An explanation of why I believe in the Blowfish algorithm (minted by Bruce Schneier in 1995.)
Blowfish is a Feistel network. I would like to begin with a discussion of a much simpler Feistel network, older and better investigated. Having talked about it, I will note how similarities between Vigenere and Blowfish give me confidence that Blowfish is reliable.
I first learned Vigenere as a lossy version, but later learned a lossless implementation in 'The Code Book,' by Simon Singh. I wrote an implementation of the lossless kind in GFA BASIC on an Atari 520ST, around 1995. I used it in the following manner to conclude that Vigenere is not a 'group.'
I made a message of 6 E's. I used looping to build a file containing 6 character key space of cryptograms of 'eeeeee,' exhaustively - IE; the file comprised a table of all possible encryptions of the 'eeeeee' message with a six character password.
I then used my knowledge (acquired by experimentation,) that double encrypting with Vigenere results in the unicity distance spreading entropy over the product of the prime factors of the key lengths. IE; a two character password and a three character password give a six character repeating pattern if you run all e's through the Turing Machine. However, a 10 char password and a 6 char password would yield a 5 x 2 x 3 = 30 char unicity distance.
I then searched the "cryptogram space" file, for the resulting 6 char string and found that it was mathematically absent. I was intuitively dismayed that a pattern similar to the naked human eye was present, brought to my attention by a portion matching my 1 step cryptogram, and the remainder matching the first chars of the next entry in the 2 step file. I am not completely sure what to make of this.
I'll now denote that Vigenere is cryptanalyzed by lining up the message in rows of unicity distance length, and performing statistical analysis on the resulting 'Rogue's Gallery' of substitution ciphers. To summarize, Vigenere is a set f(x) such that f(x) yields q and f(q) yields k, but there exists no value 'g' such that f(g) yields k.
By comparison, Blowfish is a Feistel network in not 2, but 16 rounds. The most important question I can ask about Blowfish is, If f(x) yields f'(x) and f'(x) yields f2(x) ... f15(x) yields f16(x) (badly noted, but asking for human understanding,) IS THERE a (or some,) Y such that f(y) yields f16(x). If there is not, we can argue that Blowfish is not a group, leaving us to wonder if there is even an analog of statistical analysis that can be employed on some binary rogues gallery to cryptanalyze it?
Under those conditions, things would still be difficult for cryptanalysis because the implementation with which I am familiar does not neglect aggressive compression before encryption, as an efficiency measure. Goodbye statistical characteristics.
To compound the difficulties, experimentation on the resulting block cipher does the following;a string of e's yields an apparent substitution simplicity. Introduce exactly 1 q in the 'stream,' of e's and observe that (specifically in the 56 bit implementation,) the resulting entropy cascades over three characters. I suppose that means three blocks, leaving me mystified as to how it actually decrypts. The relevant conclusion is that comparing letter pairs really doesn't get me anywhere with it either.
I have a cognitive dissonance that results from asking 'what is the unicity distance of (a block cipher) Blowfish.' I blindly trust the current AES as a black box because it is no longer new. The implementation I use has a random number generator written by 'some Polack.' Since NSA tried to sabotage AES, I infer they can't really break it conveniently.
In closing, please note that Blowfish derivative, TwoFish, is now an AES candidate with NIST.
Friday, April 17, 2009
J. Swift on communication and veracity - why lie?
This is excerpted from Gulliver's Travels, Part IV, Chapter 4. Gulliver finds himself (a curious application of the active voice:-) in a land where the top of the food chain is occupied by the Equine species. Houyhnhnms are horses, and bipeds are Yahoos, with many Cretan characteristics.
MY MASTER heard me with great Appearances of Uneasiness in his Countenance, because Doubting, or not believing, are so little known in this Country, that the Inhabitants cannot tell how to behave themselves under such Circumstances. And I remember in frequent Discourses with my Master concerning the Nature of Manhood, in other Parts of the World, having occasion to talk of Lying, and false Representation, it was with much Difficulty that he comprehended what I meant, although he had otherwise a most acute Judgment. For he argued thus: That the Use of Speech was to make us understand one another, and to receive Information of Facts; now if anyone said the Thing which was not, these Ends were Defeated; because I cannot properly be said to understand him; and I am so far from receiving Information, that he leaves me worse than in Ignorance, for I am led to believe a Thing Black when it is White, and Short when it is Long. And these were all the Notions he had concerning that Faculty of Lying, so perfectly well understood among human Creatures.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Theories of Justice: An incomplete listing;
I spoke momentarily of "tit-for-tat," in absence of _any_other_ system or theory of Justice.
Perhaps an exhaustive list of my stock and store is as follows, but I do not suppose that T-for-T is the ONLY one.
1. The "dexterity test," whereby an individual is chosen (either elected or volunteer,) to cut the Pie. This individual is spurred to fair and equal subdivision by the knowledge, agreed upon before the first cut, that s/he will enjoy the last choice of slices.
2. The "reductio ad absurdum" analysis: Upon any deliberated action, the animator is asked to speculate (and finally justify his action-s-) by answering the question, "What if _everyone_ unilaterally did [x action,] because of same stimulus?"
3. The "reflexive introspection," lesson: An individual is disciplined, not by the deliberated punitive measure of an expert, but rather is acquainted with the consequences of his/her actions, and required to articulate, accountably, "What is a fair and just recompense of reward for that offense?" This is usually well assisted, by executing reductio ad absurdum on trite recommendations.
4. Last but not least, "Tit for Tat:" an individual is required to evaluate, "You did [x.] I have now done [x] to you. Can you improve outcomes if I reliably mirror your actions?" Since justice is the subject under discussion, a fair assessment of the language of the Jewish Jesus might be required. Mt 7:[12] "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:..." & Lk 6:[31] "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
The more common, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is not available in the Bible. I cannot speak authoritatively about the Talmud. I avoid Mishnah, Hadith and I suppose that self consistency would indict some portion of the Christian Cannon by that logic. Please feel free to comment... I get them on email :-)
Perhaps an exhaustive list of my stock and store is as follows, but I do not suppose that T-for-T is the ONLY one.
1. The "dexterity test," whereby an individual is chosen (either elected or volunteer,) to cut the Pie. This individual is spurred to fair and equal subdivision by the knowledge, agreed upon before the first cut, that s/he will enjoy the last choice of slices.
2. The "reductio ad absurdum" analysis: Upon any deliberated action, the animator is asked to speculate (and finally justify his action-s-) by answering the question, "What if _everyone_ unilaterally did [x action,] because of same stimulus?"
3. The "reflexive introspection," lesson: An individual is disciplined, not by the deliberated punitive measure of an expert, but rather is acquainted with the consequences of his/her actions, and required to articulate, accountably, "What is a fair and just recompense of reward for that offense?" This is usually well assisted, by executing reductio ad absurdum on trite recommendations.
4. Last but not least, "Tit for Tat:" an individual is required to evaluate, "You did [x.] I have now done [x] to you. Can you improve outcomes if I reliably mirror your actions?" Since justice is the subject under discussion, a fair assessment of the language of the Jewish Jesus might be required. Mt 7:[12] "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:..." & Lk 6:[31] "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
The more common, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is not available in the Bible. I cannot speak authoritatively about the Talmud. I avoid Mishnah, Hadith and I suppose that self consistency would indict some portion of the Christian Cannon by that logic. Please feel free to comment... I get them on email :-)
ABC News Cites Torture - A reaction;
Congress had a hearing that determined that America is not guilty of torture. If it is the first of its kind, I'd be surprised; it cannot be the last...
...for the following reason:
To lack the resolve to torture Internationally, is to invite mischief. A terrorist who is guaranteed ALL American privileges of citizenship at trial, including pain and suffering damages, (with mental anguish punitive phase,) repeats, Judicially, the offenses that must have precipitated the trial.
The A_theist C_ivil L_iberties U_nion took the position that what we did was misrepresented. "It was TORTURE," they say, "not NOT TORTURE!"
When asked if we had gone too far, Dick Cheney went on the record for "No, we didn't."
I'd rather face a terrorist in the street who had to satisfy Dick Cheney's yard-stick for "Too far in retribution to terrorism," than the ACLU's measuring stick for how well terrorists should be treated. In a mechanized system of true "tit for tat," (the atheist -and also Mathematical- way of talking about Judeo-Christian "an eye for an eye,") the terrorist could not prevail. Tit-for-tat, when slavishly followed plays to stale-mate so reliably that very few decisive outcomes need be feared. "Nothing's gonna happen."
Again, speaking Mathematically, tit-for-tat CAN BE decisively WON. However, in ALL cases (prove me wrong,) when faced with certain defeat, a tit-for-tat player may freely depart from the tit-for-tat strategy by anticipating defeat, and play to victory in a stunningly small number of moves, IF he is not mechanistically bound to following the tit-for-tat agreement.
The terrorist is not bound by law. As such, stripping him of the euthanistic quality of the death penalty, in the name of defeating ALL Martyrs, is wrong. I compensate by advocating reinstatement of Habeas Corpus, and embarrassing ALL the abusers who arrested people without ANY evidence unilaterally.
Again, torturing terrorists may be necessary as a deterrent, but I cannot advocate making it SOP. However, is it going too far, to take militarily self-destructive (non-leading,) "machines," and dedicating them to the sole purpose of deterrent? No human being alive cannot understand the regulating authority of the Colt Peacemaker.
Responsibility should not be laid upon those without authority. Given authority to act, the forceful animator _should_ be held accountable. The latitude he enjoys during the interim, should be commensurate to virtue of his _character_. Do we have equal political will to hold those responsible, who injured these enemies with such injustice that we are NEGLIGENT if we release them ALIVE? They certainly enjoyed latitude.
Power reliably corrupts. Absolute power has apparently corrupted even God. The argument to abuse is no argument against the proper use.
...for the following reason:
To lack the resolve to torture Internationally, is to invite mischief. A terrorist who is guaranteed ALL American privileges of citizenship at trial, including pain and suffering damages, (with mental anguish punitive phase,) repeats, Judicially, the offenses that must have precipitated the trial.
The A_theist C_ivil L_iberties U_nion took the position that what we did was misrepresented. "It was TORTURE," they say, "not NOT TORTURE!"
When asked if we had gone too far, Dick Cheney went on the record for "No, we didn't."
I'd rather face a terrorist in the street who had to satisfy Dick Cheney's yard-stick for "Too far in retribution to terrorism," than the ACLU's measuring stick for how well terrorists should be treated. In a mechanized system of true "tit for tat," (the atheist -and also Mathematical- way of talking about Judeo-Christian "an eye for an eye,") the terrorist could not prevail. Tit-for-tat, when slavishly followed plays to stale-mate so reliably that very few decisive outcomes need be feared. "Nothing's gonna happen."
Again, speaking Mathematically, tit-for-tat CAN BE decisively WON. However, in ALL cases (prove me wrong,) when faced with certain defeat, a tit-for-tat player may freely depart from the tit-for-tat strategy by anticipating defeat, and play to victory in a stunningly small number of moves, IF he is not mechanistically bound to following the tit-for-tat agreement.
The terrorist is not bound by law. As such, stripping him of the euthanistic quality of the death penalty, in the name of defeating ALL Martyrs, is wrong. I compensate by advocating reinstatement of Habeas Corpus, and embarrassing ALL the abusers who arrested people without ANY evidence unilaterally.
Again, torturing terrorists may be necessary as a deterrent, but I cannot advocate making it SOP. However, is it going too far, to take militarily self-destructive (non-leading,) "machines," and dedicating them to the sole purpose of deterrent? No human being alive cannot understand the regulating authority of the Colt Peacemaker.
Responsibility should not be laid upon those without authority. Given authority to act, the forceful animator _should_ be held accountable. The latitude he enjoys during the interim, should be commensurate to virtue of his _character_. Do we have equal political will to hold those responsible, who injured these enemies with such injustice that we are NEGLIGENT if we release them ALIVE? They certainly enjoyed latitude.
Power reliably corrupts. Absolute power has apparently corrupted even God. The argument to abuse is no argument against the proper use.
Psychology;
Psychology depends from a mathematical anchor, just like many other fields of analysis draw a mystical infallibility from Computer Programs.
Those proofs that depend from Correlation:
Correlation does not prove causality. The Tobacco industry can be relied upon to wake anew to the truth of it for many years to come. Despite this, Causality so commonly demonstrates correlation that true randomness is currently impossible for computer programs. If a phenomenon correlates to a statistical event or class of actions, then psychology commonly says that one causes the other, with specific qualifications.
Those proofs that depend from null hypothesis testing.
Take 72 nubile non-pubescent 10 - 11 year olds, and 72 17 - 18 years olds, and distribute them randomly into control and experimental groups. By all means, execute the selective process of female gender on the group so that the hypothesis (to follow,) may be rigorously verified by physical presence of the hymen. Then test the correct null hypothesis that PROVES "nubile non-pubescent individuals are virgins."
ANY corrections necessary to my methodology, indict the divine reliability of "Null-hypothesis testing."
Statistics itself depends on the correctness of the fundamental statement, "The Normal distribution applies." For example, why SHOULD the NORMAL distribution, rather than a Square, a Skewed, a Poussin or a Bi-modal distribution apply to the expected outcomes from repeatedly rolling 32 6-sided dice?
I am a math student to this day, and I revere what can be built syllogisticly from random sampling, once the correctly applicable distribution has been ascertained. The math is not at fault.
Those proofs that depend from analysis:
There remains the discussion of Freud and his progeny. Freud himself had many accusations that put his subject on the defensive. "You are Oedipal," "you are (latently) Homosexual," "you have unresolved guilt about Universal Masturbation," "you are Passive aggressive," "you haven't faced your self-flagellating self-loathing," or "you are Orally fixated," are several. IF I had an adequate definition for "oral fixation," I could authoritatively say that "Freud had an oral fixation." Until then, "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I can _prove_ I am not passive aggressive. I am overtly or aggressively aggressive. It's easier to be violent than to disprove the bland assertion that I am passively aggressive. I submit that, in large numbers, PhD Psychologists are "passively aggressive." They just don't noise it about.
Once a person is sufficiently on the defensive, the shrink reliably shows that this has the "Je ne sais quoi," of normality, and all problems proceed from childhood abuse. It's common enough they can't miss. Exceptions to the rule cover any exceptions to the rule. Once "normal," a person is responsible for paying the shrink while he labors to "break through," like a Scientologist being "clear." If a person is very logical, and learns to cope well, he can be released back into the wild, with only Chiropractic tune-ups thereafter.
A special exception is the Religiously convicted. If one has faith in God, it becomes a superstitious lability. Under these circumstances, "they," treat the patient like a willful Academic rival who may become violent. The rule is "Don't challenge the irrational (religious) fantasy," or he _will_ decompensate, become violent and lose all hope of coping with reality. All future interactions become subject to the definition of passive aggressive.
In closing, the TRULY ABUSED can be assisted in only one way: "What lie can I tell this patient so that he will permanently feel better?"
All real coping skills and assistance are rendered in this framework, or they commit you involuntarily.
Those proofs that depend from Correlation:
Correlation does not prove causality. The Tobacco industry can be relied upon to wake anew to the truth of it for many years to come. Despite this, Causality so commonly demonstrates correlation that true randomness is currently impossible for computer programs. If a phenomenon correlates to a statistical event or class of actions, then psychology commonly says that one causes the other, with specific qualifications.
Those proofs that depend from null hypothesis testing.
Take 72 nubile non-pubescent 10 - 11 year olds, and 72 17 - 18 years olds, and distribute them randomly into control and experimental groups. By all means, execute the selective process of female gender on the group so that the hypothesis (to follow,) may be rigorously verified by physical presence of the hymen. Then test the correct null hypothesis that PROVES "nubile non-pubescent individuals are virgins."
ANY corrections necessary to my methodology, indict the divine reliability of "Null-hypothesis testing."
Statistics itself depends on the correctness of the fundamental statement, "The Normal distribution applies." For example, why SHOULD the NORMAL distribution, rather than a Square, a Skewed, a Poussin or a Bi-modal distribution apply to the expected outcomes from repeatedly rolling 32 6-sided dice?
I am a math student to this day, and I revere what can be built syllogisticly from random sampling, once the correctly applicable distribution has been ascertained. The math is not at fault.
Those proofs that depend from analysis:
There remains the discussion of Freud and his progeny. Freud himself had many accusations that put his subject on the defensive. "You are Oedipal," "you are (latently) Homosexual," "you have unresolved guilt about Universal Masturbation," "you are Passive aggressive," "you haven't faced your self-flagellating self-loathing," or "you are Orally fixated," are several. IF I had an adequate definition for "oral fixation," I could authoritatively say that "Freud had an oral fixation." Until then, "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I can _prove_ I am not passive aggressive. I am overtly or aggressively aggressive. It's easier to be violent than to disprove the bland assertion that I am passively aggressive. I submit that, in large numbers, PhD Psychologists are "passively aggressive." They just don't noise it about.
Once a person is sufficiently on the defensive, the shrink reliably shows that this has the "Je ne sais quoi," of normality, and all problems proceed from childhood abuse. It's common enough they can't miss. Exceptions to the rule cover any exceptions to the rule. Once "normal," a person is responsible for paying the shrink while he labors to "break through," like a Scientologist being "clear." If a person is very logical, and learns to cope well, he can be released back into the wild, with only Chiropractic tune-ups thereafter.
A special exception is the Religiously convicted. If one has faith in God, it becomes a superstitious lability. Under these circumstances, "they," treat the patient like a willful Academic rival who may become violent. The rule is "Don't challenge the irrational (religious) fantasy," or he _will_ decompensate, become violent and lose all hope of coping with reality. All future interactions become subject to the definition of passive aggressive.
In closing, the TRULY ABUSED can be assisted in only one way: "What lie can I tell this patient so that he will permanently feel better?"
All real coping skills and assistance are rendered in this framework, or they commit you involuntarily.
Pychologists;
Made you look. The Jivaro adherents of the PhD community may thank a particularly abusive member of the tribe for scarring me in such a way that the next article becomes necessary to propagate. I have a "learned mistake," that calls them "Javiro," and me a man-eating lion that has tasted "Javiro" blood.
The motive arises out of ethnic hatred of them like Asian Indians. I do not attempt to injure individuals, but rather the underpinnings of the RICOH conspiracy entity that is Psychology.
I answer q's about the RICOH aspect below, and later. At this time, I hasten to put my reasoned attack on their underpinnings on the record in my next article, while it's red hot on my mind.
Now that THAT unpleasantness is out of the way, we may return to a discussion of WHY I hate them as a class of persons who have taken up Academic arms against me.
First, please ascertain the recidivism rate of rapists. (near 100%.)
Now, please ascertain what is the likelyhood of a normal abused child to "re-"offend. (near 100% - beaking the cycle isn't _natural_; it requires an evolved outlook.)
With these statistics firmly established (in memory if not "for the record,") let us proceed to an experiment.
Choose an absolutely 100% INNOCENT of-age male control. Select a convicted (male) felon as another control. Select an of-age child abuse "victim," who also raped his sister at a young (juvenile - not "of age") age. Select three middle schools in (select a valid US State.) Send each of the subjects by random order to a middle school between 10:30 and 12:30, 12:30 and 2:30 and 2:30 and 4:30 respectively. The subject is instructed to ask a single random schoolgirl subject to availability, "Can you get your teacher another piece of chalk?" Then, regardless of the response, conclude the interaction as normally as possible and leave.
Follow this hard on by an anonymous communication to authorities at the Texas Child Protective Services to the effect, "Mr. [x] was [here], speaking to an under age child."
Q: For a reality check, where does the TCPS stop being negligent?
a) When they notify the school in question by US Post.
b) When they notify the institution, administration and staff.
c) When they notify the parents of the juvenile in question.
d) Are the parents negligent when they fail to notify friends and local loved ones, including Church members?
My forgiving sister had a shrink. I call her "Isis."
The motive arises out of ethnic hatred of them like Asian Indians. I do not attempt to injure individuals, but rather the underpinnings of the RICOH conspiracy entity that is Psychology.
I answer q's about the RICOH aspect below, and later. At this time, I hasten to put my reasoned attack on their underpinnings on the record in my next article, while it's red hot on my mind.
Now that THAT unpleasantness is out of the way, we may return to a discussion of WHY I hate them as a class of persons who have taken up Academic arms against me.
First, please ascertain the recidivism rate of rapists. (near 100%.)
Now, please ascertain what is the likelyhood of a normal abused child to "re-"offend. (near 100% - beaking the cycle isn't _natural_; it requires an evolved outlook.)
With these statistics firmly established (in memory if not "for the record,") let us proceed to an experiment.
Choose an absolutely 100% INNOCENT of-age male control. Select a convicted (male) felon as another control. Select an of-age child abuse "victim," who also raped his sister at a young (juvenile - not "of age") age. Select three middle schools in (select a valid US State.) Send each of the subjects by random order to a middle school between 10:30 and 12:30, 12:30 and 2:30 and 2:30 and 4:30 respectively. The subject is instructed to ask a single random schoolgirl subject to availability, "Can you get your teacher another piece of chalk?" Then, regardless of the response, conclude the interaction as normally as possible and leave.
Follow this hard on by an anonymous communication to authorities at the Texas Child Protective Services to the effect, "Mr. [x] was [here], speaking to an under age child."
Q: For a reality check, where does the TCPS stop being negligent?
a) When they notify the school in question by US Post.
b) When they notify the institution, administration and staff.
c) When they notify the parents of the juvenile in question.
d) Are the parents negligent when they fail to notify friends and local loved ones, including Church members?
My forgiving sister had a shrink. I call her "Isis."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A picture of me, making a POLITICAL mistake;
Washington D.C. is historic for employing the hub and spoke method of minimizing the mean transit time for ALL packages. Before the plans for District of Columbia were laid out, St. Petersberg (Southeast of Murmansk,) Russia, and Amsterdam, Holland were the only beneficiaries of the historic mathematical economy. The outermost ring is called the "beltway," and it personifies an abstract philosophical divide, abbreviated "Outside the Beltway."
In rural America, when a railroad crossing is not arranged as an underpass or an overpass, the side of town that has to wait for trains to pass in order to gain access to commerce is less desirable. This is abbreviated, "the wrong side of the tracks," and I herein submit that being from "outside the beltway," amounts politically to being from "the wrong side of the tracks."
I have offended reliably and in enduring ways as follows: I employed a politically flawed algorithm. This is as profound a failing as attempting to mechanize or automate the acquisition of a date, and I have no individual whose car I may wash, or to whom I may present a bouquet of flowers in apology. Upon favorable receipt, I could not expect to present the results at a bank for consideration, any more than a young lady's favor advantages me at a coffee shop.
Whatever colorful language you attribute to my estate, it gives me "nothing to lose," politically, but also no possible means of gain or political advancement. I estimate that only God's rebuke to my comment that "It is impossible to rehabilitate me," can overcome the odds.
My mistake is documented here. Learn if possible. The chick's ain't diggin' it!
Step 1. Have idea.
Step 2. Reason that a good idea stands on it's own merit. Bypass early resistance by simply shopping it around indiscriminately.
Step 3. Present it US mail to an aide in an office, mistakenly believing that Senators, Congressmen and important people in general, read their own correspondence.
Step 4. After an imagined adequate latency, document in a publicly available way that you submitted the suggestion: I have posted letters verbatim.
Step 4 offends with certainty and finality, for one of two reasons.
a) The idea "was not followed up on," and the good idea indicts the system for ignoring it.
b) The idea _WAS_ followed up on, but attributions are such that the letter embarrasses un-named co-conspirators. Under these conditions even genuine gratitude that an idea could not be killed in historical timing (simply by a fight over credit,) does not adequately reimburse the political lackey who took the hit.
I believe that the varying degrees of passion and sincerity with which I am disliked or hated do NOT bely the universality of it. I fail in the end to gratify "them," with bitterness if possible, and seek my own avenue to redemption. God Bless America, God help me :-)
In rural America, when a railroad crossing is not arranged as an underpass or an overpass, the side of town that has to wait for trains to pass in order to gain access to commerce is less desirable. This is abbreviated, "the wrong side of the tracks," and I herein submit that being from "outside the beltway," amounts politically to being from "the wrong side of the tracks."
I have offended reliably and in enduring ways as follows: I employed a politically flawed algorithm. This is as profound a failing as attempting to mechanize or automate the acquisition of a date, and I have no individual whose car I may wash, or to whom I may present a bouquet of flowers in apology. Upon favorable receipt, I could not expect to present the results at a bank for consideration, any more than a young lady's favor advantages me at a coffee shop.
Whatever colorful language you attribute to my estate, it gives me "nothing to lose," politically, but also no possible means of gain or political advancement. I estimate that only God's rebuke to my comment that "It is impossible to rehabilitate me," can overcome the odds.
My mistake is documented here. Learn if possible. The chick's ain't diggin' it!
Step 1. Have idea.
Step 2. Reason that a good idea stands on it's own merit. Bypass early resistance by simply shopping it around indiscriminately.
Step 3. Present it US mail to an aide in an office, mistakenly believing that Senators, Congressmen and important people in general, read their own correspondence.
Step 4. After an imagined adequate latency, document in a publicly available way that you submitted the suggestion: I have posted letters verbatim.
Step 4 offends with certainty and finality, for one of two reasons.
a) The idea "was not followed up on," and the good idea indicts the system for ignoring it.
b) The idea _WAS_ followed up on, but attributions are such that the letter embarrasses un-named co-conspirators. Under these conditions even genuine gratitude that an idea could not be killed in historical timing (simply by a fight over credit,) does not adequately reimburse the political lackey who took the hit.
I believe that the varying degrees of passion and sincerity with which I am disliked or hated do NOT bely the universality of it. I fail in the end to gratify "them," with bitterness if possible, and seek my own avenue to redemption. God Bless America, God help me :-)
Saturday, April 11, 2009
DVR - 20/20 Gun Control
Without preamble, my promised analysis of 20/20's Gun Control episode cannot be informed by Television. The DVR that displayed a "splash," screen when I awoke around 0545 hrs is (to borrow German,) "kaput." If it had even shown a commercial since, I could invest in a theory that the Russians were targeting me for starting rumors that the Russian Mafia poisons agreements with the Triad!
Instead I must profess that a technician is promised for a Sunday afternoon... a likely story, I'll admit, but there's no charge.
Since my article cannot be informed by the 20/20 News Magazine, I pose q's upon which I had intended to take notes, and leave the well roundness of my article to hazard its own risk, as the Television Producer surely must have done when he began his own pioneering documentation.
I CAN inform the compilation from facts: please proclaim the victor of the well roundedness competition fairly, and may the best investigator win.
I reconstruct lost notes from memory.
Machiavelli was a Hawk. His stated motive for his treatise was that the Prince should wage war on Lomabardy and Tuscany. While this may not comprise the totality of his motive, it was certainly more than pretext... he intended advantage to the Principality where he resided (Chapter 26.) As such, he should be regarded as incentivized to represent arms to their best advantage in turn.
The Prince did not take his advice. As I recall, his name can still be established, but Machiavelli lives on in greater infamous notoriety.
Memory doesn't serve to cite a place wherein Machiavelli addressed resolve, or its necessity as a deterrent to Conquistadors. In my experience, most people determine the import and weight that should be given to a point, by the time a speaker spends on it, and the number of repetitions he allots it. My rhetoric isn't up to it, go figure. Resolve.
Chapter 6 of The Prince addresses "New Principalities acquired by one's own arms." Chapter 7 addresses "New Principalities acquired by the arms of others (or by good fortune.)" Independently noted is the comment,
Hmmm... I perceive I am rationalizing War, not discussing Gun Control. He was a _persuasive_ Hawk, how did he ever fail? [If stopping War is the motive and reason of the Gun Control argument, please amend the Constitution to omit "...to provide for the common defense," NOT the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights.]
The murder rate in the US of A is higher than anywhere else. I don't know what "per capita" numbers actually mean - they are ALWAYS fractional, but ours are higher than anywhere else. [I will attempt to end with an argument that appeals to logical expedient, and aver BOTH human interest/emotional appeal AND Exigencies of State.] Launching ALL firearms available Globally to Jupiter WILL not STOP MURDER. Given the extreme emotional disturbance that makes me forget the difference between right and wrong, I can murder with my bare hands, I don't need a sidearm.
Syllogistically:
IF murder is the reason we are doing [x],
THEN doing [x] should be sufficient to end all murder,
...or the whole syllogism fails the test of tautology. I think we can agree that sending ALL arms to Jupiter cannot be done (for whatever expedient reason.)
Clearly an open mind needs the conversation to say more... I have suggested War and Murder rate as two motives for Gun control. Did 20/20 suggest others?
Law Enforcement is a reason for Gun ownership that supersedes even 2nd Amendment discussions.
Historically, England never armed the populace. English Bobbies carried the legendary Bobby stick, and without fear for their lives, hailed the fleeing criminal, "Stop, in the name of the LAW!" This differs from the traditional Continental "Stop, or I'll SHOOT!" by the following contrast. Who says "Stop, or I'll... say STOP again!"
Harking back to M., the comment to the effect "new regimes arm the populace while old regimes _dis_arm them suggests a syllogism compiled from the statement:
If the regime disarms me, it must be old, whereas if it arms me it must be new.
The actual contra-positive should go like this:
Old Regimes disarm, and I am being disarmed, therefore the regime cannot be new. To the logician, reality must allow: President Obama is "New" regime... he cannot qualify as an old one. Therefore he is not the actual source of my disarmament.
IF I _am_ being disarmed, no NEW regime can be at fault. Rather, of all available possibilities, I must regard extant OLD regimes as valid candidates. The rest of the discussion turns upon the definition of a "regime." I fail to define the territory of debate, but definition of terms reliably portends the victor of its annexation. I move on with this parting observation: Schools of thought can have regimes.
Machiavelli's language may not be sufficiently rigorous for the whole exercise, it might suggest that "If I am being disarmed, the Principality is a province being added to an older one," instead. Please simply learn what may be learned.
An example of a Country that was armed and then disarmed is Maoist China. The revolution was violent, sudden and over. The Maoist revolt of 1990 Nepal proved that firearms do not monopolize violence. It was a machete rebellion.
Reiterating, England never armed the populace. A frontier country that disarmed is Australia. We could profitably check with them how the pilot program is going... are the Kangaroos and Hyena's cooperating? How about the 5ts, and organized crime? Canada had a frontier tradition that is no longer evident... maybe they can shed light on disarmament; I've always heard it said that they looked to the South for National Security. Trite or not, how true is it?
I'll put the heart and soul of my standpoint here, just before my concluding comments. This is the environment into which the 20/20 presentation would have been poured. IF we make Gun Ownership ILLEGAL, we merely reserve the RIGHT to carry to those not otherwise bound by law. Predicating law on a jaundiced view of the alternative, is to fall to the failing addressed by the Latin Proverb:
If the days of Imperial Conquest are over and gone, the days of leveling such accusations against Superpowers are not. An available overcompensation is to disarm everyone (in violation of the Bill of Rights.) I am not prepared to say that Hegemonic motives are reserved to those whose grasp might reasonably attain it.
Meanwhile, I feel like I've launched out (in the above commentary,) and answered suggestions that were never made. Anybody care to share a copy of the 20/20 episode in question?
Instead I must profess that a technician is promised for a Sunday afternoon... a likely story, I'll admit, but there's no charge.
Since my article cannot be informed by the 20/20 News Magazine, I pose q's upon which I had intended to take notes, and leave the well roundness of my article to hazard its own risk, as the Television Producer surely must have done when he began his own pioneering documentation.
I CAN inform the compilation from facts: please proclaim the victor of the well roundedness competition fairly, and may the best investigator win.
I reconstruct lost notes from memory.
Machiavelli was a Hawk. His stated motive for his treatise was that the Prince should wage war on Lomabardy and Tuscany. While this may not comprise the totality of his motive, it was certainly more than pretext... he intended advantage to the Principality where he resided (Chapter 26.) As such, he should be regarded as incentivized to represent arms to their best advantage in turn.
The Prince did not take his advice. As I recall, his name can still be established, but Machiavelli lives on in greater infamous notoriety.
Memory doesn't serve to cite a place wherein Machiavelli addressed resolve, or its necessity as a deterrent to Conquistadors. In my experience, most people determine the import and weight that should be given to a point, by the time a speaker spends on it, and the number of repetitions he allots it. My rhetoric isn't up to it, go figure. Resolve.
Chapter 6 of The Prince addresses "New Principalities acquired by one's own arms." Chapter 7 addresses "New Principalities acquired by the arms of others (or by good fortune.)" Independently noted is the comment,
"We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms."In another place he asserts opinion that should offer insight to the Machiavellian Hawk:
"Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you."I'm not restricting myself solely to "Big M," but he said much of substance. He closes his book with the observation that,
"With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them."...arms are only hallowed when taken up for the cause of Justice, albeit allowing for a certain moral flexibility in determining the _reason_ the war in question is "Just." Instead of calling the historic author an imbecile, I affirm he was correct about the consecrating power of Justice. In history, was Rome's conquest Just? What of the Crusades? Contrast this with USA's shared motive with India, for repulsing the British. Can Al Quaida appeal to Justice? What about Bush 41 in Kuwait?
Hmmm... I perceive I am rationalizing War, not discussing Gun Control. He was a _persuasive_ Hawk, how did he ever fail? [If stopping War is the motive and reason of the Gun Control argument, please amend the Constitution to omit "...to provide for the common defense," NOT the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights.]
The murder rate in the US of A is higher than anywhere else. I don't know what "per capita" numbers actually mean - they are ALWAYS fractional, but ours are higher than anywhere else. [I will attempt to end with an argument that appeals to logical expedient, and aver BOTH human interest/emotional appeal AND Exigencies of State.] Launching ALL firearms available Globally to Jupiter WILL not STOP MURDER. Given the extreme emotional disturbance that makes me forget the difference between right and wrong, I can murder with my bare hands, I don't need a sidearm.
Syllogistically:
IF murder is the reason we are doing [x],
THEN doing [x] should be sufficient to end all murder,
...or the whole syllogism fails the test of tautology. I think we can agree that sending ALL arms to Jupiter cannot be done (for whatever expedient reason.)
Clearly an open mind needs the conversation to say more... I have suggested War and Murder rate as two motives for Gun control. Did 20/20 suggest others?
Law Enforcement is a reason for Gun ownership that supersedes even 2nd Amendment discussions.
Historically, England never armed the populace. English Bobbies carried the legendary Bobby stick, and without fear for their lives, hailed the fleeing criminal, "Stop, in the name of the LAW!" This differs from the traditional Continental "Stop, or I'll SHOOT!" by the following contrast. Who says "Stop, or I'll... say STOP again!"
Harking back to M., the comment to the effect "new regimes arm the populace while old regimes _dis_arm them suggests a syllogism compiled from the statement:
If the regime disarms me, it must be old, whereas if it arms me it must be new.
The actual contra-positive should go like this:
Old Regimes disarm, and I am being disarmed, therefore the regime cannot be new. To the logician, reality must allow: President Obama is "New" regime... he cannot qualify as an old one. Therefore he is not the actual source of my disarmament.
IF I _am_ being disarmed, no NEW regime can be at fault. Rather, of all available possibilities, I must regard extant OLD regimes as valid candidates. The rest of the discussion turns upon the definition of a "regime." I fail to define the territory of debate, but definition of terms reliably portends the victor of its annexation. I move on with this parting observation: Schools of thought can have regimes.
Machiavelli's language may not be sufficiently rigorous for the whole exercise, it might suggest that "If I am being disarmed, the Principality is a province being added to an older one," instead. Please simply learn what may be learned.
An example of a Country that was armed and then disarmed is Maoist China. The revolution was violent, sudden and over. The Maoist revolt of 1990 Nepal proved that firearms do not monopolize violence. It was a machete rebellion.
Reiterating, England never armed the populace. A frontier country that disarmed is Australia. We could profitably check with them how the pilot program is going... are the Kangaroos and Hyena's cooperating? How about the 5ts, and organized crime? Canada had a frontier tradition that is no longer evident... maybe they can shed light on disarmament; I've always heard it said that they looked to the South for National Security. Trite or not, how true is it?
I'll put the heart and soul of my standpoint here, just before my concluding comments. This is the environment into which the 20/20 presentation would have been poured. IF we make Gun Ownership ILLEGAL, we merely reserve the RIGHT to carry to those not otherwise bound by law. Predicating law on a jaundiced view of the alternative, is to fall to the failing addressed by the Latin Proverb:
"Abusus non tollit usum."Translation: "Abuse is no argument against proper use", legal phrase meaning that just because something can be abused there is no reason for putting an end to its legitimate use.
If the days of Imperial Conquest are over and gone, the days of leveling such accusations against Superpowers are not. An available overcompensation is to disarm everyone (in violation of the Bill of Rights.) I am not prepared to say that Hegemonic motives are reserved to those whose grasp might reasonably attain it.
Meanwhile, I feel like I've launched out (in the above commentary,) and answered suggestions that were never made. Anybody care to share a copy of the 20/20 episode in question?
The University of Congress: De-credential me;
My local University provides a Curriculum that brings students up to speed in a discipline in 4 yrs. To do so, students take 4 or 5 subjects a semester. The County Community College District also provides degrees; two year degrees in their case. These accredit one with an Associate's Degree.
My question is this: Of all the Congressional PhD's conferred since 1786, whose Thesis was the best?
Juvenal's question is: How many extensions can I get? [He likes spending the stipend for weekend partying... he arrived independently wealthy.]
Some sources are so suspect they discredit content;
Marx is an example:
Wikipedia quote:
Wikipedia quote:
Together these compose the mode of production, and Marx distinguished historical eras in terms of distinct modes of production. For example, he observed that European societies had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production. Marx believed that under capitalism, the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (for example, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). Marx regarded this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure as a major source of social disruption and conflict.I search "reg" on page. This bears on my discussion of Pareto perfect systems subject to abuse. I estimate that we SHOULD still develop them. What do YOU think?
Who Could Ask For Anything More - The Relentless Pursuit of Perfection;
In philosophy, is it required to sow the seeds of your own downfall?
The question may have validity despite its Socratic nature. The prototypical "best" one in my culture is Christianity... the pattern was never better illustrated. As an adherent, is THAT characteristic of Christianity mission critical to future designs?
As an illustration, consider a war machine such as the 1983 Movie, "Wargames," with Matthew Broderick. For our discussion I will name it as I did the world's most complicated chemical in my discussion with my nephew. To point out that complicated names like "carbon-tetra-chloride," do not necessarily make complicated chemicals, we named it "Jim."
"Jim," is a war machine that is without flaw or self-destruct, as a vehicle for discussing what (in Political Theory,) is called "positive law." Historically an individual named "Cyrus," was educated by a General named Xenophon to direct just such a war machine. "Cyrus," had the best of Alexander the Great and Cyrus the Great, with flaws chosen so as to maintain the appearance of believability.
What happens when the benevolent tyrant Cyrus dies, leaving behind heirs who, (whether through inept training or defective moral fiber,) fail to be ethical within their own system, and turn it to abuse and destruction?
If it CAN destroy, MUST it be crippled with a self-destruct?
In nature, "permanent solutions to temporary problems," exist, but are pejoratively reviewed. I CAN send the smallpox virus up on a rocket bound for Jupiter. This leaves me powerless to research anti-bodies in future. I CAN successfully commit suicide (see footnote.) As a solution to most problems, even philosophy reviews suicide badly. I cite Christ, Darwin and Moses. Many notable Philosophers have done so... I believe they have also said, "Do as I say, not as I do."
To balance the viewpoint that permanent solutions are bad, please consider that a Pareto perfect solution makes the related problem obsolete... it doesn't happen anymore in nature, and so the solution is permanent.
We often pass laws on this basis: It was bad and it happened to ME, so I _want_ to say authoritatively, "It will NEVER happen to anyone else." This is another context of the permanent solution.
Our worst weapons are equipped with self-destruct mechanisms so that we may initiate the process on a schedule, but retain the ability to abort execution until the last minute. An example of this principle in business is as follows. I have a mission critical recording compilation I need to have in Nashville for Tuesday. I put it in the US Post or other priority delivery, and then use all other efforts to pass it on the way, by electronic transmission. At this point, even if I die, my recording makes it to Nashville. In Nashville, I don't HAVE to do anything with it. This is good redundancy. (In business inefficiencies due to redundancy are so common that CEOs do not know its virtues until you cite the triple redundancy of Space Shuttle safety features.)
An example of a weapon that cannot be crippled in this way is the old Submarine torpedo. The radio signals that cannot connect them to military commanders for disarming OR deceit, has the same effect on torpedo communications. While a commander might "put a fish in the water," he cannot "call it off," once "the dogs are running," (a hunting term.) His last consideration is one of determining conclusively that he doesn't intercept his own fish.
For this reason, ethical requirements on Submarine Captains are restrictive like Root authority on a Unix box. Their equals on earth (to my mind) are municipal Police detectives, and well qualified High School Algebra instructors. When politics lose purchase, you may as well, "hang up your spurs." God's will be done ;-)
I am interested to have a conversation on the topic with anyone inclined to discuss it. I don't have a book with the answers in the back, and I haven't worked this one out yet.
I rationalize that the following footnote makes the decision one of CHOICE!
The question may have validity despite its Socratic nature. The prototypical "best" one in my culture is Christianity... the pattern was never better illustrated. As an adherent, is THAT characteristic of Christianity mission critical to future designs?
As an illustration, consider a war machine such as the 1983 Movie, "Wargames," with Matthew Broderick. For our discussion I will name it as I did the world's most complicated chemical in my discussion with my nephew. To point out that complicated names like "carbon-tetra-chloride," do not necessarily make complicated chemicals, we named it "Jim."
"Jim," is a war machine that is without flaw or self-destruct, as a vehicle for discussing what (in Political Theory,) is called "positive law." Historically an individual named "Cyrus," was educated by a General named Xenophon to direct just such a war machine. "Cyrus," had the best of Alexander the Great and Cyrus the Great, with flaws chosen so as to maintain the appearance of believability.
What happens when the benevolent tyrant Cyrus dies, leaving behind heirs who, (whether through inept training or defective moral fiber,) fail to be ethical within their own system, and turn it to abuse and destruction?
If it CAN destroy, MUST it be crippled with a self-destruct?
In nature, "permanent solutions to temporary problems," exist, but are pejoratively reviewed. I CAN send the smallpox virus up on a rocket bound for Jupiter. This leaves me powerless to research anti-bodies in future. I CAN successfully commit suicide (see footnote.) As a solution to most problems, even philosophy reviews suicide badly. I cite Christ, Darwin and Moses. Many notable Philosophers have done so... I believe they have also said, "Do as I say, not as I do."
To balance the viewpoint that permanent solutions are bad, please consider that a Pareto perfect solution makes the related problem obsolete... it doesn't happen anymore in nature, and so the solution is permanent.
We often pass laws on this basis: It was bad and it happened to ME, so I _want_ to say authoritatively, "It will NEVER happen to anyone else." This is another context of the permanent solution.
Our worst weapons are equipped with self-destruct mechanisms so that we may initiate the process on a schedule, but retain the ability to abort execution until the last minute. An example of this principle in business is as follows. I have a mission critical recording compilation I need to have in Nashville for Tuesday. I put it in the US Post or other priority delivery, and then use all other efforts to pass it on the way, by electronic transmission. At this point, even if I die, my recording makes it to Nashville. In Nashville, I don't HAVE to do anything with it. This is good redundancy. (In business inefficiencies due to redundancy are so common that CEOs do not know its virtues until you cite the triple redundancy of Space Shuttle safety features.)
An example of a weapon that cannot be crippled in this way is the old Submarine torpedo. The radio signals that cannot connect them to military commanders for disarming OR deceit, has the same effect on torpedo communications. While a commander might "put a fish in the water," he cannot "call it off," once "the dogs are running," (a hunting term.) His last consideration is one of determining conclusively that he doesn't intercept his own fish.
For this reason, ethical requirements on Submarine Captains are restrictive like Root authority on a Unix box. Their equals on earth (to my mind) are municipal Police detectives, and well qualified High School Algebra instructors. When politics lose purchase, you may as well, "hang up your spurs." God's will be done ;-)
I am interested to have a conversation on the topic with anyone inclined to discuss it. I don't have a book with the answers in the back, and I haven't worked this one out yet.
I rationalize that the following footnote makes the decision one of CHOICE!
Footnote: To reliably commit suicide, use a .22 caliber sidearm. The projectile penetrates the skull, but CANNOT exit. Any remaining energy is dissipated by ricocheting around inside the skull. The resulting "Stroke," (brain hemorrhage) is SO catastrophic that failure (in the form of Vegetable survival) doesn't happen. Vegetables happen from ambitious persons compensating for small boobs or penises by over-reaching and using a caliber that exits, taking part of the brain, (an organ that is so redundant that the correct 10% will reliably carry the entire workload,) with it.Now please explain to me why we need a special law to authorize doctors to end patients chosen only by the most tortured bureaucratic process, in order to satisfy ethics that do not reference moral law as definitive. I separate Morals and Ethics in a separate article.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tradition apart from the Fiddler on the Roof;
An Italian businessman emigrated from Italy, and arrived at Ellis Island with nothing to his name but a ruck sack with 300,000 dollars in it, in 100 dollar bills.
He cleared customs, and entered the country full of hope and ambition. In the New World, he met a French woman, and their passion knew no limits.
He went into construction, and she went into interior decorating. Before 3 yrs had passed, they had two children, and these grew up to be a Party Planner, and a Lawn Care concern operator.
In their sunset years, the parents bequeathed their business interests to their children, and the family business began to make conquest of the Brownstones.
One day, the Party Planner and her brother were sitting beside the pool, conversing about family values, when she branched off into a discussion of liberal freedom and tradition.
"...for example," she concluded, "Mom ALWAYS made the drapes match the carpet in color, tone and texture. Just once, why can't we make the carpet match the drapes?"
He cleared customs, and entered the country full of hope and ambition. In the New World, he met a French woman, and their passion knew no limits.
He went into construction, and she went into interior decorating. Before 3 yrs had passed, they had two children, and these grew up to be a Party Planner, and a Lawn Care concern operator.
In their sunset years, the parents bequeathed their business interests to their children, and the family business began to make conquest of the Brownstones.
One day, the Party Planner and her brother were sitting beside the pool, conversing about family values, when she branched off into a discussion of liberal freedom and tradition.
"...for example," she concluded, "Mom ALWAYS made the drapes match the carpet in color, tone and texture. Just once, why can't we make the carpet match the drapes?"
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A fable for our times;
Torpitude is a word that merely means "a sleeping state." It makes for an amusing homophone on the "turpitude," of the legally cited "moral turpitude."
A curious turpitude we can observe is hard to state without a "compare and contrast" operation almost biblical in its application.
Policemen, good or bad, are generally competent to do their job. The blue wall does not prevent retribution for bad acting, and behind bars they are regarded as "those who knew better," as well as hypocrites of the first water.
Drug Dealers and Gang Bangers also display a kind of Darwinian competence. The old saw about "honor among thieves," cites the reluctance of those otherwise unmitigated by law, to "start something," without the available political permission stated "he had good cause."
By contrast, Politicians are uninhibited in doing harm in ways that evade our willing contemplation. We commonly speak evil of Politicians and Lawyers, like Cretans of Bible fame. [It's not a paradox, but I'll leave the syntax lesson for another day.] I am not alluding to a mere low opinion, or disrespect. I mean that by contemplating the following illustration, you may find yourself so bereft of hope for their redemption that you turn to things like cereal boxes for inspiration.
For this illustration, coin a genetically engineered virus worse than HIV/AIDS, that has an anti-dote similar in conception to the code-breaking box in the movie "Sneakers." Put this in the hands of CIA conspirators, and we imagine World Leaders being infected; put it in the hands of Policemen and we imagine the Mafia being tortured; put it the hands of those same Mafia, and we really expect them to self regulate with shocking violence that only they would employ.
Let's now compare our real opinion of Genus Politician. Write your own joke. Put it in the hands of a Politician and what do you REALLY expect?
Despair is a luxury we cannot afford. Apathy and Negligence are Epidemic.
Infect TRUTH!
A curious turpitude we can observe is hard to state without a "compare and contrast" operation almost biblical in its application.
Policemen, good or bad, are generally competent to do their job. The blue wall does not prevent retribution for bad acting, and behind bars they are regarded as "those who knew better," as well as hypocrites of the first water.
Drug Dealers and Gang Bangers also display a kind of Darwinian competence. The old saw about "honor among thieves," cites the reluctance of those otherwise unmitigated by law, to "start something," without the available political permission stated "he had good cause."
By contrast, Politicians are uninhibited in doing harm in ways that evade our willing contemplation. We commonly speak evil of Politicians and Lawyers, like Cretans of Bible fame. [It's not a paradox, but I'll leave the syntax lesson for another day.] I am not alluding to a mere low opinion, or disrespect. I mean that by contemplating the following illustration, you may find yourself so bereft of hope for their redemption that you turn to things like cereal boxes for inspiration.
For this illustration, coin a genetically engineered virus worse than HIV/AIDS, that has an anti-dote similar in conception to the code-breaking box in the movie "Sneakers." Put this in the hands of CIA conspirators, and we imagine World Leaders being infected; put it in the hands of Policemen and we imagine the Mafia being tortured; put it the hands of those same Mafia, and we really expect them to self regulate with shocking violence that only they would employ.
Let's now compare our real opinion of Genus Politician. Write your own joke. Put it in the hands of a Politician and what do you REALLY expect?
Despair is a luxury we cannot afford. Apathy and Negligence are Epidemic.
Infect TRUTH!
Survey Courses 101;
Politics is a game of Charades. One important thing to establish is how many WORDS there are IN the charade.
Once this is established, each word must be guessed, over time, by political cooperation between Press and Politicians, AND the participation of the politically active voting audience.
As words are guessed, they are committed to living memory. At the end of each charade, a new charade MUST be introduced QUICKLY, or the audience will lose interest, and leave the country.
The Chinese have introduced the idea of comprehension and understanding to the generational game. By this mechanism, a new cliche was entered into the English cannon of vernacular: What is the meaning of this Charade?
I think the meaning of Nixon's charade was "cynic," although there is an argument yet to be made that he was employing child psychology to teach good logic and mental hygiene.
In my life, the most meaningful charade has been despair.
"Disappointed hope vies with despair for malady of the soul." - Robert.I don't know the Chinese symbol for "despair," but the pictured Tee has "prosperity," set off in contrast to "adversity." I call it "Balance 101."
Selah.
A 5t Bit of Fry and Laurie;
Now that we've gotten rid of all the political prudes, and the only people who are listening are the closed minded and the prejudiced, I'll share that I write encryption.
I don't "invent the algorithms." The last good one was by Bruce Schneier (both his blog and comments thereto are instructive,) and he doesn't have academic credentials, so I have some hope he'll contact me in re suggestions I have offered.
I DO implement the applications. I'd like us all to understand that, "while the NSA may KNOW MY THOUGHTS..." if they don't keep good notes, they won't be able to keep up. I'm that self-deceived and proud.
The apps work better than most people think, almost as well as the people who don't believe in telepathy claim :-)
RSA is like Charlie's open lock. The Diffie-Hellman key exchange is like the treasure chest in the play.
These applications, although mathematically sound, are not especially better than the Master Locks we all know and love. Please keep that in mind, and don't abuse them.
It ruins credibility of the few ethical encryption experts, when fools and charlatans proclaim their incompetence to all and sundry, proudly claiming perfection in their usage, and faulting otherwise helpless computers.
Know the limits and the requirements to use them properly, and don't be embarrassed to USE THEM. G'ma's discussions of quilting and fabric sales make a great waste of time for those (impolite and arrogant,) who do not respect the privacy of legitimate government operatives.
I don't "invent the algorithms." The last good one was by Bruce Schneier (both his blog and comments thereto are instructive,) and he doesn't have academic credentials, so I have some hope he'll contact me in re suggestions I have offered.
I DO implement the applications. I'd like us all to understand that, "while the NSA may KNOW MY THOUGHTS..." if they don't keep good notes, they won't be able to keep up. I'm that self-deceived and proud.
Failure teaches individuals that "no one person can do it all..." - Not even President Obama.I, on the other hand, have been deceived by success.
The apps work better than most people think, almost as well as the people who don't believe in telepathy claim :-)
RSA is like Charlie's open lock. The Diffie-Hellman key exchange is like the treasure chest in the play.
These applications, although mathematically sound, are not especially better than the Master Locks we all know and love. Please keep that in mind, and don't abuse them.
It ruins credibility of the few ethical encryption experts, when fools and charlatans proclaim their incompetence to all and sundry, proudly claiming perfection in their usage, and faulting otherwise helpless computers.
Know the limits and the requirements to use them properly, and don't be embarrassed to USE THEM. G'ma's discussions of quilting and fabric sales make a great waste of time for those (impolite and arrogant,) who do not respect the privacy of legitimate government operatives.
I am not able to document an old problem;
To proclaim that a problem is old, is usually to admit it is (in the mathematical sense,) "well investigated," and intractable. Old problems do not admit to easy solutions, and new solutions are suspect equally with cliches. A good rule of thumb is that
What is this new cliche that I cannot document? ...and am I proud of my new found ignorance?
Alexander G. Bell who won out (in the Darwinian sense,) for credit for invention of the telephone [he did not know the Vigenere Square Encryption system - good for short (aka handwritten) messages since the 1500's (Academically the 16th Century arrived early, as usual.)] Since he didn't KNOW anything, his invention could not be stolen, and like all good parasites, he... but I digress.
Alexander Graham Bell CANNOT be authoritatively DOCUMENTED to have competed in history for profound utterances with the wording of the first telegraph by saying, "Come here Watson, I WANT you." Thanks Alex... Cu l8r.
"All cliches are true." - Sam Waterston.Despite this, to be cliche is also to be trite. Pithy cliches are especially trite.
What is this new cliche that I cannot document? ...and am I proud of my new found ignorance?
Alexander G. Bell who won out (in the Darwinian sense,) for credit for invention of the telephone [he did not know the Vigenere Square Encryption system - good for short (aka handwritten) messages since the 1500's (Academically the 16th Century arrived early, as usual.)] Since he didn't KNOW anything, his invention could not be stolen, and like all good parasites, he... but I digress.
Alexander Graham Bell CANNOT be authoritatively DOCUMENTED to have competed in history for profound utterances with the wording of the first telegraph by saying, "Come here Watson, I WANT you." Thanks Alex... Cu l8r.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A good use for a DVR: 04/06/09
I watched the ABC network morning show, "Good Morning America, with Diane Sawyer," this Monday AM. It advertises a Friday (04/10/09) "20/20" magazine issue, about Firearm Ownership.
In keeping with the idea of addressing _issues_ (instead of making the substance of discourse, "personal attacks,") I'll note that it's "in the can," and serve notice that I intend to record it and document a reaction. From the "teaser," I think the content will be favorable to some other political view than my own. I'll probably still like the "Give Me A Break," section by Stossel.
I won't attempt to be authoritative on a subject in which I took no early interest. I never owned a gun early in life, and as such, I have not learned the thought processes and rules/laws governing the application of lethal force. I call it "the philosophy of carry," and I don't know it.
I know that people who use firearms, whether a side-arm or a long-rifle, tend to refer to it in technical language that anti-gun-ists would call euphemistic:
In keeping with the idea of addressing _issues_ (instead of making the substance of discourse, "personal attacks,") I'll note that it's "in the can," and serve notice that I intend to record it and document a reaction. From the "teaser," I think the content will be favorable to some other political view than my own. I'll probably still like the "Give Me A Break," section by Stossel.
I won't attempt to be authoritative on a subject in which I took no early interest. I never owned a gun early in life, and as such, I have not learned the thought processes and rules/laws governing the application of lethal force. I call it "the philosophy of carry," and I don't know it.
I know that people who use firearms, whether a side-arm or a long-rifle, tend to refer to it in technical language that anti-gun-ists would call euphemistic:
- Weapon
- Firearm
- Sidearm
- Rifle
- Carbine
- Semi-automatic
- Revolver
Sunday, April 5, 2009
A skeleton in the Chinese Closet;
Skeletons are outlines for a fleshed-out blueprint of positive mobility of purpose. The oldest political comment I know about Red China's leadership is:
To put it in an American context, one might envision a situation in which Congressional Representatives used such tactics as "Bait," "Retaliate" and "Escalate," against citizens to the strategic end that the temper lauded by the Dylan Thomas poem, got out of control of its instigator. Properly tended, the fires of ire can be made to wax into a conflagration that results in _impotent_ rage, and attending self-destruction, merely by the passive nature of the suggested aggression.
By itself, there is no reason that the capitalist system should not govern and regulate such a contest. The principle of competition ought to be adequate to the task. Upon closer examination, we must syllogistically conclude that the electorate may not engage in such strategic endeavors equally; Congressional Representatives are not only perceived as premier in importance, but also have a real involvement in the business of the Nation. This is legitimately associated with National Security concerns. Corrupted, this becomes a sort of "brier patch," into which a low-motive bad-actor can continually retreat to regroup.
I expect this will finish China as it did Russia - the cost of such endeavors inevitably results in prohibitive expense. Their only source of salvation would be the Japanese maxim of assassination:
They declared war on their own people.China is revered for its long tradition of literacy, including the oldest Military Treatise, and their refusal to overlook the politically poisonous discipline of Torture. One CANNOT afford to overlook the Chinese acquaintance with head games and psychological warfare.
To put it in an American context, one might envision a situation in which Congressional Representatives used such tactics as "Bait," "Retaliate" and "Escalate," against citizens to the strategic end that the temper lauded by the Dylan Thomas poem, got out of control of its instigator. Properly tended, the fires of ire can be made to wax into a conflagration that results in _impotent_ rage, and attending self-destruction, merely by the passive nature of the suggested aggression.
By itself, there is no reason that the capitalist system should not govern and regulate such a contest. The principle of competition ought to be adequate to the task. Upon closer examination, we must syllogistically conclude that the electorate may not engage in such strategic endeavors equally; Congressional Representatives are not only perceived as premier in importance, but also have a real involvement in the business of the Nation. This is legitimately associated with National Security concerns. Corrupted, this becomes a sort of "brier patch," into which a low-motive bad-actor can continually retreat to regroup.
I expect this will finish China as it did Russia - the cost of such endeavors inevitably results in prohibitive expense. Their only source of salvation would be the Japanese maxim of assassination:
Fix the problem, not the blame.
Bar Joke 04-05-09
A guy walks into a bar, and orders a "Ben Franklin."
The bartender smiles knowingly, and verifies, "...two fingers south of the rim?"
"Exactly!" is the man's answer.
"Will Captain Morgan be OK?" the server inquires.
"...fact is, I feel the NEED to have a little Captain Morgan in me." the man assures him.
The barkeep returns with a mid-size tumbler, with an inch and a half of liquor, (not frozen, but cool,) sitting neat in the bottom of the glass. The patron is dismayed. "Is that ALL I _GET_?" he asks.
The prepared bartender doesn't bat an eye. "You must not know Ben Franklin," he intones, knowingly. "He was a NOTABLE pessimist!"
The bartender smiles knowingly, and verifies, "...two fingers south of the rim?"
"Exactly!" is the man's answer.
"Will Captain Morgan be OK?" the server inquires.
"...fact is, I feel the NEED to have a little Captain Morgan in me." the man assures him.
The barkeep returns with a mid-size tumbler, with an inch and a half of liquor, (not frozen, but cool,) sitting neat in the bottom of the glass. The patron is dismayed. "Is that ALL I _GET_?" he asks.
The prepared bartender doesn't bat an eye. "You must not know Ben Franklin," he intones, knowingly. "He was a NOTABLE pessimist!"
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bar Joke 04-04-09
A guy walks into a bar, and orders a "Tetanus Shot." The Barkeep does a double-take and asks him, "What do you want a Tetanus shot for?"
The man explains that, at the LAST bar, someone had slipped him a whole bunch of Drambuie in his Scotch, making it a "Rusty Nail."
The barkeep smiles, and accommodates the gentleman. He pours a shot of 12 year old Glenffidich in a shot glass, serving it without complaint. Before the patron can even lift the shot-glass to his lips for his first sip, the barkeep rings him up, and prints his tab to settle accounts for the evening. The patron is upset and asks, "What for you 86in' me? I didn't do ANYTHING!"
The barkeep is unflappable. "Just ask the bartender back at the other bar," he replies. "One Tetanus Shot should last you for TWO YEARS!"
The man explains that, at the LAST bar, someone had slipped him a whole bunch of Drambuie in his Scotch, making it a "Rusty Nail."
The barkeep smiles, and accommodates the gentleman. He pours a shot of 12 year old Glenffidich in a shot glass, serving it without complaint. Before the patron can even lift the shot-glass to his lips for his first sip, the barkeep rings him up, and prints his tab to settle accounts for the evening. The patron is upset and asks, "What for you 86in' me? I didn't do ANYTHING!"
The barkeep is unflappable. "Just ask the bartender back at the other bar," he replies. "One Tetanus Shot should last you for TWO YEARS!"
What's going on around here? (I have discovered an editorial process.)
There are 300,000,000 Americans. While not all of these vote, or are even "OF AGE," no living breathing POTUS can accept input from them all. Any selective process on it must be stated in the old but necessary way: "Access must be controlled." Please read on for suggested penalty to those who abuse the privilege.
If POTUS' election is a political accomplishment requiring any assistance at all, the person or persons who assisted the accomplishment are due some consideration for their loyalty and the political confinement that choosing THAT Candidate over others caused them to risk. Politically the compensation is improved access. All others pay through the nose, in either political capital, or money to finance the next campaign.
EVERY Election in which there are more nominees than candidates has ruined political careers as casualties of war. This causes humans to be bitter, and bitter humans of THAT political aptitude cause patriotic consideration of the part of a sentient Nation interested in self-preservation.
For this purpose, politicians, like spies and hunting dogs have "Handlers." A simple, very destructive paradigm for a "Handler," is outlined here:
I have humorously written that Apathy and Negligence guarantee Deniability.
In fact, Deniability is an abusable concept that is nonetheless necessary - I subscribe to Latin maxim "Abusus non tollit usum" not Square Distribution Justice.
As an example, during time of war, if a dissident can tie the POTUS up in legalities, the dissident can EITHER emasculate the nation, OR blackmail its progress to advance his agenda. For this purpose, strategists in various positions are held harmless by plausible explanations that their actions were benign to accusation.
To be able to deny completely, a secret must be kept, and secrets propagate proportional to the square of the number of their membership. For another perspective, contemplate the old saw "Knowledge is Power," in the legitimate context of Technocracy. Old Lions will adopt the "technocracy," of their discipline (whatever that may be,) for self preservation. Nowhere is this more prevalent than Bureaucracy.
Presumably, I will eventually be an old Lion myself. As my values become corrupted to the values of the system, my influence will wax, as my morals wane, until the casualty is ethics. I suppose that the quantum point in time when ethics die, is when I should be put out to Political pasture... destroyed in the Hollywood language of Washington. A good signal to look for is a numeric count of passive voice statements, put through the discriminating seive of responsibility (patriotic or no. The corruption I leave behind cannot justify my own continued participation; a new ethical Paragon must then be sought.)
Having established by logic that access must be controlled both for expedience and politics, we must conclude that ethical Politicians will appear completely incompetent at the START of ALL INVESTIGATIONS. Their question will be, "What's going on around here?" and they will not know; in fact, they will have difficulty getting straight answers... the loyal handlers of opponents will collude with their own loyal handlers to keep them deniable as long as possible.
When things are brought to light in the papers, there are usually things that are not relevant, or are private just as there would be in a commonplace murder investigation. If the published news was ONLY the mechanism by which Politicians agree to keep their stories straight, you would not be able to learn through history; I have, and truth in advertising laws apply to journalists despite the fact that their degree will ALWAYS be in journalism, not the subject about which they are attempting to report.
Reviewing; Deniablity is necessary. Access must reasonably be controlled. "What happened?" is the sound of a caught Politico... its only a matter of time after that. "What's going on around here?" is a question to which only Thespians and other good-guys want answers.
On a personal note: If you've read this far, "the damage is done." I am prepared to state that I perceive an editorial process at work. This blog is a copy of stuff I had, saved to my HDD, from which I duplicated what I had put up at Slashdot. It did not adequately exhaust Slashdot content back then, and I supposed that I did not "Save" reliably enough back to HDD-land. Now I have stuff on HDD that isn't reflected here... I THINK including one that enumerated WHY politicians cannot be 100% forthcoming at all times. Highlighting my admittedly bad spelling, by corrupting online content to discredit my intellect is a good next step to take. I am FIXING ONE I HAVE FOUND!
I am also disturbed by inconsistencies in Directory comparisons ON the HDD. I have made a Political Project of reporting these to the Dallas Branch Office of _the_ (definite article means you don't affiliate like a serf,) FBI. If they do not reply, they will be Patriotically guilty of the flaw of Benedict Arnold. It is unavoidable... they have to come down here to even suggest I lied - which I did NOT! It _WILL_ appear to be a Bureaucratic oversight. It may be that, and not a flaw bureaucratically overseen. Bring me my Subpoena for "inciting to riot," and "sedition." People... I'm THAT MAD!
If POTUS' election is a political accomplishment requiring any assistance at all, the person or persons who assisted the accomplishment are due some consideration for their loyalty and the political confinement that choosing THAT Candidate over others caused them to risk. Politically the compensation is improved access. All others pay through the nose, in either political capital, or money to finance the next campaign.
EVERY Election in which there are more nominees than candidates has ruined political careers as casualties of war. This causes humans to be bitter, and bitter humans of THAT political aptitude cause patriotic consideration of the part of a sentient Nation interested in self-preservation.
For this purpose, politicians, like spies and hunting dogs have "Handlers." A simple, very destructive paradigm for a "Handler," is outlined here:
Ignore/Isolate - the subjectThe sixth and final step was not one I was prepared to understand at any time before the present (see time date stamp if needed.)
Reward - when he craves/seeks attention from you
Secret - have an inside joke for a secret; books by Salman Rushdie are a good way to see if a person is liberal or conservative Muslim, as a crib to execution of the practice.
Test - loyalty
Escalate - take it to the next level
Punish/Destroy - at will after usefulness is ended
I have humorously written that Apathy and Negligence guarantee Deniability.
In fact, Deniability is an abusable concept that is nonetheless necessary - I subscribe to Latin maxim "Abusus non tollit usum" not Square Distribution Justice.
As an example, during time of war, if a dissident can tie the POTUS up in legalities, the dissident can EITHER emasculate the nation, OR blackmail its progress to advance his agenda. For this purpose, strategists in various positions are held harmless by plausible explanations that their actions were benign to accusation.
To be able to deny completely, a secret must be kept, and secrets propagate proportional to the square of the number of their membership. For another perspective, contemplate the old saw "Knowledge is Power," in the legitimate context of Technocracy. Old Lions will adopt the "technocracy," of their discipline (whatever that may be,) for self preservation. Nowhere is this more prevalent than Bureaucracy.
Presumably, I will eventually be an old Lion myself. As my values become corrupted to the values of the system, my influence will wax, as my morals wane, until the casualty is ethics. I suppose that the quantum point in time when ethics die, is when I should be put out to Political pasture... destroyed in the Hollywood language of Washington. A good signal to look for is a numeric count of passive voice statements, put through the discriminating seive of responsibility (patriotic or no. The corruption I leave behind cannot justify my own continued participation; a new ethical Paragon must then be sought.)
Polities will raise up pedagogues to sove their problems for them - a Teacher.The persons whose job it is to protect, and advance the agenda of the Politician, (usually Politicos of one estate or another, some will be Machiavels) will reliably keep their candidate innocent of connivance, conspiracy and wrongdoing, by limiting their knowledge - a human Politician can only read so many Britannica's in one lifetime; the statement, "I've forgotten more than you know," is a reality for competent Elder Statesmen. To set your Politician busy-work in his reading should still be regarded as disloyalty, and penalized with political assassination, in my book.
Having established by logic that access must be controlled both for expedience and politics, we must conclude that ethical Politicians will appear completely incompetent at the START of ALL INVESTIGATIONS. Their question will be, "What's going on around here?" and they will not know; in fact, they will have difficulty getting straight answers... the loyal handlers of opponents will collude with their own loyal handlers to keep them deniable as long as possible.
Parenthetically, you might think patriotism an adequate guideline - it is not. The system compensates for the lack of Socratic definition of Patriotism by simply allowing all politicians and politicos to regulate each other by a perennial controlled political mayhem of a political crash-up derby.Returning to our discussion of the sounds you may expect from a healthy investigation, the bad-actors will follow hard-on with exclamations of "What happened?" Politically, they will pass around lit dynamite sticks of evidence in the hot-potato tradition, and the one holding the bag when it goes off gets to face the Bill Cosby public, when he asked his wife: "You had it last... what happened?" ["Himself" album, in re. the gender of their offspring.]
When things are brought to light in the papers, there are usually things that are not relevant, or are private just as there would be in a commonplace murder investigation. If the published news was ONLY the mechanism by which Politicians agree to keep their stories straight, you would not be able to learn through history; I have, and truth in advertising laws apply to journalists despite the fact that their degree will ALWAYS be in journalism, not the subject about which they are attempting to report.
Reviewing; Deniablity is necessary. Access must reasonably be controlled. "What happened?" is the sound of a caught Politico... its only a matter of time after that. "What's going on around here?" is a question to which only Thespians and other good-guys want answers.
On a personal note: If you've read this far, "the damage is done." I am prepared to state that I perceive an editorial process at work. This blog is a copy of stuff I had, saved to my HDD, from which I duplicated what I had put up at Slashdot. It did not adequately exhaust Slashdot content back then, and I supposed that I did not "Save" reliably enough back to HDD-land. Now I have stuff on HDD that isn't reflected here... I THINK including one that enumerated WHY politicians cannot be 100% forthcoming at all times. Highlighting my admittedly bad spelling, by corrupting online content to discredit my intellect is a good next step to take. I am FIXING ONE I HAVE FOUND!
I am also disturbed by inconsistencies in Directory comparisons ON the HDD. I have made a Political Project of reporting these to the Dallas Branch Office of _the_ (definite article means you don't affiliate like a serf,) FBI. If they do not reply, they will be Patriotically guilty of the flaw of Benedict Arnold. It is unavoidable... they have to come down here to even suggest I lied - which I did NOT! It _WILL_ appear to be a Bureaucratic oversight. It may be that, and not a flaw bureaucratically overseen. Bring me my Subpoena for "inciting to riot," and "sedition." People... I'm THAT MAD!
Friday, April 3, 2009
A mile in Harpie Sharpie's shoes;
From Harpie Sharpie's point of view, I am the "House," in the Biggest Casino in the solar system. All he has to do to make a profit is hit the long shot. He makes his own evaluation of my system. Curiously enough, he freely attributes the Bearer Bond to be his own, and merely needs to assess the cost benefit of liquidating it at the Bank of Five Finger Discount.
1. The cost of a Wolf 7000 is $1200 new, but you can rent one at a heavy equipment store for $75.00 an hour. There is a bulk discount rate on hours if you rent for more than 8 hrs, but the total capital investment is higher; there is a 24 hr minimum.
2. The security guard is a dead loss. He's too poor to afford alcohol, too portly to interest women, and all he ever wants to talk about are the latest developments in the game of Tetris. He knows Harpie Sharpie on sight, so it's actually quite inconvenient.
3. A bulldozer to access the "physical plant," is a possibility, but to have it delivered, he would have to feign construction, and overhead would quickly become prohibitive.
4. Explosives have been a traditional shortcut to open a vault, but the only thing that gives explosives force is _containment_. To use the vault against itself you had to drill a hole in it, and this was just as easily used against the tumblers.
5. A cutting torch was a possibility; again the heavy equipment rental was open, with an acetylene tank etc, but he suspected that the perishable nature of the Bond in question would be more delicate even than diamonds.
6. A long (holiday) weekend would give him time to work his magic with the sandpaper, but this was not as reliable as his admirers made it sound, and the payoff was not an hourly rate for the time employed to withdraw his deposit. $100,000/72 hrs was an IMPRESSIVE hourly rate, but he knew from experience that you can only hit at BEST one K&S AR15 a quarter; the investigative heat lingered so. $400,000 a year WAS a tidy sum, but the prison sentence involved was prohibitive; no career advancement the whole duration, boredom and a stir-craziness that drove men mad were but the lesser KNOWN problems of the Prison Criminal Education System. Being socialized differently, and re-oriented sexually were also possibilities. Then there were the problems of explaining himself to McGehee, the tax man. Even if he was successful, found plenty of soft-targets AND eluded McGehee for two years, the $800,000 would NOT finance 2 years of Vegas Hotels, gambling and fee based female companionship.
Bus Drivers DEFINITELY had it better... if it wasn't for Rembrandt, he'd give up crime voluntarily!
1. The cost of a Wolf 7000 is $1200 new, but you can rent one at a heavy equipment store for $75.00 an hour. There is a bulk discount rate on hours if you rent for more than 8 hrs, but the total capital investment is higher; there is a 24 hr minimum.
2. The security guard is a dead loss. He's too poor to afford alcohol, too portly to interest women, and all he ever wants to talk about are the latest developments in the game of Tetris. He knows Harpie Sharpie on sight, so it's actually quite inconvenient.
3. A bulldozer to access the "physical plant," is a possibility, but to have it delivered, he would have to feign construction, and overhead would quickly become prohibitive.
4. Explosives have been a traditional shortcut to open a vault, but the only thing that gives explosives force is _containment_. To use the vault against itself you had to drill a hole in it, and this was just as easily used against the tumblers.
5. A cutting torch was a possibility; again the heavy equipment rental was open, with an acetylene tank etc, but he suspected that the perishable nature of the Bond in question would be more delicate even than diamonds.
6. A long (holiday) weekend would give him time to work his magic with the sandpaper, but this was not as reliable as his admirers made it sound, and the payoff was not an hourly rate for the time employed to withdraw his deposit. $100,000/72 hrs was an IMPRESSIVE hourly rate, but he knew from experience that you can only hit at BEST one K&S AR15 a quarter; the investigative heat lingered so. $400,000 a year WAS a tidy sum, but the prison sentence involved was prohibitive; no career advancement the whole duration, boredom and a stir-craziness that drove men mad were but the lesser KNOWN problems of the Prison Criminal Education System. Being socialized differently, and re-oriented sexually were also possibilities. Then there were the problems of explaining himself to McGehee, the tax man. Even if he was successful, found plenty of soft-targets AND eluded McGehee for two years, the $800,000 would NOT finance 2 years of Vegas Hotels, gambling and fee based female companionship.
Bus Drivers DEFINITELY had it better... if it wasn't for Rembrandt, he'd give up crime voluntarily!
An interesting application of Optimization;
My Math teacher tells me that there can be _no_ uninteresting numbers. If there _were_ a set of all x's such that each and every x is an element of the set of uninteresting numbers, there would be a smallest uninteresting number, and that would be interesting! I tried to theorize that there might be exactly one, but this theory quickly fell to the observation that, if this were the circumstance, it would be Unique, and interesting for THAT reason :-)
I can understand that individual numbers are not intrinsically fascinating, so I use the word "interesting," to characterize my application of recently discussed Optimization, in context of relativism.
A vault is useful for retaining valuables, but costly. My application of optimization attempts to answer the question: Is a $7,548 Safe a good investment to secure my $100,000 Bearer Bond?
I will fictitiously attribute the Brand to be "Kalashnikov and Sikorsky."
Bearer Bonds have been tested against oxidation, and they are perishable at temperatures in excess of 317 degrees F.
K&S model AR15 keeps the internal temperature below 300 degrees F for 72 minutes in a 1200 degree F fire, before succumbing.
Against a drill bit, K&S-AR15 takes 6 hrs and 37 minutes for the Wolf 7000, the best drill in the world to date.
The combination is 3 numbers, 0 to 80. While all combinations MUST take the form that the second number is HIGHER than the first, with the third lower than them both, there is STILL a satisfyingly high number of them. I evaluate that a lifetime has approx 2.5 B_illion seconds in it, so even at one a second without a pause for the niceties of toiletry, a human couldn't foil the mechanism by brute mathematical force. In fact, most criminals have a career shorter than 67-21 yrs (46,) and this is only 1.45 B_illion seconds. More to my contentment, there are only 57.6 thousand seconds from the end of an 8 hr shift to the beginning of the next. A drop in the bucket of available combinations for my K&S-AR15.
Since it is not electronic, loss of electric power cannot compromise it, nor can Harpie Sharpie, known safe-cracker devise an electronic key to by-pass the human factor. On balance, I cannot _CHANGE_ the combination easily; the expense involved is more than a $100,000 Bearer Bond is worth. I will have to limit key distribution in some way.
Harpie Sharpie has been known to foil a safe by creative application of sand-paper to his fingers. This requires physical access, and 3 hrs 42 minutes. I salve my fears by reminding myself that he is prone to be stealing diamonds in S. Africa to finance his favorite pastime of attempting to steal Rembrandt's "Night Watch." The concierge at the Johannesburg Hilton tells the Louvre every time he scores, and they move the painting to a new museum every two weeks until Harpie runs out of the ready green, and goes back to diamonds again. Other than that, Harpie is the best, so others will be less likely to succeed. I do not neglect to make it hard to access the restroom from the Vault after hours, and caffeinated beverages are nearby, (for a price,) while Adam's Ale is metered at a water fountain traditionally next to the lavatory.
I have read books on Antique books, and I reckon that my Bearer Bond will be a collectors' item from year 58 to year 300 or so, after which it will be too tattered to matter. My K&S-AR15 vault should be fine for that long at least... it doesn't rain much inside the Library, and the books are humidity controlled as well. I make a note to keep up with Drill bit R&D, in case they improve on the Wolf 7000.
I am now ready to attempt my time-value-retained is as to cost-per-dollar-day gestimation. (I am by no means rigorous as to the units of measure or desirable ratio.)
Cost of a safety deposit box for 300 years = $65 * 300 = $19,500.
Cost of K&S AR15 = $7548, amortized over 30 years::16,734.20 @ $46.47 per month.
Library Insurance against Fire's hotter than 1200 degrees for 72 minutes = $741.37 per annum. Payout = Library replacement cost, plus authentic $100,000 collectors' item Bearer Bond, as purchasable on E-Bay.
Insurance against Bad Employees with Loyd's of London - $71.49 per quarter. Payout = (Current cost of changing tumblers) OR (new comparable Vault,) whichever is less.
I will now compute my personal optimization table.
Factors:
1. Time to Bearer Bond Perishing in Vault - Maximize.
2. Temperature within K&S AR15 - Minimize.
3. Time to drill with Wolf 7000 or other best available drill - Maximize.
4. # of Combinations = don't go overboard.
5. Price to change combination tumblers - Minimize.
6. Time it takes to change tumblers b/c of bad employee - Minimize
7. Obligatory Security Guard to keep Harpie Sharpie on his best behavior? - Minimize (again, don't go overboard.)
I am happy with this list. If I felt the need to make the Combination electronic, I would HAVE to figure cost per time of electric usage. If I centralize monitoring so the security guard doesn't have to walk around, I have to figure cost of alarms (power bill included,) phone bills to central location, and my house, etc.
Although I appear to have be specific enough to be rigorous (specific enough to be humorous for CERTAIN,) we lack other numbers against which we may compare and contrast Vault values. Like an amortization table, the computations to "fiddle," might be arduous, but it illustrates that if you are prepared to be creative, you can find purchase on some pretty hard to quantify problems this way. I hope it is helpful.
I can understand that individual numbers are not intrinsically fascinating, so I use the word "interesting," to characterize my application of recently discussed Optimization, in context of relativism.
A vault is useful for retaining valuables, but costly. My application of optimization attempts to answer the question: Is a $7,548 Safe a good investment to secure my $100,000 Bearer Bond?
I will fictitiously attribute the Brand to be "Kalashnikov and Sikorsky."
Bearer Bonds have been tested against oxidation, and they are perishable at temperatures in excess of 317 degrees F.
K&S model AR15 keeps the internal temperature below 300 degrees F for 72 minutes in a 1200 degree F fire, before succumbing.
Against a drill bit, K&S-AR15 takes 6 hrs and 37 minutes for the Wolf 7000, the best drill in the world to date.
The combination is 3 numbers, 0 to 80. While all combinations MUST take the form that the second number is HIGHER than the first, with the third lower than them both, there is STILL a satisfyingly high number of them. I evaluate that a lifetime has approx 2.5 B_illion seconds in it, so even at one a second without a pause for the niceties of toiletry, a human couldn't foil the mechanism by brute mathematical force. In fact, most criminals have a career shorter than 67-21 yrs (46,) and this is only 1.45 B_illion seconds. More to my contentment, there are only 57.6 thousand seconds from the end of an 8 hr shift to the beginning of the next. A drop in the bucket of available combinations for my K&S-AR15.
Since it is not electronic, loss of electric power cannot compromise it, nor can Harpie Sharpie, known safe-cracker devise an electronic key to by-pass the human factor. On balance, I cannot _CHANGE_ the combination easily; the expense involved is more than a $100,000 Bearer Bond is worth. I will have to limit key distribution in some way.
Harpie Sharpie has been known to foil a safe by creative application of sand-paper to his fingers. This requires physical access, and 3 hrs 42 minutes. I salve my fears by reminding myself that he is prone to be stealing diamonds in S. Africa to finance his favorite pastime of attempting to steal Rembrandt's "Night Watch." The concierge at the Johannesburg Hilton tells the Louvre every time he scores, and they move the painting to a new museum every two weeks until Harpie runs out of the ready green, and goes back to diamonds again. Other than that, Harpie is the best, so others will be less likely to succeed. I do not neglect to make it hard to access the restroom from the Vault after hours, and caffeinated beverages are nearby, (for a price,) while Adam's Ale is metered at a water fountain traditionally next to the lavatory.
I have read books on Antique books, and I reckon that my Bearer Bond will be a collectors' item from year 58 to year 300 or so, after which it will be too tattered to matter. My K&S-AR15 vault should be fine for that long at least... it doesn't rain much inside the Library, and the books are humidity controlled as well. I make a note to keep up with Drill bit R&D, in case they improve on the Wolf 7000.
I am now ready to attempt my time-value-retained is as to cost-per-dollar-day gestimation. (I am by no means rigorous as to the units of measure or desirable ratio.)
Cost of a safety deposit box for 300 years = $65 * 300 = $19,500.
Cost of K&S AR15 = $7548, amortized over 30 years::16,734.20 @ $46.47 per month.
Library Insurance against Fire's hotter than 1200 degrees for 72 minutes = $741.37 per annum. Payout = Library replacement cost, plus authentic $100,000 collectors' item Bearer Bond, as purchasable on E-Bay.
Insurance against Bad Employees with Loyd's of London - $71.49 per quarter. Payout = (Current cost of changing tumblers) OR (new comparable Vault,) whichever is less.
I will now compute my personal optimization table.
Factors:
1. Time to Bearer Bond Perishing in Vault - Maximize.
2. Temperature within K&S AR15 - Minimize.
3. Time to drill with Wolf 7000 or other best available drill - Maximize.
4. # of Combinations = don't go overboard.
5. Price to change combination tumblers - Minimize.
6. Time it takes to change tumblers b/c of bad employee - Minimize
7. Obligatory Security Guard to keep Harpie Sharpie on his best behavior? - Minimize (again, don't go overboard.)
I am happy with this list. If I felt the need to make the Combination electronic, I would HAVE to figure cost per time of electric usage. If I centralize monitoring so the security guard doesn't have to walk around, I have to figure cost of alarms (power bill included,) phone bills to central location, and my house, etc.
Although I appear to have be specific enough to be rigorous (specific enough to be humorous for CERTAIN,) we lack other numbers against which we may compare and contrast Vault values. Like an amortization table, the computations to "fiddle," might be arduous, but it illustrates that if you are prepared to be creative, you can find purchase on some pretty hard to quantify problems this way. I hope it is helpful.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
From the point of view of a Punter - Politics or Football?
Montesquieu was a Historian/Philosopher who wrote extensively, and is himself observable to history. As such he can be blamed less than others for unlearned lessons from the mistakes of the Roman Empire; he documented them exhaustively in a lesser known tome "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline."
Hardly a simple title, and a laborious read to the uninitiate, but instructive to those in history who wish to compare their own mistakes to the mistakes of the definitively Great. A few can learn from the mistakes of others before they derive them independently, but this (like Change,) is hard.
The following excerpt is from Chapter 4. Whatever he intended to write, he enumerated a commentary on campaigns.
Montesquieu was a veritable fount of helpful observations. I'll close with one that rebukes me personally:
Hardly a simple title, and a laborious read to the uninitiate, but instructive to those in history who wish to compare their own mistakes to the mistakes of the definitively Great. A few can learn from the mistakes of others before they derive them independently, but this (like Change,) is hard.
The following excerpt is from Chapter 4. Whatever he intended to write, he enumerated a commentary on campaigns.
Pyrrhus came to make war on the Romans at a time when they were in a position to resist him and to learn from his victories. He taught them to entrench, and to choose and arrange a camp. He accustomed them to elephants and prepared them for greater wars. Pyrrhus' greatness consisted only in his personal qualities.Here we see flesh on the bones of the famous fragment from another work:
1 Plutarch tells us that he was forced to undertake the Macedonian war because he could not support the eight thousand infantry and five hundred cavalry that he had.
2 This prince — ruler of a small state of which nothing was heard after him — was an adventurer who constantly undertook new enterprises because he could exist only while undertaking them. His allies, the Tarentines, had strayed far from the institutions of their ancestors,
3 the Lacedaemonians. He could have done great things with the Samnites, but the Romans had all but destroyed them. Having become rich sooner than Rome, Carthage had also been corrupted sooner. In Rome, public office could be obtained only through virtue, and brought with it no benefit other than honor and being preferred for further toils, while in Carthage everything the public could give to individuals was for sale, and all service rendered by individuals was paid for by the public.
The tyranny of a prince does no more to ruin a state than does indifference to the common good to ruin a republic. The advantage of a free state is that revenues are better administered in it. But what if they are more poorly administered? The advantage of a free state is that there are no favorites in it. But when that is not the case — when it is necessary to line the pockets of the friends and relatives, not of a prince, but of all those who participate in the government — all is lost. There is greater danger in the laws being evaded in a free state than in their being violated by a prince, for a prince is always the foremost citizen of his state, and has more interest in preserving it than anyone else.
The old morals, a certain custom favoring poverty, made fortunes at Rome nearly equal, but at Carthage individuals had the riches of kings. Of the two factions that ruled in Carthage, one always wanted peace, the other war, so that it was impossible there to enjoy the former or do well at the latter. While war at once united all interests in Rome, it separated them still further in Carthage.
4. In states governed by a prince, dissensions are easily pacified because he has in his hands a coercive power that brings the two parties together. But in a republic they are more durable, because the evil usually attacks the very power that could cure it. In Rome, governed by laws, the people allowed the senate to direct public affairs. In Carthage, governed by abuses, the people wanted to do everything themselves. Carthage, which made war against Roman poverty with its opulence, was at a disadvantage by that very fact. Gold and silver are exhausted, but virtue, constancy, strength and poverty never are.
The Romans were ambitious from pride, the Carthaginians from avarice; the Romans wanted to command, the Carthaginians to acquire. Constantly calculating receipts and expenses, the latter always made war without loving it.
"Republics end through luxury; Monarchies through poverty."This is the result of a failed search for the source of the observation: A Governmental System can survive ONLY SO LONG AS the people/public servants do not supplement their income from public monies. Failing even a mistaken attribution, I certify the idea is not original with me. I think Montesquieu has a better perspective than I do on a stimulus package just like President Bush 43's. Perhaps it's more like a blood transfusion - unavoidably imperative, but not a good process of which to make a casual practice.
Montesquieu was a veritable fount of helpful observations. I'll close with one that rebukes me personally:
I can assure you that no kingdom has ever had as many civil wars as the kingdom of Christ - Montesquieu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)