Author Archives: Hue White

Want to blackmail someone and the information is digital?  According to NewScientist (21 February 2015), Dark Secrets (paywall) is the place to go:

Darkleaks could facilitate all kinds of disclosure, positive and negative, via an anonymous marketplace. The service is available to download online as a free software package and its source code has been published openly online via code-sharing website Github. Users can upload a file with a description that can be viewed by potential buyers browsing the marketplace. This is all done within the software itself.

Its developers say that individuals may wish to use the service to anonymously auction off “trade secrets”, “military intelligence” and “proof of tax evasion” among other, rather more unsavoury, things.

Darkleaks promises to make transactions for this sort of material anonymous. A blog post announcing the tool insists: “There is no identity, no central operator and no interaction between leaker and buyers.”

Commenters on SatoshisGhost’s Twitter feed suggest there may be some limitations to how well this will work:

An owner of trade secrets could try to fish on their spying competitors. She could actually leak her own trade secrets, force competitors to burn bitcoins for these, then never reveal the secret.

Over at Coin Desk, the system’s developer gives his long range goals:

Amir Taaki, the project’s systems developer, told CoinDesk he hopes to “[devalue] business models based around proprietary secrecy” by providing a financial, rather than moral, incentive for insiders to reveal information.

This ties in with my observation of a few years ago, submitted to (but not published by) Andrew Sullivan, proprietor of The Dish (no longer active), that we may encounter a time where virtually no information can be considered truly private – all of it available for purchase, if you know it exists.

Indian parents will go the extra mile:

Images of parents and family members clambering up school buildings and clinging on window ledges to pass cheat sheets to their children have left authorities in despair.

NewScientist (paywall) summarizes a Nature article (another paywall) concerning a new mystery of Mars:

So it was that much more surprising when, on 12 March 2012, amateur astronomers around the world noticed a strange blob rising out of the planet’s southern hemisphere, soaring to 250 kilometres above the surface.

They watched for 11 days as it grew to around 1000 kilometres across, even stretching a “finger” out into space. “I was really quite amazed that it was sticking out the side of the planet quite prominently,” says Damian Peach, who lives in Selsey, UK, and was one of the first to spot it.

Poor weather and other issues meant no one had their eye on Mars the following week, and by 2 April it seemed to have disappeared. Then on 6 April a second object of the same type emerged from the same spot and lasted another 10 days. It, too, has not been seen since.

No one has a clue, which makes this quite tantalizing.  For comparison, 100 KM altitude is considered to be the edge of space on Earth.

A friend forwarded an email he received pointing to a web site called the Daily Jot.  The archives do not permit simple linking, so I’ll just quote the whole entry right here:

The Church should follow God not men

You have got to give credit where credit is due. These communists know how to advance an agenda. They know what they want and they go after it in an organized way. They don’t care what the facts are or who they have to lie to, they are all assigned their areas and they go after it. Communism by definition seeks to abolish all religion and all morals and replace it with government. Government becomes god; morals are defined by the government. This is exactly the way of the current White House. When it comes to foreign policy, it is directed by an Islamist Marxist agenda. When it comes to domestic policy, it is directed by a Marxist communist agenda. Everyday that agenda advances on many fronts.

Global warming, for example, is not about global warming. It is about government wealth redistribution. The science of global warming has been proven to be fabricated, yet the communists keep bullying their way to get higher taxes. On February 24, UN Climate chief Rajendra Pachauri, resigning under fabrication charges, said of global warming “It is my religion.” Socialist healthcare is another one. After implementation, there are still about the same amount of people who do not have it. But the government is collecting more taxes and redistributing a share of them to those who sign up for socialist healthcare. Healthcare has thus become more expensive and less affordable.

Immigration is another example. The idea is to bring in as many anarchists as possible and redistribute wealth enough through education, healthcare and other benefits to get their votes. These people unknowingly may become slaves of the state, but their vote will keep the communists in power. There is another element to all this: the church. These communists have been very effective at coopting the church to believe in their social causes. Tugging on the heart opens up the purse strings. Communists in our government have become expert at getting the church to believe that God says to support their godless humanistic agenda. Communism seeks to destroy God and country. It is an ally of the devil.

So now here we are at another crossroads–the Islamist Marxist White House (puts a knot in my stomach just writing those words) has decided it is in the best interest to govern and tax the internet. It is selling it to the people with the lie of “net neutrality” and “internet freedom.” Both are antonyms for what is really about to take place. You think Homeland Security and the IRS are spying on you now, wait till this goes through–they will be snooping on everything and you will be paying them to do it. It will be soft tyranny as many will be cautious to speak their mind on what was once the last bastion of free speech in the world. The “church” should stand against such evil. Communism is humanism and godlessness. Peter and the Apostles said in Act 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” ​​​

The reason “Islamist Marxist” puts a knot in your stomach is because the two are oppositional – and the Anarchists wouldn’t have anything to do with either one of them.  And that’s just the start of the problems here.  I give you this in case you haven’t any coffee this morning – it’ll certainly wake you up.

(h/t William Cloose)

Facebook now permits sending money to your friends:

Facebook‘s instant messaging service isn’t just for sending smiley faces and photos anymore. Now you can use it to send money instantly to your friends.

Facebook, the social networking company, announced Tuesday that American users of its Messenger app would be able to link their debit cards to the service and use it to message money to one another just as easily as they send a snapshot or text.

Later we learn China’s WeChat already supports this capability.  What better way to make it easy to spend money on Facebook than if it already has your debit card in place?

Ross Douthat brings up a subject that’s been bothering me for years:

ONE of the anxieties haunting the 21st century is a fear that technological change will soon make many human lives seem essentially superfluous.

It’s a fear as old as the Luddites, but the promise of computing, robotics and biotechnology has given it new life. It suddenly seems plausible that a rich, technologically proficient society will no longer offer meaningful occupation to many people of ordinary talents, even as it offers ever-greater wealth, ever-widening powers and, perhaps, ever-longer life to the elite.

Then he veers off to his own specific concerns in the area of religion; I think he might have pushed a little further to discover that underlying this concern are the concepts of robots and artificial intelligence (AI) – these are the great enablers of the technology about which he is concerned. The usurpation of today’s jobs by creatures of our own making is what concerns me.

The NewScientist magazine has articles covering the new capabilities of robots and artificial intelligence on a regular basis; and, unlike most of the articles I read in that venerable pop-sci magazine, I do not get excited about what I read in articles on these two topics.  Unlike articles on astronomy, cosmology, even medicine, these two topics have a future, unpredictable ethical component that leaves me pondering.

Not being a creature of any great faith, I can hope there will be new jobs, new endeavours, hell, new adventures for future generations – with robots and even AI right along side them – but, honestly, I have no certainty in that.  And, yet, I know the Libertarians would no doubt suggest exactly that, having been a subscriber to REASON Magazine for 20+ years (I let it lapse several years ago when it abruptly converted into a cheerleading squad for the GOP).  Their thesis, at least back when I was reading their monthly output, would be that the robots are simply freeing us to find new endeavours, which in turn will improve the general lot of mankind.  And perhaps they’re right.  Foreseeing the future is rarely mankind’s forte.

My reaction when reading about AI is mixed: an interest in the technique, but a real feeling of WHY?  This planet positively crawls with nearly 8 billion people, most of them fairly smart and capable of doing the same work asked of an AI based program, in most cases much better.  However, in the future that may become less and less true.

Of course, the AI can generally do what it does well much more cheaply than a human; after all, a human is an active agent in deciding to trade their labor for (generally) money, and, if they’re not an active agent, we may strip away the euphemism and call them slaves.

Which leads to the next question: when does an AI become a slave?  Professor Nick Backstrom begins to address the question in this paper (page 8) with his Principle of Substrate Non‐Discrimination:

Principle of Substrate Non‐Discrimination
If two beings have the same functionality and the same conscious experience, and differ only in the substrate of their implementation, then they have the same moral status.

I prefer a more informal approach: if it’s self-aware, capable of self-analysis, and has the drive to survive (and that seems axiomatic on the face of it), then it’s a creature worth our respect, by which I mean it should be related to as moderated by a moral code – not by our use of the power button.

So what do we owe to a new life form?  Assuming a classic computer, it’s easy enough to replicate; if we assume a new, magical piece of computing machinery, maybe not so much.  Where one robot can be built, so can a slew.  Are we bound to create more sentient creatures once we’ve built one?  That’s the ethical question that bothers me – if we can build something self-aware, then must we make more?  The potential is there, as the Catholic Church might assert; whether we must fulfill that potential is not clear.  Bostrom suggests the question may be out of our hands; the AI may replicate itself, assuming sufficient resources.  I do have to wonder, though, whether an AI will have the drive to replicate.

On an entirely different tangent, whenever I read some gushing over the latest robot, it always crosses my mind: are we just looking for the next slave?  Well, the answer is actually yes: everytime we automate some process and take a human out of the loop, we’ve once again tried to accomplish some purpose at a minimal outlay.  I can’t help but note how the ancient evil of slavery relates to labor saving machinery; but I shall not even consider equating the two.  My suspicion is that if a machine does become self-aware, those humans profiting from it will deny it, and then fight any liberties which it may demand for itself, or others will demand for it.

Circling back to Ross, to which world does that lead us?  Immeasurably richer as our silicon/metal slaves do all the labor and we sit back, eating grapes?  A few extremely rich people surrounded by the jobless masses with no means for making a living?

Perhaps this is what we’ll value in the medium future, products with the label: “Made by Human Hands”

Miscreant caught in the act with Arts Editor Deb White.

A move is on to rid the $20 bill of Andrew Jackson and replace him with a woman:

That’s where Women On 20s comes in. Founded by Barbara Ortiz Howard and Susan Ades Stone just in time for Women’s History Month, Women On 20s is holding an online competition to choose a woman to eventually replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. “We think there’s no greater gender gap than on our money,” Stone told Quartz. “Of our print denominations, every single one bears portraits of men, something that hasn’t changed since 1929. I like to call that ‘Money 1.0.’ It’s time for a change.”

Meanwhile, WiseGeek tells what’s gone before.

The most lovely Rose Ensemble performing ancient music….

“Kennedy is the daughter of former President John F. Kennedy and uncle of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who were both assassinated when she was a child.”

Well, I see they’ve since fixed it – but without admitting it.  Perhaps they’re having as bad a time as I finding the proper word to describe the implied sexuality of Ambassador Kennedy.

Today ThinkProgress (among many other sources) reports the Presbyterian Church has modified their definition of marriage:

The nation’s largest Presbyterian denomination voted on Tuesday evening to change their definition of marriage to “two people,” cementing the group’s formal embrace of same-sex marriage. … The new language doesn’t require Presbyterian ministers to officiate same-sex unions, and pastors can individually decline to perform a marriage — just as they can with any straight couple. In addition, although the vote has crossed the threshold for ratification, presbyteries will continue to vote until June, when it is expected to take effect. As of Wednesday morning, the tally stands at 87 presbyteries in favor, 41 against, and one tied.

This serves to remind me of my own thoughts on the issue, which oddly enough I have not discovered voiced elsewhere.  First, context: having had gay friends for years, I’ve never had a problem with gay marriage; not being religious makes that easy.  I was absolutely delighted to vote against the proposed Minnesota amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago, and was thrilled as the survey results showed it slowly slipping over the line into defeat, ringing in the right of gays to enter into marriage.  However, that’s hardly a reasoned position.  I choose to ask, Why deny homosexuals the right to marriage?  I’ve run across the following objections, briefly, excepting the last:

1.  It’s against my religion.  This, of course, is the abandonment of reality-based reason in favor of the dictum of a divinity, and as such is difficult or impossible to counter.  I join the great mass of folks on both sides of the issue in agreeing that no church should ever be forced to host such a marriage; but then, who would want to use an institution hostile to a fundamental part of themselves.  It is not always impossible to counter such claims, as sometimes the internal logic of the institution can be turned against such an argument.  Yet, in the end, it doesn’t matter: we are a secular nation and should not employ purely religious proscriptions that lack any basis in rationality.
2. It’s unnatural.  Sorry, define natural.  OK, now, is humanity natural?  Yes, it is; every year scientists make another discovery that diminishes our perceived uniqueness; someday, we’ll measure ourselves only quantitatively against other species, and not qualitatively.  As a part of nature, then, we can then identify other species in which same-sex sexual activity occurs, with long time pairings, and say, well, that appears to be natural.  There are numerous examples, such as giraffes.
3. It’s immoral.  Immorality is a societal consensus, without a doubt; it evolves over time.  It’s evolving right now: if you disagree and consider yourself Christian, then I must ask if you approve of stoning witches, or keeping slaves; both were at one time acceptable, but no longer.  Morality evolves as we learn more and more about running successful societies.  Making the immorality argument puts you in quicksand, not on the mountaintop.
4. Marriage is designed for children.  Now this argument was new to me, but I’ve come to realize this is actually an opportunity for the pro-gay marriage side.  Let’s skip semantic squabbling over evolution vs purpose.   Let me draw an analogy.  I’m a software engineer, and over the years, I’ve had a few instances where I’ve written some code for some problem, applied it, had it work fine – and then someone takes it, applies it to a problem with little in common with the first problem, and again it works fine.  Whether something is tangible (fire, for example) or intangible (marriage), it’s putative purpose is not a limitation.  Consider fire, which we can theorize was first used to cook meat – but then someone discovered it worked great for smelting iron; glass, first for windows, then for microscope lenses.  Did the original design intent restrict later uses?  One of the great hallmarks of humanity has been its ability to take something, tangible or intangible, and apply it to a problem in another domain successfully.  The originally advanced argument is not really an argument, it’s simply a statement about an original design purpose, with no relation to new purposes to which it might be applied.  In the end, assessment cannot be made against the original purpose, but on how well the new purpose is fulfilled.  To that end, a careful statement should be prepared.  Perhaps “gay marriage will bring greater stability to a subpopulation which historically has been persecuted, engaged in unsafe sex, and suffered terrible illnesses because of those activities.”  If those ends are not achieved, then there might be an argument against gay marriage.  Of course, a similar statement for heterosexual marriage could also be formulated; one wonders what an honest assessment might find.

The NFL is America’s most popular professional sport, but yesterday another temblor, shaking the game to its roots, occurred when professional American footballer Chris Borland announced his retirement from the game over fears of receiving brain damage if he continues:

At age 24, not even yet in his prime as an NFL player, Borland told his team he was retiring because he was worried about the long-term effects of head trauma.

“I just honestly want to do what’s best for my health,” he told ESPN. “From what I’ve researched and what I’ve experienced, I don’t think it’s worth the risk. … I’m concerned that if you wait (until) you have symptoms, it’s too late.”

He had suffered some minor concussions; he wanted out before more piled up.  That head trauma has been tentatively blamed in the suicides of Shane Dronett (age 38), Junior Seau (age 43), and others.  Given the violent nature of the sport, I don’t see how to modify it to remove the damage that occurs over time, unless helmets are improved drastically; current helmets appear to give little protection to certain types of impacts, according to the American Academy of Neurology:

For the study, researchers modified the standard drop test system, approved by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, that tests impacts and helmet safety. The researchers used a crash test dummy head and neck to simulate impact. Sensors were also placed in the dummy’s head to measure linear and rotational responses to repeated 12 mile-per-hour impacts… The study found that football helmets on average reduced the risk of traumatic brain injury by only 20 percent compared to not wearing a helmet.

While we’re a long way to seeing the NFL knocked off its pedestal, much less its actual abolition, this serious concern seems like a real problem due to the difficulty inherent in preventing it; dealing with it through treatment seems like second rate approach.  I stopped watching football on a regular basis for precisely this reason; I resumed after Dad died because he’d always enjoyed a good game, and I felt like it honored him to do so.

Litigation over concussions in the NFL may be found on the NFL Concussion Litigation website, where they also take an interest in other sports.  Headcase contributes statistical support for many sports (but my favorite, Olympic style fencing, is not listed), with football, boy’s hockey, and girl’s soccer are the top three, while the Sports Concussion Institute has the facts on just what happens during a collision.

In Minnesota (my location), coaches and referees of high school sports are supposed to be trained on concussion treatment.  Since I occasionally referee fencing tournaments, I took the course, but I think I need a refresher.

Tuesday morning NPR broadcast this piece on how political attitudes regarding marijuana are changing:

“What I’m encouraged by is you’re starting to see not just liberal Democrats, but also some very conservative Republicans recognize this doesn’t make sense, including sort of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party,” the president said in an interview with VICE News.

During the wide-ranging interview, Obama noted that the American criminal justice system is “heavily skewed toward cracking down on nonviolent drug offenders” and has had a disproportionate impact on communities of color, while at the same time taking a huge financial toll on states. But, Obama added, Republicans are beginning to see that cost.

“So we may be able to make some progress on the decriminalization side,” Obama said. “At a certain point, if enough states end up decriminalizing, then Congress may then reschedule marijuana.”

In the meantime, Gallup‘s latest poll on the subject of marijuana indicates a small majority of 51% (+/- 4%) of Americans favor legalization – a retreat from last year’s 58%.

The continued drive towards personal freedom to consume a relatively harmless drug should have positive results for society, both collectively and individually – if we have our principles properly formulated.  Of course, private prisons may not be happy at the thought of legalization, as noted earlier here.

Finally, here’s the lowdown on marijuana from the folks at DrugWarFacts.org.

Found in Spam:

Dear Hewitt,

We need to hear from you.

Have you ever had any issues with sports teams canceling your tickets because you resold extra or unused tickets? Or has your season ticket rep ever told you that the team “really prefers” that you resell tickets on the team’s official resale site?

In an effort to control ticket resales and increase their profits, sports teams are forcing season ticket holders to resell their extra or unused tickets only on certain websites, such as Ticketmaster’s TicketExchange.

In addition, have you ever tried to give away a ticket to a friend or co-worker only to find out the ticket was tied to your credit card and was nontransferable?

Ticketmaster and the artists it works with are using credit card entry tickets to eliminate your ability to transfer or resell tickets.

Take the fight to them!

These practices hurt fans and help Ticketmaster and sports teams control your tickets. Only with your help, can we put an end to these practices.

Reply to this email directly and share your story!

Sincerely,

XXXXXX

So, uh, who’s getting hurt?  The scalpers, maybe?

Right next to the Flat Earthers must be the Geocentric crowd, who seem to be comprised of extremely traditional Catholics, led by Robert Sungenis.

Loonwatch notes it in some bemusement, here.  Skeptical Inquirer (January/February 2015, print only) has “Modern Geocentrism: A Case Study of Pseudoscience in Astronomy,” by Matthew P. Wiesner, discussing how the current believers fit the profile of classic pseudoscience, including a distrust of math when its results do not fit their preconceptions. Geocentrism Debunked continues to criticize the movement from a theological viewpoint in Geocentrism: Tempest in a Teapot or Theological Shipwreck?:

“while geocentrism itself isn’t heretical, the argument made by the new geocentrists concerning the alleged centuries-long failure of the Magisterium to uphold the Faith runs headlong into a position that the Church has declared formally heretical.”

The balance of the article revolves around parts of the Catholic faith, whether the motion of the Earth is part of the Magisterium, etc.

I’m an agnostic; it’s a tempest in a teapot, an interesting microcosm of humanity’s ability to deliberately misunderstand the world while staring at its navel. I’m at too great a distance to take a credible guess at any hidden motives of this particular collection of believers, and it’d probably be in poor taste anyways.  So I’ll just remember perhaps the wisest thing I’ve ever read about religion:

One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh.

– Robert A. Heinlein

Deb reports 3 unwelcome visits by this gentleman today.

It’s been a year.  We miss you.

Another reader responds to an earlier remark:

Sounds like your reader works at a corporate entity filled with Twits.  Are business types more likely to be twits?  Perhaps.  In general, I’m mostly appalled at how incredibly ignorant and stupid most (i.e. > 50%) people are, everywhere.  The older I get, the more I observer that even people I’ve known and somewhat liked for decades are actually short-sighted blowhards who don’t significantly examine their own beliefs and motivations to any great extent.  Without rationally and continually challenging one’s own preconceived notions or even what one remembers as established facts (since science and general knowledge continue to move forward at a rapid pace), one ends up being ignorant.  And that tends to lead to becoming a Twit as well, although being a Twit seems to involve a certain amount of over-confidence egotism.  🙂

I try to pick away at foundational assumptions of all sorts of things; I’m not sure how much time I’m wasting vs how much of value I’m learning when I do that.  But as my correspondent mentions, knowledge continues to expand at a rapid rate, and even though much of it is not of importance to the general public (how many need to know the nature of a NAND gate?), the simple balloon of knowledge where the important stuff is on the surface will continue to expand at an exponential rate.

There are days when I’m convinced people are not … stupid, not devotedly ignorant, but simply unable to keep up.  Tired.  Other days, I’m convinced the smarter, more socially awkward people aren’t socially awkward for some inborn reason, but simply because they didn’t have the time to learn and practice the social graces – being smart takes a tremendous amount of time in just keeping up with that little bit of the balloon that interests you the most.

A reader comments about the Bible-Believers,

Do the study authors divide their group by those who believe the Bible is the LITERAL word of God?  As in, word by word completely true and accurate?

That belief would fit most evangelical Christian sects in this country, I think. However, I know it does not fit the Catholic church, and by extension I would presume would not fit other similar churches (orthodox, Episcopalian).  The latter take the Bible as a collection of stories which are allegorical.

The authors use the phrase, “Those who believe the Bible is the word of God.”  Discovering what percentage of Christian sects believe in inerrancy is difficult, and my searches in that regard failed; it may be more interesting to ask how many Americans believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is unclear, but even that is unclear. This Rasmussen poll from 2005 suggests 63% of us are literal Bible believers, while venerable Gallup, from 2007, pegs it at 33%. A more recent Slate article suggests the terminology “inerrant” means different things to different people:

Thirty percent chose the second statement: that the Bible is “without errors” but that “some parts are meant to be symbolic.” This isn’t what secular people tend to think inerrancy means. But it is what a lot of Christians apparently believe. Most people who believe that the Bible is inerrant do not believe that this means everything in it is literally true.

I can certainly see inerrancy and symbolic meaning working together, and may be a way to explain what appears to be an assertion vs behavioral abyss.

… consider depose: we can depose a witness, and depose a tyrant.  What?

In a print-only (so far) (NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE HERE) article in Skeptical Inquirer (March / April, 2015), “When don’t the Highly Educated Believe in Evolution,” Charles Reichardt and Ian Saari, researchers at the University of Denver, identify a troubling trend in a survey of Republicans.  They divide their survey participants into those who believe the Bible is the word of God (“Bible-Believers”) and those who don’t.  The disturbing trend is that, as those in the former group acquire more education, as measured by academic degree, they become less likely to accept the standard scientific theory of human evolution (those in the latter group trend opposite to this).  A similar trend is seen with standard cosmology, and with Republicans and anthropogenic climate change.

They confess themselves bemused.  Several hypotheses are ruled out from other facets of the collected data; then they put together several possible hypotheses as candidates, but due to lack of data they admit they cannot select one.  I will omit explaining them in respect to the authors.

I thought they might have missed a bet.  My impression of what passes for a conservative movement these days is that it is quite hierarchical; I would suggest that those at the bottom, i.e., those with the least educational attainments, are more likely to accept the assertions of those in higher societal positions; and as they may have equal resentment & respect for those with more educational attainments, they may be more likely to accept the standard scientific theory.  As they climb the educational ladder, they feel they can select their own beliefs rather than those above, at least from the non-believers.

A second bet is that the more highly educated may feel a need to have “street cred”, as it were, with those they associate with, so they convince themselves of the truthfulness of the current conservative ideologies.  While the conservative can seem quite raucous at times, the truth of the matter is they really see this as a team game; thus, the origin of the acronym RINO.  This bet may be linked to my first bet, of course.

They state the Bible-believers do not lack understanding of the scientific method or are ignorant of the facts on which these theories are based.  I suppose, if I were an atheist, I could just shrug this off as one more example of irrationality, but I’m agnostic, and I’m appalled that otherwise educated men and women could selectively put ideology ahead of rationality, when a very central core of their lives is built around the tenets of rationality.

A reader reacts to this post:

My experience in “corporate cultures” has found me asking questions which, while quite pointedly valid, embarrassed the presenter / boss.  “What,” I said, “do you mean when you say, ‘scientific method.’ ”  They (boss/presenter types) had a special, business-oriented thing they meant…each one had a different meaning for their industry.  I had studied some science in college, and found that they were abusing the discipline for their own ends.  (Cue: Inigo Montoye – “I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

Once, while in a “presentation” teaching us all about how to cause a new way of thinking, thusly to inspire greater productivity on behalf of our employers, we were instructed in the art of “paradigm shift.”  Some dude from recent (1980s) business world was credited with the idea that year in his brand-new book.  Danged college education stuck in my head again.  My hand shot up.  “The Paradigm Shift was presented by Thomas Kuhn, in his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,”  I studied that in college. “

I was put in my place (an upstart, interrupting the indoctrination) with an explanation that the business dude had written a book explaining and evangelizing it to the business world.  Realizing, slowly, that my best interests were served by keeping my job, not informing the overlords that they were wrong, I learned to shut up.  Well, at least some of the time.

Hm.  Business people can’t understand the same words when presented by someone with a science background?  Maybe a general education, dare we say, Liberal Education, might be a good idea after all.
With that sort of common underpinning to our culture, perhaps we could use words that everyone would be able to accept and understand with common meanings.

And nowadays I agree, but as an undergrad at Minnesota, I do recall being somewhat impatient at the liberal arts requirements “imposed” on us Institute of Technology types (now College of Engineering & Science) – and I was more or less in the majority.  Which seems as good a reason as any to compose requirements for the kids who, while of the age of majority, definitely do not have the experience to know what’s good for them.

Amongst my University regrets: A professor of History (Koch, IIRC) offered to write a letter of recommendation after I took a Comparative History course.  While I’m not sure what that means, I suspect it would have been interesting trying to concurrently study both CSci and History.  However, I was a horrid student and that might have pushed me over the edge…

Found an email in my Spam folder today insisting that my new domain would need to be registered in order for Search Engines to find it.  Sounded suspicious.

This important message is about your new domain name, huewhite.com.

Your domain name has successfully been ordered, the next step is to submit your new website to the search engines.

Getting your website included in the search engines is the first step you should take as a new website owner. .

To list your website in Google, Bing, and Yahoo follow the link below:

Please list your new website as soon as possible so it is properly indexed.

Bad punctuation, poor grammar, appeal to self-importance, non-credible claim.  A little searching brings us this debunking here and here.  The latter states the fee is $97.

I have gout.  I now go to a rheumatologist for treatment.  She has some interesting stories about gout and does active research.  One of those scary little stories is that gout, or rather the high levels of uric acid that causes gout, can also result in the deterioration and even destruction of your kidneys.  Having watched my mother struggle with the loss of her kidneys (due to a rare, obscure disease named Goodpasture Syndrome – unconnected to gout), I feel entirely justified to tell every reader of this blog to GO AND GET YOUR URIC ACID LEVELS CHECKED.  The test is cheap.  If your level is out of range, insist on an appointment with a rheumatologist, because, according to my rheumatologist, most MDs do not have the training to understand what can happen.

Treatment can be very cheap, if you respond well to Allopurinol, which I mostly do.  Prices bounce around.  I’ve seen it as low as $4/month and as high as $16/month.  Oddly enough, my insurance doesn’t cover Allopurinol, or so the pharmacy tells me.  But then, I don’t care much for my prescription insurance – but that’s a subject of another rant.