"Grassroots"

Another term falling victim to language manipulation in the interest of political gain. Examine the metaphor. Many roots of blades of grass working together to grow into a lawn; many many small additions to the whole, together can create a powerful total. So ‘grassroots’ funding would be many many small sources of funding coming together to create one large pool of money.

Harper is always talking about his ‘grassroots’ campaign fundraising. The budget they recently presented eliminated government funding for political parties, meaning all parties would have to rely on their individual supporters for all campaign funds. The opposition parties are very upset with this because they know that the conservative ‘grassroots’ fundraising is far superior to their own.

So, it leaves the question, why is conservative ‘grassroots’ the most effective? Only recently have they been flirting with majorities, but Harper’s been going on about his ‘grassroots’ since the party was much less popular. Therefore its not by quantity of blades of grass that the conservative lawn is much greener. So where the hell is the conservative party getting all this green? It can only be explained by the quality of the roots. Conservatives must get more funding per source, each root being stronger on its own.

Well, conservative voters are traditionally older and wealthier. They have more money to pass along to the party sure, but that can’t be the only explanation. There have to be a few roots in that lawn that are very very large. Its no secret that the conservatives have many ties in business and receive much of their support from corporate sources.

Sorry but that is NOT ‘grassroots’ fundraising, its corporate. You can’t have a lawn made up of 50 giant blades of grass, it makes no sense. ‘Grassroots’ is a metaphor wherein the many weak bond together to become strong, its not applicable to the many strong bonding together to become even stronger. This is a traditionally lefty term, and Harper has brilliantly stolen it. It makes his party seem like it derives it greatest strength from the people which is total BS; the conservatives are strong because they have a leader whose great at playing the game of politics and a corporately stocked war chest for elections.

I’m sure Harper also can’t resist referring to his party with a term that sounds both populist and environmental.

My Point Exactly.

My Point Exactly.

Please see my last post also. . .

A mob of people desperate to get into Wal-Mart trample a worker to death as he waits to unlocks the door at 5am. Other employees try to rescue him, the mob continues pouring into the store. Even as police try to do CPR, the crowd doesn't relent and pushes and shoves the officers all in the interest of getting inside. These animals tore down the front doors of a store. Makes me think of those horror movies where the salivating crowd of undead tears down a building to eat at the sweet sweet brains inside.

Maybe a pack of dogs, did i already use that analogy?

Other parts of the world, people get trampled when crowds run from danger or towards safety. North America?, The desire to shop,literally, drives us to murder. . ..Happy Holidays!

Its all a sham my friends, we’re not all going to be out of work living in our cars. North Americans have one quality that guarantees our economic survival- we are the perfect consumers. Global conglomerates have invested fortune after fortune for generations convincing us to be the perfect little shoppers. We’ve been meticulously studied and prodded. They know how to sell to us, where to sell to us; they’ve been blasting us with their messages since birth. Think about it, we know the lyrics to jingles, we buy cheap equipment doomed to break constantly- we’ll wait for hours in the cold for a store to open when the latest crap is made available.

Then there’s the infrastructure. Look at a company like Walmart, with the reach and market saturation they’ve got in the USA. Do you think a company like that would want to pack it in and move out. Of course not, sure there is potentially much more consumption to be had elsewhere and they’re expanding abroad, but North American consumption is all set to go. The stores are here everywhere and we’re all salivating at the mouth to get in.

People in other parts of the world aren’t nearly as addicted to shopping as we are, they’re more like our grandparents. One set of dishes washed, none of this paper and plastic shit. A can opener that never broke. Baths instead of long showers. Our corporate masters have too much of a vested interest in this population, they know they can shit any garbage on us and we’ll scoop it up like dogs. They’ve got to keep us working to make this possible. These “economic downturns” are just opportunities for them to freak us out and make it okay that we didn’t get a raise this year, or that we took a terrible job and count it as a blessing. The working man’s slice is always shrinking.

Greatest Depression Ever!

Worst part of the news is the sympathy crap and the disturbing shit- pet care and traffic accidents. Celebrity news of course being comprised of both crap and shit. When it comes to the real stories, the poorer and more foreign you are, the less tragic is your hardship. . . Unless of course something really freaky happened. When there is a disaster, its difficult to get resources and trained people into the region- a bottleneck develops around availability of local transport and expertise. How many educated people with modern equipment descend upon suffering populations purely for the sake of recording them? Can you imagine if only one guy brought a camera and everyone else brought med packs?

Major news media does a great disservice to society. They're biased by their corporate masters. They profit from disasters and suffering. They decide the fate of elections, promote fear and fill the public consciousness with useless nonsense. The people running these "news" sources have so many other motivations, that spreading truth based knowledge becomes a very low priority. some examples:

Martha Stewart and Conrad Black. These people are crooks, pure and simple. They are no different than the teenager who works at the variety store up the street and sneaks $20 from the cash register, or the dude with the green visor who fixes horse races. Martha and Conrad stole and defrauded on a much larger scale, but they also have strong media ties- so what happens? They remain darlings. I remember the out-pooring of crying fans for Martha in prison and John McCain surely welcomed Black's presidential endorsement. - -ha ha, how's your candidate now bitch!?

Here's another one: "worst economic downturn since the great depression". Harper said it, how many times did the news take it and repeat it. This is a completely useless statement. All it does is conjure up visions of people selling apples on streetcorners, it has almost no relevance today whatsoever. The world is a completely different place than it was 80 years ago. Somebody gives an analogy that has a strong image and freaks people out and the news always jumps on it.


In their defense, maybe they're just giving the public what they want. "News that matters to you". If truth matters to you, you could try googling your news or getting an approximation from many sources- but this will take up much of your time. Easier just to flip on the first 15 mins of the 6:00 news and hear "great depression", which should scare people into cinching their wallets and slowing the economy even more. Well at least we know to go out and buy an apple cart, sell one of the children, and start learning how to make cabbage soup.

Good One

Here’s a good trick. Price of oil has potential to go up; gas prices immediately go up by a larger percentage. . . but. . . .oil prices go down in reality, gas prices very slowly and reluctantly go down by a smaller percentage.

They’re just always winning, pure and simple. It’s this perfect industry where it doesn’t seem to matter whether things swing massively one way or the other. Every change in supply or demand is a good thing. I remember, back when i had a car, how everyone kept complaining about how gas was going to hit the $1 a litre benchmark. Of course its been there and above for years; they’ve gotten us used to the idea. Now the price of oil has come down and so has gas, but only to a lesser degree. Eventually, we’ll start hearing about how “the price of oil is going to go back up!”; based on this potential the price of gas will then increase while oil again stays behind.

The price of a litre is slowly drifting closer to the price of a barrel.

That’s the real number to watch, wait until oil is at $50 and gas is at $1. Then we can complain about that benchmark, and nothing will happen.

Corporate Welfare

The North American auto industry is collapsing, it seems as though no amount of propping up is going to help it re-claim its former glory. People will keep making cars here in Canada and the US, but on a much smaller scale. The big three are pleading with the public and the government to save them from disaster. Many people’s jobs and investments hang in the balance. Maybe this stems from a simple twist in accountability that’s crippling us:

Within any corporation, those with the most responsibility have the least to loose in bankruptcy.

Sure sure, loosing 100 million dollars is monetarily more than 10000 dollars, but if you’ve only got 10k- loosing everything is far more devastating than a billionaire loosing a fraction of his wealth. Even if say Richard Branson were to lose 99% of his wealth, he could still live out his days in luxury, never having to work a single day. If i lost 99% i’d be homeless.

Sadly this is what always seems to happen. A company goes bankrupt, who gets paid of first? Creditors (rich people). Second? Investors and upper management (rich people). Last? Workers and pensioners. . ..The rich don’t actually go bankrupt when their companies go bankrupt. Sure they may go down a few notches, but they’re not going to experience any real suffering like the pensioner who gets shafted, or the young parents who loose their jobs. If the rich actually needed to give a shit about running a business properly, this wouldn’t be happening.

CEO’s are pleading for help, and we’re forced to listen because we’re the only ones who actually stand to loose something. Open your own goddamn pockets you wealthy bastards! The public is tired of shelling out corporate welfare because somebody’s great great nephew is too inbred and pampered to understand rudimentary concepts like market demand.

Owning Life

Mapping the human genome. This is incredibly precise. It’s this precision that makes it so dangerous- if gives the owners of the code too much power. Forget taking over the world with armies, or economics, or culture- the world could be conquered with the birth of a single baby. A new messiah of human design.

Look at what they are currently doing with genetically modified plants. I’ve seen the canola fields in Saskatchewan, absolutely nothing but canola plants and dirt. First they design a modified plant that can resist a specific brand of herbicide and pesticide. Then they soak the field with the chemicals; the only thing that survives is the crop. It’s terrible for health and environment, but that’s another issue- look up Monsanto and Greenpeace.

Plants can also be developed to resist natural enemies, to grow stronger and longer- even to spread themselves out and decimate other species. It won’t be long before they can take this type of thing into insects. An army of genetically identical bees that travel the earth pollenating. A race of super-dragonfiles that would breed and spread like wildfire, eat the world’s mosquitoes, then eventually die away from lack of food. - - -The Ultimate BugZapper! What about fish? I think i saw that in a movie, replace the ocean’s schools with genetically modified fish that could breed and grow so fast we could never over fish them. We’re already raising fish inland on farms, why not think on the larger scale? Stock the oceans with genetic super-fish.

I suppose the thinking here is that when we’re thrown a curveball, like a disease killing off all our chickens, the best defense is to create new types of chickens that can survive the disease. Thereby assuming humans can do a better job than nature at dealing with a curveball. This works only up until something comes along that the new design is not immune to. Suppose the world is full of only a few genetic types of chickens, and something comes along that can wipe them all out- thats the end of chickens on earth. Natural selection doesn’t get to step in and save the species. There is no rare genetic strands of chicken out there with that extra something making them immune. There is no strong to survive.

So wait, how to take over the world with a single baby? Well, it probably wouldn’t happen overnight through genetics- sorry. Maybe you could design a superhuman smarter and stronger than anyone else- but it seems inevitable to loose control of anything you create which is smarter than yourself. . .. So i propose to the plotting evil billionaire, design yourself one male son with something genetic that’s within your control, lets say resistance to a certain poison and compliancy to evil schemes. Give the baby tons of money and a pretty face, make sure he does lots of breeding. The family waits until enough generations have passed after him that his gene pool has expanded large enough to sustain its own reproduction. . . ..They then flood the planet with the poison. . . …the only thing remaining are your evil offspring, the soy beans and the canola. -world conquered.

I suppose this is already happening. Money gets passed down through generations and it seems to be terrific for helping avoid disease and poison.

Information Storage

Information Storage

We can all have a good chuckle about 'computers' back during their conception. Mammoth machines filling an entire room just to accomplish a few simple computations. Today, processors, hard drives, all computer components seem to relentlessly get faster and smaller. So where will it end? Is there a size limit to information?

No, it doesn't seem so. The current method of information storage is binary, 1's and 0's. Strings of these two digits are constantly read by the computer's components. Each number string tells the switches within the component to turn either on or off thereby controlling the status of the component. One string might tell your speakers to get quieter, another string may be telling your monitor to display an 'R'. To store this information, you need to have a place to lay many many strings of 1's and 0's. This is done on anything like hard drives, memory sticks, and dvd's. The way the string of numbers is stored is by having tiny little switches in sequence on the storage device. Each switch is either on or off; on being a 1. and off being the 0. When data is stored, the switches are 'written' to display the sequence of numbers. When 'read', the sequence of numbers is re-created from the arrangement of the switches. The reason information storage keeps getting smaller is because they keep finding ways to cram these little switches closer and closer together.

But there seems to be a cap on this. For one, binary is pretty limited. Each switch is only able to convey a very simple message: on or off. Suppose each switch were to have three possible states, or five, or twelve. Certainly a switch with more states could convey more information. Binary works by positively or negatively charging switches. Those are the two states that make up its on or off, so how would we go about having considerably more possible states for our switch?

Its been suggested that the orbits of electrons around protons in atoms could be used as a new type of switch- remember chemistry? . . ..The idea of reading and writing info to the switch would remain the same. Imagine your computer keeps a real keen clock and microscope following an atom its using for information storage- this is your read device, like a hard drive's laser. With write devices today, electrical pulses are sent to manipulate the states of the switches, this type of thing could also be done to write info onto the atom. The whole process would be fairly similar; a write device sends a message in to set the switch and a read device sends out the same message by looking at the state of the switch.

Unlike todays binary methods, storage of information on these atomic orbits seems limitless. The electrons are moving along a sphere. There are an infinite amount of locations on a sphere. With binary storage, it is much more difficult to envision how we could store info at smaller than atomic sizes. Sure, an atom itself might be able to have two states, but for the same size we could have an infinite amount of states if we go the spherical electron orbit method.

With a limited switch, like in binary, you are always forced to find new physical items which can be switched on and off- if you want to go smaller. We never get more out of our switches, we only find ways to cram them closer together. Once the switch itself is infinite, there is no need to pack switches closer together- through refinement or our 'read/write' we can hold increasingly complex information within each switch.

This is of course way way off in the future, we're not even close. Besides, remember all the hoopla about getting computers switched over to 4 digit years? Imagine that times a billion for scrapping 1's and 0's. . . ..Binary doesn't even have a deadline!

TV

I don't watch it much, actively, but its often on in the background while im computerizing- which is frequently. The one format i will sit and actually watch is the prime time animated show. i can't help it; Simpsons got me addicted when i was still young and impressionable. So here it is, absolutely defined, unchallengeable: a listing of the animated shows from best to worst.

South Park - #1. This is the best satire available on television. Everything that happens on the show, relates back to the plot. Usually, at some point in the episode, the parody becomes obvious to the viewer; not because we're told what's being criticized outright, but because every event in the show gives us more information that relates back to the general idea. That's the beauty of a show where everything is included in the plot- there is ample time to ease the audience into an idea. Thats how the makers of this show are able to make such specific and justified criticisms of things they don't like. Its how good arguments are formed; this follows from this follows from this. . . , so you're one of these.

Simpsons - #2. The one thing Simsons has over South Park is the use of random, non plot funniness. I know, I know, i just said in the last paragraph that that was a bad thing. Simpsons does an excellent job of finding the balance. They'll add randomness, but not so much as it takes away from the plot. Problem is, they're sometimes trying to find this balance in their humour and politics as well; Criticisms don't quite go far enough, jokes are a little too tame. Don't get me wrong, they were my favourite for a very long time, and i still think they're terrific.

Futurama - #3. This is the ultimate dreamers show. What couldn't happen on Futurama. The concept is brilliant. Absolutely anything could happen to the character's surroundings and it would be completely justified. Even the characters themselves can be killed off or whatever- its the future, its outerspace, there will always be a way to bring about normalcy. Many people don't like this show, well maybe the writing staff hasn't used this great concept to its full capacity. Its also hard to get into a show that's so unreliable as far as delivery of new episodes.

King of the Hill - #4. Come on. This show is awesome. But, its a much subtler delivery of humour, and unfortunately many people dont get it at all. Like South Park, they criticize the evils of society, but they do it from the point of view of the everyday person instead of tackling the issue head on; Hank battles 'Walmart' in his home town, the South Park kids would have flown to the moon to take out 'Walmart' central command. These Texan characters are the most like real people. But thats usually the complaint, "why are they even animated at all?". . . . Well sorry, that would be impossible. Everyone on the show is ugly by TV standards, these are normal, unattractive, people. What live show could do that? No one would be able to stomach watching it. Can you imagine live actors for Beavis and Butthead! Even when you put Jim Belushi at the center of a sitcom, you surround him with better looking people to balance it out. . . .Besides, Mike Judge's animation is hilarious- its a big part of what makes the show so funny even if it doesn't take the characters to impossible places.

American Dad - #5. This show is pretty good. Its fairly political. Its a credit that there are some unique characters in this show despite the fact that this show is fairly new compared to the rest of them. I like how the characters will go to unbelievable lengths to accomplish their goals, but there seems to be a trend developing. They've done too many episodes where the dad will go away to trick the mother and proove a point, but miscommunication ensues. All in though, any show with Patrick Stewart is alright with me.

Family Guy - #6. I almost can't watch this show. A new episode, well i guess, but that's it. They've just taken the whole randomness thing way too far. Nothing pertains to anything else; the plot is an afterthought. They constantly do these long winded gags where everything stops moving and we're supposed to laugh at how long they're holding the joke- "i can't believe it! I think Peter is going to wince about his injured shin for a whole 2 minutes this time. . .that's hilarious!!!" Followed by the many running gags- Peter fights a chicken, slags about female basketball, the annoying piano guys they keep promising to get rid of. Saturday Night Live type sketch-comedies have always relied on running gags, but every week sketch-comedies are stuck with building something from the same actors and the same props and sets. Not to mention SNL is over an hour long. The sky is the limit for writers of animated shows, they shouldn't need to reuse the same gag over and over. Are the makers of family guy lazy or unoriginal? And all the cutaway scenes, dear god. A child could trace the animation over the opening scene of Back to the Future or whathaveyou- gluing in Peter's body. "Brain, remember that time i was a carrot?" Pick a random movie or event, plaster in Peter- there's a 30 sec joke. The only reason this show is so successful is because it obviously receives the most marketing investment. Seems suspicious to me that the networks push this show the most when its the least creative, least satirical, and least intelligent of the 6 shows.

universe 2

Universe 2

Hey there, back to explaining the universe. I'll post 'Your Universe 1' as a comment in case you forgot what i wrote back in sept.

The old model of the universe came from Euclid and Newton: a 3D grid with time moving forward at an unflinchingly steady speed. As simple as a stack of graph paper under your alarm clock. This old model worked well for a very long time. Even when Fizeau discovered the uniformity of the speed of light, no one noticed a thing- until Einstein.

Einstein did some thought experiments that showed how Fizeau's discovery was impossible within the old model of the universe. When moving near the speed of light, the stack of graph paper starts to bend, and the alarm clock changes speeds.

-----Space
Imagine i am driving at near the speed of light past the earth. At the exact moment i pass you on earth, we both turn on giant flashlights pointed in the direction i am driving. What would you see? Well, remember light moves the same speed in all reference frames, so you would see the two beams of light moving away from us both equally. But what happens once i've moved forward a distance? You still see two beams extending out equally, but somehow my beam would seem shorter than yours since the starting point of my beam moves forward as i move forward. The same end points but your start point precedes mine. got it?

Remember the simple equation: distance= time X speed. Speed of light is fixed, and the time of the experiment is whatever we make it to be, so thats fixed as well. Somethings got to give, the only variable remaining is distance. You and i have both turned our beams on for the same amount of time, and our beams are travelling at the same speed; distance itselt must be able to fluctuate.

Hey, distance is space. You measure 9 feet with a tape measure, you're measuring 9 feet of space right? What Einstein showed was how those measurements were wrong according to anyone moving in relation to yourself. Space itself can be scrunched up or stretched out.

Its a theory of course, but there needs to be a theory. The problem of light exists whether you like it or not. Somethings got to give, since space seems to be the only thing left in the equation, space must be the variable thats got some give. or so the theory goes. . .

Ok, uh, i thought i could do 'time' in this one as well but my head hurts. next one i guess.