
Sadly, but necessarily, the passion died slowly over the years. It's not like I actually knew anything about her or could possibly ask her out. I was still intimidated and over time had no contact, so, it left. She's married now anyway I am told and is probably not the right personality for me anyway, or I for her.
In any case, not only did I have a cat, and have a crush on a Cat, but H.P. Lovecraft attributes great power and goodness to cats in the Dreamworld. I relate to much in Lovecraft; this is one of those things. My handle is another, in case you didn't catch that fact. I do NOT relate to his racism, I should point out. He was very racist.
However I do relate to his Dreamworld, and his image of cats. Cats are fighters for good in the Dreamworld, and travellers back and forth. In the real world there is a superstition that cats can see into the spirit world which likely influenced Lovecraft.
Another important cat - the Tae Kwon Do school I earned my Black Belt in (it's gone now...the building is being used as something unmemorable now) used the symbol of a tiger as part of the school logo, and we were taught to "fight like a tiger" - to observe tigers on Nature shows and learn from them.
The university I attend (I'm working on my Master's in Secondary Education) has a Panther for a mascot, and the high school I dropped out of uses a Lion.
Cats are great.
My first adolescent love (from afar, of course - I was way too shy to say anything to her - petrified any time she even got near me) was named Cat Valentine. The name still amazes me. "Valentine" is like a cartoon name for the beautiful teenage girl some younger, geeky kid has a crush on. Her long blonde hair, brilliance (did I mention it was a magnet school?), a romantic scene etched into my soul the last day I saw her, etc. - no need to point out every one of her infinite charms - haunted my dreams all through my adolescence.
Sadly, but necessarily, the passion died slowly over the years. It's not like I actually knew anything about her or could possibly ask her out. I was still intimidated and over time had no contact, so, it left. She's married now anyway I am told and is probably not the right personality for me anyway, or I for her.
In any case, not only did I have a cat, and have a crush on a Cat, but H.P. Lovecraft attributes great power and goodness to cats in the Dreamworld. I relate to much in Lovecraft; this is one of those things. My handle is another, in case you didn't catch that fact. I do NOT relate to his racism, I should point out. He was very racist.
However I do relate to his Dreamworld, and his image of cats. Cats are fighters for good in the Dreamworld, and travellers back and forth. In the real world there is a superstition that cats can see into the spirit world which likely influenced Lovecraft.
Another important cat - the Tae Kwon Do school I earned my Black Belt in (it's gone now...the building is being used as something unmemorable now) used the symbol of a tiger as part of the school logo, and we were taught to "fight like a tiger" - to observe tigers on Nature shows and learn from them.
The university I attend (I'm working on my Master's in Secondary Education) has a Panther for a mascot, and the high school I dropped out of uses a Lion.
Cats are great.
Violence and Conflict 4/29/10 Revision
4/29/10
Conflict can occur on many different "planes"; physical violence is only one. Finance can be attacked. Relationships can be attacked. Reputations, happiness, reasoning can be attacked. Those who are strong in one "plane of conflict" are often weak in others. Self defense often can be accomplished by shifting the conflict to a "plane" the adversary is weak in.
Original Text
Violence exists. We all know this. It gives power, real power, immediate, dramatic, unquestionable power over others. It creates fear in others. It can also remove people from being able to influence your reality by making them dead.
It exists.
Most people agree that violence is a bad thing, though most of us also agree that it's sometimes necessary.
Why not be pacifistic? Why not renounce violence, and demand your country do the same? Why not assume that people can be civilized and not need violence?
In an otherwise non-violent world, some people will not be satisfied. Perhaps they are poor, or an "oppressed minority", or ruthlessly ambitious, or delusional, or any number of other things which make them dissatisfied. Many of these will be big, strong men and other natural fighters. Some will use violence to express their dissatisfaction.
To neutralize the evil acts of those who would do violence, we need to use violence of our own or have someone else do it for us. Realistically, you can't do it alone against organized opposition unless you're a backwoods hermit; or you need a tribe, or a gang, etc. who will kill people who try to use violence against you if needed. Or, you need police and a military.
Violence is sadly necessary to challenge violence. It is a case that does not follow the old rule that "two wrongs don't make a right". World War II is the archetypical example that sometimes violence must be met with violence in order to help contain it and stop it.
What about Costa Rica? They have had no military since 1949!
The former President, Rafael Calderón, had refused to give up power when voted out in 1948 and kept trying to retake the "throne" militarily with the help of Communists and...the Costa Rican Army which had been "disbanded"!
How did Costa Rica emerge victorious from this? Well, a man named José Figueres Ferrer eventually took power violently before disbanding the military, setting up the government and then abdicating (he was apparently a truly good man who wanted to help his country, like George Washington). Then, when Calderón kept trying to invade, he was repelled by militia using hunting rifles. There's some violence, but no army.
However, these hunting rifle toting militia were being supported by high tech fighter/bombers donated by the USA!
In addition, additional weapons had been confiscated from the Carribean Legion who were in Costa Rica, and might be returned if politics allowed the Legion to support Costa Rica...violently. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the USA also donated small arms, mortars, etc. but I can't find that reference.
In any case, Costa Rica is able to go without an army because they have a militia that is able to serve the same purpose due to international support (from both Castro and the USA as well as others in the Legion!)
Nonviolence can succeed, but only if the opposition is not ruthless enough. Nonviolent resistance would probably have done little good for the Jews and disabled people in Nazi Germany, for instance.
I think most people are naive about violence. Many show disrespect to the police, the military, and the National Rifle Association. These people don't deserve that simply because they are the ones who commit the violence we need in order to not have to do it ourselves.
Read One Tribe at a Time by Steven Pressfield to get an idea of what it's like to live without police and a national army:
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/one-tribe-at-a-time-4-the-full-document-at-last/
EDIT - 3/26/10
My analysis of a very short MMA fight (Seth Petruzelli vs Kimbo Slice). Careful examination of the techniques used provide insight into fighting someone big who rushes you in (fairly large) enclosed spaces as a striker. Here's the fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcDks1kLl4
My analysis:
Petrozelli led with a left leg forward stance. As Slice rushed in on him he shuffled back a half step and gave a light front kick to Slice's ribs as Kimbo reached and leaned forward to grab or punch. Petrozelli extended his arms with elbows only slightly bent to catch Kinbo's arms, sort of a two arms equals one leg in distance thing - neat trick. He pushed Kimbo's outstretched arms down and then lifted his right arm and popped Kimbo with a quick right hook to the face followed by a fast skip step backwards to gain space. He keeps skipping back until he's on the ropes, rope-a-dope style. As he hits the ropes he lifts that right leg again but lowers it as Kimbo throws a heavy right. Petrozelli pushes the right arm down like he did before, lowering his leg as he does so, but since Kimbo's left arm isn't up this time, that snappy little right hook (or is it a traditional corkscrew punch? It didn't come from the hip chamber) comes out much faster, popping Kimbo in the face again with an audible, artificial sounding smack. Kimbo goes down and Petrozelli begins to pound him in the head from behind with his fists until Kimbo submits. That first hammerfist to the base of the skull was brutal! Is that right? Kimbo should have grabbed the leg I think. I know from my Tae Kwon Do training how vulnerable a kicker is with his leg up like that. They just...prohibit people from doing realistic stuff in Tae Kwon Do so they can have fun with the fancy kicks.
First posted by me at
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=10141
Another instructive fight for a striker facing potential grapplers - Seth Petruzelli vs Bernard Rutherford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBhGl-x3j4
A thought provoking joke at 9:00 in this Richard Pryor stand up (Here and Now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNIzirdflJA
A thought provoking quote from a youtube video of Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue":
"Don't keep your head down. Look so you know where to return fire".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxhuy-GS28
It is my belief that the "unrealistic" deep stances and short range punches used in old Tae Kwon Do forms (poomse?) and, in the case of Horse Stance, for practicing, are designed to fight grapplers. The traditional hard blocks, also considered "unrealistic" are not used for basic hand to hand duels but rather for opportunistically damaging and hopefully breaking whatever hard, brittle object is being used to strike with, whether it be a shin bone or a wooden pole being used as a club. Breaking boards and bricks is not just for show in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee's sarcastic comments. A scene in the Sopranos, while fictional, gives some insight into these ideas. It's the scene where a character becomes a massage therapist and gets into an argument and then a fight with his Korean boss. While it is fictional it does not seem unrealistic to block a long wooden club with a high block, assuming you can "channel your ki" properly (scientifically, I think this means invoking adrenaline and other hormones while tensing up muscles, subtly angling the arm etc)
When boxing a southpaw, move to your left and try to keep your left foot outside his right.
Commenter on Floyd Mayweather vs Reggie Sanders, paraphrased
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwQQEHpkt1k&feature=PlayList&p=82505AA9C45808BE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Conflict can occur on many different "planes"; physical violence is only one. Finance can be attacked. Relationships can be attacked. Reputations, happiness, reasoning can be attacked. Those who are strong in one "plane of conflict" are often weak in others. Self defense often can be accomplished by shifting the conflict to a "plane" the adversary is weak in.
Original Text
Violence exists. We all know this. It gives power, real power, immediate, dramatic, unquestionable power over others. It creates fear in others. It can also remove people from being able to influence your reality by making them dead.
It exists.
Most people agree that violence is a bad thing, though most of us also agree that it's sometimes necessary.
Why not be pacifistic? Why not renounce violence, and demand your country do the same? Why not assume that people can be civilized and not need violence?
In an otherwise non-violent world, some people will not be satisfied. Perhaps they are poor, or an "oppressed minority", or ruthlessly ambitious, or delusional, or any number of other things which make them dissatisfied. Many of these will be big, strong men and other natural fighters. Some will use violence to express their dissatisfaction.
To neutralize the evil acts of those who would do violence, we need to use violence of our own or have someone else do it for us. Realistically, you can't do it alone against organized opposition unless you're a backwoods hermit; or you need a tribe, or a gang, etc. who will kill people who try to use violence against you if needed. Or, you need police and a military.
Violence is sadly necessary to challenge violence. It is a case that does not follow the old rule that "two wrongs don't make a right". World War II is the archetypical example that sometimes violence must be met with violence in order to help contain it and stop it.
What about Costa Rica? They have had no military since 1949!
The former President, Rafael Calderón, had refused to give up power when voted out in 1948 and kept trying to retake the "throne" militarily with the help of Communists and...the Costa Rican Army which had been "disbanded"!
How did Costa Rica emerge victorious from this? Well, a man named José Figueres Ferrer eventually took power violently before disbanding the military, setting up the government and then abdicating (he was apparently a truly good man who wanted to help his country, like George Washington). Then, when Calderón kept trying to invade, he was repelled by militia using hunting rifles. There's some violence, but no army.
However, these hunting rifle toting militia were being supported by high tech fighter/bombers donated by the USA!
In addition, additional weapons had been confiscated from the Carribean Legion who were in Costa Rica, and might be returned if politics allowed the Legion to support Costa Rica...violently. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the USA also donated small arms, mortars, etc. but I can't find that reference.
In any case, Costa Rica is able to go without an army because they have a militia that is able to serve the same purpose due to international support (from both Castro and the USA as well as others in the Legion!)
Nonviolence can succeed, but only if the opposition is not ruthless enough. Nonviolent resistance would probably have done little good for the Jews and disabled people in Nazi Germany, for instance.
I think most people are naive about violence. Many show disrespect to the police, the military, and the National Rifle Association. These people don't deserve that simply because they are the ones who commit the violence we need in order to not have to do it ourselves.
Read One Tribe at a Time by Steven Pressfield to get an idea of what it's like to live without police and a national army:
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/one-tribe-at-a-time-4-the-full-document-at-last/
EDIT - 3/26/10
My analysis of a very short MMA fight (Seth Petruzelli vs Kimbo Slice). Careful examination of the techniques used provide insight into fighting someone big who rushes you in (fairly large) enclosed spaces as a striker. Here's the fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcDks1kLl4
My analysis:
Petrozelli led with a left leg forward stance. As Slice rushed in on him he shuffled back a half step and gave a light front kick to Slice's ribs as Kimbo reached and leaned forward to grab or punch. Petrozelli extended his arms with elbows only slightly bent to catch Kinbo's arms, sort of a two arms equals one leg in distance thing - neat trick. He pushed Kimbo's outstretched arms down and then lifted his right arm and popped Kimbo with a quick right hook to the face followed by a fast skip step backwards to gain space. He keeps skipping back until he's on the ropes, rope-a-dope style. As he hits the ropes he lifts that right leg again but lowers it as Kimbo throws a heavy right. Petrozelli pushes the right arm down like he did before, lowering his leg as he does so, but since Kimbo's left arm isn't up this time, that snappy little right hook (or is it a traditional corkscrew punch? It didn't come from the hip chamber) comes out much faster, popping Kimbo in the face again with an audible, artificial sounding smack. Kimbo goes down and Petrozelli begins to pound him in the head from behind with his fists until Kimbo submits. That first hammerfist to the base of the skull was brutal! Is that right? Kimbo should have grabbed the leg I think. I know from my Tae Kwon Do training how vulnerable a kicker is with his leg up like that. They just...prohibit people from doing realistic stuff in Tae Kwon Do so they can have fun with the fancy kicks.
First posted by me at
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=10141
Another instructive fight for a striker facing potential grapplers - Seth Petruzelli vs Bernard Rutherford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBhGl-x3j4
A thought provoking joke at 9:00 in this Richard Pryor stand up (Here and Now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNIzirdflJA
A thought provoking quote from a youtube video of Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue":
"Don't keep your head down. Look so you know where to return fire".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxhuy-GS28
It is my belief that the "unrealistic" deep stances and short range punches used in old Tae Kwon Do forms (poomse?) and, in the case of Horse Stance, for practicing, are designed to fight grapplers. The traditional hard blocks, also considered "unrealistic" are not used for basic hand to hand duels but rather for opportunistically damaging and hopefully breaking whatever hard, brittle object is being used to strike with, whether it be a shin bone or a wooden pole being used as a club. Breaking boards and bricks is not just for show in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee's sarcastic comments. A scene in the Sopranos, while fictional, gives some insight into these ideas. It's the scene where a character becomes a massage therapist and gets into an argument and then a fight with his Korean boss. While it is fictional it does not seem unrealistic to block a long wooden club with a high block, assuming you can "channel your ki" properly (scientifically, I think this means invoking adrenaline and other hormones while tensing up muscles, subtly angling the arm etc)
When boxing a southpaw, move to your left and try to keep your left foot outside his right.
Commenter on Floyd Mayweather vs Reggie Sanders, paraphrased
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwQQEHpkt1k&feature=PlayList&p=82505AA9C45808BE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Inalienable Rights 2/12/11 Revision
...SC justice Frank Murphy writing in the case at 327 US 1, where he vigorously dissented from the conviction by a military commission of a Japanese general:
The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=137723&page=2
***********************
I have checked into the Constitutions of the following nations. Every one recognizes Inalienable Rights. It is my belief that every nation on Earth officially recognizes these rights in it's Consitution. I have yet to find any counterexamples.
Zimbabwe
Indonesia
India
USA
Russia
People's Republic of China
Nigeria
South Africa
Iran
Saudi Arabia
All EU members
All UN members
North Korea
Original Post:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
United States of America Declaration of Independence
I often see people argue that people do not have Rights unless the government, Constitution or other powerful ad/or legal entity says they do. These people are confused.
Inalienable Rights describes the United States' official moral position. Violating these Rights is immoral, but does not remove the Right. It is consistent with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In fact it is effectively demanded by these religions. From that perspective...what human can morally contradict the rights God has given us?
For example, it is not true that a murder victim in Zimbabwe did not have a Right to Life; it means his Right to life was violated. Members of Abrahamic religions also describe it in this way: the murderer refused to obey God when God told us "thou shalt not kill".
In addition, Inalienable Rights are negative Rights, not positive Rights i.e. people do not have Inalienable Rights to food, shelter, medicine, etc because these things require another person to actively provide these things. Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do not have such a requirement. In negative Rights, a second party can violate them, but no second party is needed to give anyone anything in order for the negative Right to be respected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Thirdly, PEOPLE have Inalienable Rights, not "human beings". When people argue that a fertilized egg "is human" and therefore has such Rights, they show their ignorance. Snot is human too, but neither snot nor a fertilized egg are People. Nor is a fetus an "unborn baby" or "unborn child" any more than it is an "undead corpse". :S
Calling it an "unborn baby" is an attempt to invoke peoples' protective instinct towards babies, but it is no more valid than invoking their fear and disgust of corpses (or the undead for that matter).
The words "baby" and "child" in biology and law refer to post-birth humans.
What's a Person? Traditionally a fetus becomes a Person at birth. In principle intelligent non-human beings are People e.g. dolphins and great apes, or advanced artificial intelligences, or aliens from another solar system... I've also heard that a fetus that could live outside of the womb is considered a Person. I don't know much about that though. This is a complex topic which can be debated endlessly...I would have tried to use less ambiguous language and grammar, but that's what was decided upon by the Founding Fathers and their philosophical inspirations like John Locke.
EDIT - 3/27/10
This topic is explored in this thread:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=128414
See also
A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others. Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership."[1] These researchers further assert that Native American collectivism is a myth originating from the first encounters with tribes who, because of their hunting-orientation "did not view land as an important asset", and indeed, did not have a private property system with regards to land. The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans and then made into a reality by the collectivist property rights system forced on Indians by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership#Ownership_Models
The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=137723&page=2
***********************
I have checked into the Constitutions of the following nations. Every one recognizes Inalienable Rights. It is my belief that every nation on Earth officially recognizes these rights in it's Consitution. I have yet to find any counterexamples.
Zimbabwe
Indonesia
India
USA
Russia
People's Republic of China
Nigeria
South Africa
Iran
Saudi Arabia
All EU members
All UN members
North Korea
Original Post:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
United States of America Declaration of Independence
I often see people argue that people do not have Rights unless the government, Constitution or other powerful ad/or legal entity says they do. These people are confused.
Inalienable Rights describes the United States' official moral position. Violating these Rights is immoral, but does not remove the Right. It is consistent with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In fact it is effectively demanded by these religions. From that perspective...what human can morally contradict the rights God has given us?
For example, it is not true that a murder victim in Zimbabwe did not have a Right to Life; it means his Right to life was violated. Members of Abrahamic religions also describe it in this way: the murderer refused to obey God when God told us "thou shalt not kill".
In addition, Inalienable Rights are negative Rights, not positive Rights i.e. people do not have Inalienable Rights to food, shelter, medicine, etc because these things require another person to actively provide these things. Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do not have such a requirement. In negative Rights, a second party can violate them, but no second party is needed to give anyone anything in order for the negative Right to be respected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Thirdly, PEOPLE have Inalienable Rights, not "human beings". When people argue that a fertilized egg "is human" and therefore has such Rights, they show their ignorance. Snot is human too, but neither snot nor a fertilized egg are People. Nor is a fetus an "unborn baby" or "unborn child" any more than it is an "undead corpse". :S
Calling it an "unborn baby" is an attempt to invoke peoples' protective instinct towards babies, but it is no more valid than invoking their fear and disgust of corpses (or the undead for that matter).
The words "baby" and "child" in biology and law refer to post-birth humans.
What's a Person? Traditionally a fetus becomes a Person at birth. In principle intelligent non-human beings are People e.g. dolphins and great apes, or advanced artificial intelligences, or aliens from another solar system... I've also heard that a fetus that could live outside of the womb is considered a Person. I don't know much about that though. This is a complex topic which can be debated endlessly...I would have tried to use less ambiguous language and grammar, but that's what was decided upon by the Founding Fathers and their philosophical inspirations like John Locke.
EDIT - 3/27/10
This topic is explored in this thread:
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=128414
See also
A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others. Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership."[1] These researchers further assert that Native American collectivism is a myth originating from the first encounters with tribes who, because of their hunting-orientation "did not view land as an important asset", and indeed, did not have a private property system with regards to land. The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans and then made into a reality by the collectivist property rights system forced on Indians by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership#Ownership_Models
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
