Home

Advertisement

Customize
Aug. 15th, 2009 @ 07:28 am Details of my journey to Sydney
I arrived at Newark via New Jersey Transit. NJT is hot, crowded, poorly marked and has incomprehensible announcements, but it's fast and reliable. This isn't news.

I wasted time at the terminal looking for a Qantas checkin. The airtrain sign said Qantas terminal A, but there wasn't anything actually there. I reexamined my papers, and discovered that the flight was operated by American Airlines (I had suspected something like that). I went to the AA counter and checked in at the machine. After a few steps, it said "wait for an agent at this kiosk". I waited, but it didn't seem to have notified anyone. Finally I got someone's attention, who told me to wait in line for a human operator -- the kiosk couldn't help me. When I got to a human, I was told that I did need an Australian Visa after all. This was rather disturbing, but after several go-arounds and much nervous waiting, it turned out you can buy one right there for $25. There wasn't any sort of application process, just a fee. I'd thought the idea of a Visa was to control who gets into the county, but apparently it's to make money off of it. Once this was cleared, I received a ticket, but not a boarding pass or seat assignment.

TSA was a non-issue. I found the gate with a little time to spare and bought a big water bottle and a bag of cookies at Hudson News.

I went to the gate agent and asked for a seat assignment and boarding group. The agent understood the issue, took my ticket, and told me "we don't have a seat yet, but we will get you one; wait and we'll call you." I don't understand how they hoped to get a seat (surely they know the plane's seat layout in advance!), but I waited. They called standby people. They made announcements I couldn't make out (always a way to make me worry). They announced that the plane had a mechanical issue, and that they needed to wait to hear if it was flyable. They announced that it was. They announced first-class boarding. They announced business-class boarding. They announced group 1 boarding. Finally they called my name (it was clearly audible) and gave me a boarding pass for group 5.

We got on the plane and we sat there. We sat there. It was hot. Eventually it became clear that the mechanical problem was with the air conditioning. We sat there. The pilot announced that half the air conditioning was down, but they'd blocked those vents, and once they had main power they'd overdrive the other half and it would be ok. Now it was a matter of paperworlk. We sat there. Eventually, the plane took off.

The flight itself was uneventful. I was glad off my water and cookies.

Shortly before landing it was announced, "those of you continuing on to Sydney will be met at the gate." Indeed we were. A Philipina women with poor English was there saying "Sydney, Sydney, Sydney." She handed me a boarding pass and (with some difficulty) directed me to wait with the other transferees until all of us deplaned. She took us down to the tarmac and through a secured door to a special shuttle bus, which took us across to the other terminal. The driver explained that this was the only way to avoid going out and in of security, which we didn't have time for. We arrived at the gate with boarding in progress. There was a long line. I refilled my water bottle from a fountain and tossed the empty cookie bag to avoid importing crumbs to Australia (this proved wise). There was a short line. I got on with no problems.

Qantas premium economy is very nice. The seats are big enough -- not just leg room but width. The food was tasty. There was a US-style power outlet where I recharged my phone. There was a decent selection of movies and tv shows. I watched X-men: Wolverine (which improved when I stopped thinking of it as part of the general X-men universe, but still suffered from powers-as-plot-demands syndrome). At around 7pmSYD/5amNYC I went to sleep, or tried to. The seats were comfortable, but they were seats, not beds. I came to every hour or so and shifted position to restore circulation. Earplugs just made me painfully aware of how not-asleep I was, so I shifted to earbuds and lullabies on repeat. This worked pretty well, but occasionally the music would act to wake me up. I should invent a biofeedback lullaby system. This psuedo-sleep left my body restored (if stiff), but didn't give me much REM, so the previous day's stress remained with me.

We landed in Sydney. They gave us little cards to fill out with questions like "have you been convicted of a crime" and "are you carrying food". I circled no for everything. On the way to customs, we passed trash cans for non-importable materials (I wonder how they emptied them -- airtight bags straight to an incinerator?) and a giant duty-free liquor store. At the first set of customs boothes, I was told that my Visa was for "Daniel Speyer" but my passport for "Daniel L Speyer". When I told them the airline had handled the Visa, they thought this an adequate explanation and told me to wait while they fixed it. It was a little surreal. I sat next to someone who was filling out a form explaining why he had lied about his criminal record. I was glad my problems were middle-initial related.

I then went to the baggage claim and started waiting. While I waited for the bags to start unloading, I converted my american cash into australian (the baggage claim is a good place to put those boothes -- lots of new arrivals with time to spare). Australian cash uses $1 and $2 coins, and the $2s are tiny. Shortly after this, there was a loud announcement "All bags on the floor for the Quarantine Dog." I thought I had misheard, but indeed, the Quarantine Dog began running excitedly among the bags and sniffing. He wasn't a German Shepard as most work dogs in the States are, but a cute little brown and white thing with big floppy ears and a dignified red vest that said "quarantine". He found a few bags with food in them, and their owners were approached by humans in the same vests and asked to step aside.

My bag didn't come, so when the carousel stopped I found someone in a uniform other than quarantine and asked for help. He directed me to the baggage service area, where I saw some familiar faces in line. It was all the people who'd been on the special shuttle at LAX. The women behind the counter already knew the bag status (leaving me wondering why they couldn't have put a message on one of the big screens) and said it would be delivered tomorrow. She asked for the address I'd be staying at, and when I didn't know it but knew the hotel name she pulled out a list of local hotels and looked it up. I am opimistic about receiving the bag.

After that I went to the second round of customs, where I was asked more personal questions. Apparently having nowhere near enough luggage for the trip was a red flag, but I showed them the papers the baggage office gave me, and generally sounded like who I am. After about ten minutes I was passed through, with directions to the City Rail.

The City Rail is quiet, smooth, and well-marked, strangely routed and very expensive. The trains are two-level with big windows, which probably makes for a nice view on the further-out lines where it's (presumably) aboveground. I reached Central easily. That's where trouble started. The maps told me to transfer to the light rail, but there was only one sign that mentioned it at all. That one had an arrow but was (I later discovered) very far from the light rail itself. After circling the enourmous rail station twice, I found a map from which it could be deduced that the light rail was the same thing as the tram, and that the tram was at the other end of the station. Finally I found it, rode it out to Pyrmont, and found the hotel.

It was too early to check in (I did ask) and the hotel's common spaces weren't inviting, so I decided to head toward the office. By sheer luck I ran into Jim on the sidewalk. I didn't recognize him all 3-d, non-pixelated, and properly lit, but he recognized me. I told him where I stood, and he got me into the building where the google office was (like NYC, we have part of the building, so you need two cards to get in). The Sydney office is very cool. They have walls that are really meshes filled with potted plants. It was from there that I sent out the original arrival notifications.

After a few hours I returned to the hotel. This time I was able to check in. The room is pleasant, and the view of the harbour is excellent. There's a $8 bottle of Fiji water in the room to tempt me, and an entire refrigerator of fancy wines without price tags (I think this puts them solidly in the "you can't afford it" category). There's also a safe, where I put my passport. When I got into the room, I just lay down on the bed and started laughing. I don't even know at what. Maybe it was the idea of telling a 17th century navigator that the scariest part of crossing the pacific was the paperwork, or a 400th bce one that I had "only" a backpack full of goods. Probably not. I was tired, but didn't want to mess up my adjustment by going to sleep at 12:30pm, so I decided to set the alarm for 2pm and take a quick nap. I woke up at 5:30. It seems the alarm-radio was set to play very quiet static.

I was hungry, but didn't want any trouble, so I connected to the hotel's internet link ($0.50/minute!) and google-mapsed "groceries". I found a nearby store and bought cheese, crackers and juice, plus a muffin for morning and a power adapter. It's just a funny shaped piece of copped shielded in plastic, but it's enough to plug in things like laptops that are liberal in accepting current. I don't think I'd have dared use it if I hadn't been doing things like that at Microsoft. The cheese and crackers were exactly right, and I think I'll put the leftovers in the fridge with the fancy wines.

That brings me to now. I figure I'll shower, read a little, and go to sleep on the early side. Hopefully tomorrow will bring me luggage!
About this Entry
thinker
Apr. 18th, 2008 @ 07:42 pm radical hagadah
A few years ago, I assembled a haggadah for a radical seder. Some people liked it, or liked bits of it, so I now post it here as passover comes around again. I've made a few tweaks where what I wrote seemed awkward, but this is pretty much as it was.

Feel free to use it or to copy bits of it. I certainly copied freely in creating it.

the haggadah )
About this Entry
thinker
Jul. 21st, 2007 @ 03:37 am Harry Potter predictions and analysis
I have not yet aquired or read Deathly Hallows. These are my thoughts *beforehand*, delibrately posted as such (mainly because I called the DADA jinx before HBP but didn't tell anyone, and then wished I had).



Spoilers for the first six books )


Tommorrow, with luck, I'll actually get book 7 and we'll see if I was right.

About this Entry
salazar
Jun. 23rd, 2007 @ 03:04 am Six word stories
Haven't had time for a long post, but I ran across Wired's Six Word Sci-Fi article and thought I'd try my own hand at it.


Trouble expressing teenage angst? Try Plutonium!


They don't recognize us. We recognize....


Speak, so you need not scream.


Soul transplant suffers severe mysti-immunilogical rejection.


Not up there with Sterling, Card or Whedon, but I might be onto something. It's harder than it looks. Anybody else tried?

About this Entry
salazar
Apr. 9th, 2007 @ 01:42 am Why you can't own a canadian
The piece "Why can't I own a canadian" has been going arround the internet a lot lately, basically arguing (through humor and sarcasm) that the Torah contains many things that should not be accepted and therefore the rules regarding homosexuality should also be ignored. While I have no objection to homosexuality, I do object to beating up on the Torah, especially when many of the points are bogus. Anyone looking for detailed analysis on homosexuality should look elsewhere -- it shouldn't be hard to find entire boks, complete with citations in holy works, modern data and coherent analysis.

Meanwhile, here are my answers to the 'questions' posed in this piece. I've re-ordered it slightly to put related points together. I'm sure someone who knows more than I do could add to this, but it should do for a start.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

What are you thinking? you shall only offer sacrifices at the place the Lord chose [Deut 12:5]. We don't know all the factors that went into that decision (or any divine choice), but airflow and neighbors probably factored in. In any case, since The Lord allowed the Romans to destroy that place, we cannot offer sacrifices until a new one is pointed out (though some argue that with the fall of Jerusalem the site reverted to its previous location at Shiloh, and have organized regular sacrifices there -- a reasonable distance from people who will dislike the smell).

Now that you recognize the problem, your immediate concern should be your neighbors, whom you presumably love as yourself. Remember, transgressions directly against The Holy One are always forgiven, but to be forgiven for transgressions against another human being, you must first make peace with that human being. May I suggest an apology-gift of several dozen perfectly-barbecued steaks? I bet you're having trouble eating the entire animal in three days anyway.

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
First, remember that altar in this context means sacrificial altar. As discussed in my previous answer, this shouldn't be an issue yet.

However, planning ahead is always acceptable, so should the temple be rebuilt in your lifetime, and you be a male-line descendant of Aaron (and able to prove it) and you meet all the other requirements, then the exact meaning of t'valul (the word used) becomes important. It derives from the root "to mix", and Rashi holds that it refers to a condition in which the iris and white of the eye intermix, such as white streeks through the iris. So your nearsightedness would probably be ok, but check with the high-priest to be sure.

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I fear I cannot find a citation for this, but as I recall, you may not sell her to foreigners, but only at a market governed by the full halakhik rules regarding the protection of slaves (including sabbath, jubilee freedom, and exemption from sexual duties). Since the last such market shut down thousands of years ago, there is no market price.
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
That's really their issue and you'll just have to trust them to take care of it. Certainly asking (much less investigating) goes contrary to the principles of human dignity, which are recognized by almost all major biblical interpreters as taking precedence over matter of ritual purity. If this isn't enough for you, simply observe shomer negiah, and you'll be fine. You should also remember that the corrective action if you discover that you have become unclean this way is to bathe and was your clothes, so you might get in the habit of doing that regularly just in case. Your neighbors might appreciate it too.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Presumably because they aren't for sale. Remember that you may have them if you purchase them legally, and even so they are protected by all the biblical protections on slaves, including jubilee freedom.

Incidentally, I was not aware that Mexicans were selling themselves into slavery. Remember that it is an indebted person's option to sell himself to settle the debt, not his obligation.

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Sadly, I cannot. The same word to'evah (abomination) is used in Lev 11:10 to refer to anal intercourse between men (not to all homosexuality -- see Rashi on this, I don't want to reproduce his arguments) and in Deut 14:3 to refer to things that shall not be eaten. However, immediately after this commandment, Deuteronomy lists the things which may not be eaten (including shellfish) and describes each as tameh (unclean), which is generally understood to be less severe than to'evah. It's not clear whether the act of eating anything which is itself unclean is an abomination or if certain unclean things are also abominal.

I hope the lack of an answer isn't too devastating for you. Should you ever be forced to chose between homosexual anal intercourse and eating shellfish, with no way out of it (and I do not think this likely) consider the perspective of the other man involved in the intercourse and let that be your deciding factor (as it will almost certainly involve more important principles).

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Gloves aren't really an adequate protection here, as football is a chaotic game and you never know what body part may come in contact with what. Furthermore, gloves are not guaranteed to stay on when you are tackled. Playing with a synthetic ball (and most are), is an acceptable solution.

As to the more general issue, most interpreters hold that the ban on touching carcasses only holds when there is a special need for purity, such as by cohenim or on holy days. I can't fully trace their logic (I gave up after the third level of citations), but there is the simple fact that if a pig (or, more likely, a horse or camel) should wander into the village and die, somebody had better remove it. This probably doesn't help you, since you've indicated (by your intention to make burnt offerings) that you are a cohen. That honored position has its personal sacrifices, and perhaps football with real pigskin is one of them.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Lay off the bloodlust! It is not the death of sinners G-d seeks but that they turn from their ways and live!(Ezek 33:11)

In any case, there are plenty of restrictions on execution. There's to be a fair trial, including an opportunity to defend himself and present mitigating circumstances. There must be two eye-witnesses, who are so confident they are willing to lead the execution themselves. A variety of other circumstances must be met. The talmud states that any court which hands down multiple death sentences in a 70 year period is excessively bloodthirsty. (Christians may ask why they should pay attention to the talmud here. They should recognize that even if it is not holy to them, it is still the accumulated wisdom of generations who actually practiced everything in the Torah.)

Also, remember that the Torah is not a universal set of commandments. The entire purity code is a matter of being a holy people, and is not required to be accounted righteous. Even in the days of Moses and Joshua, there were outsiders who were not asked to uphold these codes. The Edomites, for example, routinely ate unclean animals, ignored the sabbath and engaged in homosexuality, and yet the commandment is explicit "do not abhor the Edomite" (Deut23:8).

As a general rule, when in doubt about the Torah's view on something, remember rabbi Hillel's famous summary: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another person. The rest is commentary, go and learn it." I'm sure you'd hate to be stoned to death, but the second part is important too. Go and learn it. If you wish to argue against the Torah, learn it first so that you can argue against it, and not a straw-man (and, in the process, give it a fair chance and see if maybe you don't oppose it as much as you thought you did). If you wish to follow it, learn it so you can do so correctly. And if you wish to demand that others follow it, and your mistakes will effect not just yourself but millions, then you'd better learn it, and thoroughly. Go now.

About this Entry
thinker
Jan. 8th, 2007 @ 10:29 pm The impossibility of corporate accountability
A common view among libertarians is that corporate irresponsibility (such as pollution) can be addressed without regulation by making it practical for victims to sue. Creating a fair enough court system for this presents its own challenges, but even a success on this count wouldn't suffice here.

First, let us establish that our purpose is deterrence. Even the entire assets of a major polluter spread among those who suffer severe health problems wouldn't make the suffering worthwhile. The hope is that a company faced with massive losses will not pollute horribly in the first place.

Next, let us suppose a company acts as a game-theoretic perfectly 'rational' entity with no concerns besides maximizing expected (in the statistical sense) profit. For a publicly traded company, it is practically a fiduciary duty to do so. So let us consider a company with $5G in assets considering an environmentally irresponsible act which will net $100M in profits and has (they estimate) a 1% chance of killing so many people as to lose everything in lawsuits. They will still go ahead and do it. As one considers less likely and more damaging scenarios (nuclear meltdown, major pathogen release...) the rational action for a corporation who can at most lose everything looks very different from the rational action for society.

It gets worse as we consider the actual decision making structure. Despite fiduciary duties, CEOs seem to act as pure rational agents for themselves, and to effectively control their companies. (This is only an approximation, as no game-theory model can really describe an individual human psyche, but corporate politics and business infighting seem to select strongly for this sort of ruthlessness.) Now consider the CEOs payoffs: $100M in company profits and a healthy cut of that in stock options, or the company collapses and a golden parachute. Practically win-win.

One could attempt to eliminate golden parachutes in these situations, but money is easy to shuffle and eroding corporate protections would endanger startups. Even if one succeeded, the CEOs total assets are smaller than the companies, and the same losing everything maximum applies here even more. Even a rational person confronted with the prospect of being out on the street with only his diploma, skills, contacts, and well-hidden overseas bank accounts will not be as cautious as the possibility of killing hundreds of people demands.

To really make the game theory work out, we need to be prepared to execute CEOs whose companies kill people. Even though it wasn't intentional, the victim is still dead, and the CEO still made the decision to take the risk, and the CEO still reaped the benefits, so let him suffer the penalty if he fail. Even though the CEO didn't know the risk, he still made the decision, and had the power to research it further. As Mirage might say, let him gamble with his own life.

Of course, this is still inadequate. It covers one death. What of toxic spills that kill thousands? Well, as any mafioso could tell you, you need to round up the CEO's thousand closest relatives....

I'm not actually advocating that. It may not even be game-theoretically needed -- CEOs are likely to be risk-averse. It certainly isn't moral (the family is innocent -- let none pay for another's crimes). Mostly, this little extrapolation is to show that the whole thing doesn't work. We can't hold decision-makers sufficiently accountable after the fact, so we must restrain them before-hand based on our own risk calculations.

As an aside, the same risk-reward issues apply to politicians, and I think if any president or congressperson who supports a war had to fight on the forefront of it and take the risks with the soldiers, we'd have a much better foreign policy.
About this Entry
thinker
Aug. 21st, 2006 @ 11:34 pm A fictional setting, or possibly a metaphor
First, there was a completely urban world. The only wide open spaces were parks (of which there were many, well-tended by a mixture of human and robotic gardeners) and oceans. All civilization depended on the precise timing of world-spanning automation.

Perhaps it was because they depended on precision that they feared chaos. Perhaps it was because they feared chaos that they trusted order, and subordinated themselves to it. Perhaps not. Perhaps they simply erred.

All the precious, grandiose automation fell under the control of a single government, more powerful than any in history. Not a sparrow could fall without their tracking it on air-traffic radar and watching it on security cameras. With power came corruption, or infighting, or incompetence, or perhaps simply a positive feedback loop between the state of the world and the state of the leaderships' minds. Disaster was inevitable.

The details are forgotten. The survivors who knew chose to forget. Fewer than one person in a thousand survived. Only one senior engineer survived, and he fled and hid, fearing that all the world would blame him for the fall. He alone remembered the world's password. None learned of him until generations later.

But the survivors did not despair (well, many did, but those did not become a part of history). They turned parks into farms; they fished in the seas. They descended into the robotic aquaculture plants and discovered that much still functioned, and that food could be harvested if you jammed the guard machines with slivers of bronze and carefully dodged the automatic harvesters. They rode robotic cabs like ancient sailors rode the monsoon, memorizing the patterns and not caring that they were simply where the cars were last called.

Technology was reinvented. Steamships docked alongside nuclear speed boats which would never again be used. Then they were unloaded by old public sanitation robots tricked into this service by an abuse of their old programming. This was called 'domestication'. Many held as an article of faith that the engines they built and the ones they domesticated work on the same principles, but it meant nothing in practice, and none could confirm or deny it.

Civilization grew.

Slowly an order of wandering priests appeared, disciples of the last engineer. They wander ceaselessly, aiding those in need or performing incomprehensible tasks, for their own secret purposes. Many fear them, for they are secretive and they command the engines at the heart of the world. But they do not seek power, or wealth, or any of the things laity desire.

One day, perhaps, their purposes will be revealed.




Does anyone else feel like they've lived in this world?
About this Entry
thinker
Aug. 21st, 2006 @ 11:33 pm Pipedream update
The graphics no longer suck.

As badly.
About this Entry
gnu
Jul. 31st, 2006 @ 01:27 am PipeDream
I woke up this morning with an odd desire to play PipeDream, an old Game Boy game from my childhood. Since my gameboy and the cartridge are both long since lost and on the other side of the continent, I rewrote it in javascript. It's at http://216.231.59.60/pipedream/ in case anyone else suddenly gets the same desire.

Maybe one day I'll rewrite the graphics to not suck.
About this Entry
gnu
Jul. 30th, 2006 @ 03:52 pm a multi-crossover drabble, in the TTH fashion
"I still say we should just wipe all their memories," the robed man said, "It's worked before."

"We tried that," the man in the impeccable black suit with dark sunglasses replied, "they must have left reminders for themselves somewhere."

"I'm afraid," the man in tweed said at last, "that we'll have to accept their demands. Not the public apology of course..."

"But how did they find out in the first place?" the robed man demanded. All three had wondered about that.

"I suppose," the man in tweed said slowly, "that we've all been underestimating the gas engineers for some time."
About this Entry
salazar
Jul. 20th, 2006 @ 10:35 pm Tolerance is a broken word
A lot of otherwise sensible people are pushing "tolerance" as a fundamental value, without examining the details and consequences. A little linguistic fidgeting will produce phrases such as "zero tolerance for intolerance", which should warn us that something is wrong. When homophobes seek to hide behind catholocism (or pick your choice of bigotry and religion), and sexual and religious tolerance seem to clash, we begin to see serious problems.

Serious problems arise on the other side too -- since tolerance connotes a grudging permission granted to that which has not earned it. When nationalist declare that immigrant-tolerance groups are really looking for acceptance, and we say yes, we look like fools.

So if we recognize that there are things we should reject (murder), things we should tolerate (excessive nose-picking), and things we should accept (homosexuality), we can see that the key point is to fairly distinguish between them. "Fairly", I think, is the key concept here. Generally, those acts which might be rightly condemned as 'intolerant' (such as limiting employment to a set of ethnicities), can be better condemned as unfair.

I posit that every legitimate application of the principle of tolerance can be better replaced by an application of fairness, but that those applications of the principle which lead to erroneous condemnations refer to things which are in fact fair. Therefore, I propose that tolerance leave our moral vocabulary altogether, and fairness replace it.

On reading this, it may seem obvious, but it's been rattling around my head long enough that I thought I ought to post it, and plenty of people are certainly using the word.
About this Entry
thinker
Jun. 18th, 2006 @ 09:11 pm Functional GUI programming
This snippet recently occurred to me:

(defmacro widget (constructor args &rest children)

(append (list 'let (list (list 'curwidget (cons constructor args))))
(mapcar #'(lambda (l)
(cons (car l) (cons 'curwidget (cdr l))))
children)
'(curwidget)))

I haven't tested it, but it should allow GUI files to look something like:

(widget gtk-window-new (gtk-toplevel)

(gtk-container-add (widget gtk-vbox-new (t t)
(gtk-box-pack-start (gtk-new-label "hello world))
(gtk-box-pack-end (widget gtk-button-new ()
(gtk-container-add (gtk-label-new "OK"))
(gtk-signal-connect "clicked" #'gtk-exit))))

which I think would be a big improvement over our current tools, especially for small jobs. A few utilities (like a generic add-child which invoked container-add or box-pack-start according to the containers type) could make this real and practical.

I'm amazed that it fits in such a small amount of code. Since it's so short, lets assume that its uncopyrightable.

About this Entry
gnu
Sep. 19th, 2005 @ 07:07 pm Tax Simplification Challenge
[info]avdi recently suggested that an income tax with no deductions or brackets would be simple. I disagree. The percentage has to be taken of something, and that something is tricky to define. To illustrate my point, I will give a thought-experiment.

Joe Random Capitalist runs a private swimming-pool business. He takes care of maintenance for a bunch of pools and sells monthly passes to anyone who wants them. The cost to maintain a pool is $5k/y (yes, all the numbers are made up, and probably very unrealistic).

Simplest case: Joe has 20 pools. Each sells 750 passes/year at $10/pass making $2.5k/y profit per pool for a total of $150k/y gross and $50k/y net. Surely his taxable income ought to be $50k/y.

More complex: The average pool sells 750 passes/year, but random fluctuations cause some to underperform. Joe makes a business decision to keep them all open because they are all averaging profitable in the long run, and goodwill is important. Surely his taxable income ought to still be $50k/y.

Getting worse: One of Joe's pools is in a neighborhood where swimming isn't popular. He keeps it open at a loss, figuring that he will eventually expand his market. His other pools do very well, so the average stays at 750. Probably his taxable income should remain $50k/y, but counter-arguments can be made.

Another twist: Joe purchases a pass at one of his own pools. The $10 he pays himself should be taxable, but otherwise, it shouldn't matter.

The dishonest case: Joe purchases his pass at the unpopular pool and stops marketing it, so that it becomes his de facto private pool. He now still gets $150k/y gross but is only really spending $95k/y on upkeep, because the final pool is really personal. His taxable income ought to be $55k/y. However, he has done nothing that is easily reported on a tax form.

Anyone who thinks they can create a simple tax code needs to be able to handle these scenarios, or the code is unacceptably buggy. They should also remember that this scenario gets massively scaled up and more convaluted in the real world, and that they are dealing with taxpayers who will deliberately and intelligently seek their code's flaws.
About this Entry
thinker
Apr. 5th, 2005 @ 03:49 pm On Depression
I have had many long and unpleasant experiences with depression, and have reached a few conclusions that seemd worth sharing, in the hopes that others can make use of them. These are based on my own experience and what little theory I know that is worth anything. I don't know how well they apply to other people.

Let us hypothesize the existence of two forms of energy within a human being. We will call them ATP and chi. ATP is the energy that a physisist would recognize, it is acquired by eating, transported by Adenine-TriPhosphate (hence the name), and used in every biological process. Chi is harder to define, and does not have a straighforward biochemistry. It is produced from ATP at varying rates, mostly while sleeping. The rate of production is largely dependant on the individual's emotional state.

(It should be noted in passing that for neolithic peoples in unpleasant climates, the limiting factor on chi production was probably available ATP. This establishes the evolutionary reason for the systems I am investigating. Modern westerners rarely need to worry about this.)

Chi is consumed at various rates depending mostly on emotional state. Anger and fear are the highest consumption rates, and they are generally unsustainable (ie it is not possible to convert ATP to chi fast enough to cover the costs of anger or fear). Concentration also requires large amounts of chi, but the effect is less because concentration stops (at least during sleep). Even so, concentration is sustainable only in limited amounts, and those who attempt to surpass this experience burnout, which is very similar to depression. It also appears that any form of healing (including physical injury or disease) is chi-intensive, though it may simply be so ATP-intensive that it limits chi production.

Depression is a chi-conservation mode. When chi reserves are dangerously low, the body enters it automatically in an attempt to recover. However, the system is somewhat counter-productive, as depression also decreases chi production.

(Returning to our side-note, this means that a depressed person also consumes less ATP. In modern times, depression is linked to weight-gain, but in leaner times, depression may have been a means of preventing starvation. It is worth noting that many people experience depression in winter, when food should be least available.)

Chi reserves should increase slowly during depression, eventually lifting the individual out of it, unless the original exhausting stimulus is continued. In order to recover from depression, it is necessary to track down and illiminate sources of anger and fear. After that, recovery should take place naturally.

To speed recovery, even in the presence of exhaustive elements, it may be possible to increase chi production. Unfortuanetly, I have not been able to identify the factors which control this. It seems that taking in new ideas is helpful, as is spending time with other people if and only if there is not an over-riding fear factor in doing so. I suspect these are very personal, so my results might not be helpful.

I think my theory is consistant, and it explains my observations fairly well. Hypothesizing the existance of a non-physical sort of energy is not unreasonable, as everyone knows the phenomenon of fealing tired due to lack of sleep, which is clearly not an ATP-related phenomenon. I wish I could explain chi in biochemical terms. I suspect it is not simple (and may not be a single quantity).

I also cannot explain where lust and sex enter into this. Lust shares many biological high-energy characterists with anger and fear (eg increased pulse, dilated pupils) but does not appear to consume chi at a high rate. Perhaps, like concentration, the total amount of time spent in lust is low, but I do not think this is always the case.

Finally, I also cannot explain my observation that chi can be transferred from one person to another. This is by far the most difficult to reconcile with biochemistry. Perhaps worrying about someone drains chi through fear, but knowing that you are worried about increases chi production. That would explain the non-conservative nature of the transfer.
About this Entry
thinker
Mar. 7th, 2005 @ 10:10 pm Pronouns
It has long been observed that the english language would benefit from a gender-neutral personal pronoun. A great many have been proposed, but apart from the limited success of s/he in writing (it is a very awkward word to pronounce) none have moved beyond niche usage.

I propose "they". The word is already in our dictionarys and spellchecks, and already has possesive and objective forms. More importantly, it is already being used informally for this purpose.

However, it is being used informally with plural conjugations. This is an irregularity we would be better off without. When "they" refers to one person of indeterminate gender, it should take the same verb forms as he and she (eg "they is", not "they are"). This sounds awkward, but becomes less so with use.

It may be argued that expanding the meaning of "they" may lead to ambiguaties, but with responcible antecedants, this can be avoided. If all else fails, and additional sentence will always remedy that. A risk of ambiguaties is better than an inability to express a commonn concept or a mess of conflicting pronouns none of which have enough user-base to be useful.

I will try to use they this way in my Livejournal, though I may often forget.
About this Entry
thinker
Mar. 7th, 2005 @ 10:06 pm In Defense on Altruism
Current Music: Stevie Nicks -- Crystal
It has become popular in philisophical circles to say that all motivations are selfish, and that there is no such thing as altruism. The typical argument goes that altruism is doing something primarily for the benefit of someone else and not for anything received in exchange, but anyone who acts 'altruistically' has surely received a fealing of self-satisfaction in exchange, making it non-altruistic.

This argument introduces the use of internal state as a motivation. If we allow this in our arguments, we may as easily illiminate greed: I didn't rob him for the money, getting the money was only part of the process, I did it to make myself happy. We may reasonably observe that most of human activity falls roughyl into the category of done-to-make-me-happy and generalize this to determine that the only reason anyone does anything is because they wants to.

We may briefly bask in the glow of this tautology, and possibly even use it (as Gandhi sort-of did) to empower ourselves in resisting an oppresor's demands. However, we will eventually disregard it as useless in predicting or judging human activity. We will have to step backward and ask 'why did they want to do this?' and 'why did this make them happy?'

When we're done, we will observe that (for many people) helping others makes them happy, and this is as good a definition of altruism as before.
About this Entry
thinker
Feb. 26th, 2005 @ 10:55 pm Founding a meme: Superpowers
It recently occured to me that blogmemes have an impressive spreading power and can probably carry some pretty complex ideas. Admittedly, they aren't information-bearing like arguments, but for simpler and subtle things they may be ideal. So, in an attempt to spread empowerment and hope:

If you could have one superpower, what would it be? Granted unlimited time and money, but otherwise using the world as it is (as you best understand it), how would you go about obtaining this superpower?

For myself, I think I would want telepathy. I'd be happy with read-only telepathy, because I don't think it's legitamate to put ideas directly into someone else's head. Simply knowing what other people are thinking, and (more importantly) how they are thinking would be very useful in any attempt to address large-scale social problems. Most political theorists tend to either treat people either as simple DFAs or as clones of themselves. To get things right, more direct data is needed.

As for how to get it, I think the best chance would be to build a distributed nanite-based high-resolution EEG. The nanites would be mobile by their own power and under my direct radio control (all encrypted and signed). Admittedly, several needed technologies aren't there yet, but I don't see any fundamental reason they couldn't be.

So, please post this in your livejournals with your prefered superpower and how to achieve it.
About this Entry
thinker
Feb. 22nd, 2005 @ 11:42 pm Music Meme
I'm generally not into memes, but this one caught my interest:

Step 1: Get your playlist together, put it on random, and play
Step 2: Pick your favorite lines from the first 25 songs that play
Step 3: Post and let everyone you know guess what song the lines come from

Using Google (or similar tools) is cheating.

I'm skipping instrumental songs and songs that [info]c4bl3fl4m3 put on my system that I don't think of as mine.

The Lyrics... )
About this Entry
thinker
Feb. 18th, 2005 @ 01:13 pm A thought experiment regarding abortion
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Hands of god -- Julia Ecklar
I have heard it suggested that the significance of a fetus comes from its genetic uniqueness. I disagree.

Suppose a woman cloned herself, using one of her own eggs, and inserted the resulting embryo into her own uterus (a lab assistant may be needed for this part). Assuming success, the resulting fetus will be genetically identical to the woman, even the mitochondrial DNA. Meanwhile, another woman implants an artificially fertilized embryo in her own uterus. The resulting fetus here is a unique genetic path. Does anyone seriously argue that the two fetuses have a different moral status?

Note that I haven't actually said what the moral status of fetuses is, only that it does not depend on their genetic uniqueness.
About this Entry
thinker
Feb. 14th, 2005 @ 11:03 am Why copyright is not a fundamental right
I posted this already in my slashdot journal, but I thought I'd repost it here to reach a different audience.

A lot of people are arguing about copyright, and many are claiming that it is equivalent to physical property, not in that it resembles it (it doesn't really), but because they are both fundamental rights. Many others have declared that copyright is not a fundamental right. However, neither side has been particularly eager to show reasons.

To some extent, this is because fundamental rights are tricky things. It's not clear where they come from, or how to recognize them. Nonetheless, meaningfull arguments can be made, and, in the end, they are a lot more valuable than shouting matches.

So here are some arguments....

Copyright is rejected by the great philosophers of fundamental rights

John Locke, who formulated the modern western theory of human rights, did not propose any form of 'intellectual property'. This ommission is telling as Locke generally attempted to cover the field of natural rights exhaustively. More impressive is Thomas Jefferson, who declared that "The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society" even as he supported a strictly limited copyright clause in the US constitution. This perspective was written into the constitution and has been the consesnsus of legal scholars ever since.

I am not suggesting that everything a great phlosopher says is automatically correct. Nonetheless, Jefferson's word is often taken as authoritive on such matters. If we reject the views of Locke and Jefferson, we must reconsider whether fundamental rights exist at all. Furthermore, Jefferson gains credibility from the general success of his ideas at establishing a country. Can any of us claim to approach his achievements?

More Reasons )

About this Entry
gnu