Monday, December 31, 2012

Fiction, Fact and Anthropology

I like Hard Science Fiction and Mystery.  Both are puzzle solving genres of writing so they keep my mind working on how the main character solves the basic conflict in the story.

Anthropology is the study of how people solve the problems related to their general story.

Archeology studies relics of the past and makes guesses about how those relics were used, another application of problem solving skills.

The problem with all problem solving that concerns how people will react is that in stories people react logically and in real life people don't.

People, in general, like to believe that their ideology and their reactions are logical and reasonable.  They aren't.  But writing fiction as if people are reasonable makes sense.

Take the current hoopla about gun control in the United States.  Obviously alcohol control, drug control and prostitution control have not worked out.  All have resulted in violent black markets.  Why would people think gun control will differently?  Do the same thing and get the same results.  Doing something and expecting different results is crazy.

People don't behave rationally though.

Biologists have know for a long time that the odds are against homosexuality being genetic.  If homosexuality were genetic the species would have bread it out.  Darwin suggested that homosexuality was a generic response to a genetic flaw.  Homosexuality prevented the genetic flaw from being bred into the species.  That didn't quite work for biologists either.  Genetic flaws, or mutations, are what evolution is based on.  How would a member of a species instinctively know if a genetic mutation were "bad"?

As time goes on biologists have discovered that quite a lot of human behavior is caused by chemical changes within a persons biology and have created psychotropic drugs to address some of those behaviors.  Are those chemical imbalances genetic?  If so, why didn't the species breed them out?  If not why do they appear to be hereditary?

This kind of kicked me for a loop, but, hereditary does not necessarily mean genetic.

What does all that have to do with fiction and anthropology and problem solving?

People solve problems as a group, The bigger the group the worse the solution.  For example people decided that alcohol in the United States was a problem.  People made alcohol illegal and that created a violent black market that was worse than the problems alcohol caused.  Then they did the same thing with gambling, recreational drugs, prostitution, etc, all creating violent black markets.

You would think that if stupidity is genetic we would have bred it out of the gene pool by now, but, obviously we haven't.  People still make dumb decisions, trying to get different results by doing the same thing.  Gun control will obviously result in the same kind of black market as alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.  Yet people still want to do the same thing expecting different results.

The hereditary of some things, intelligence, predisposition for behaviors like addictive, sexual, violent, etc, are probably environmental.  Personally I think some hereditary issues are related to exposure to environmental waste accumulation as population increases.

If I am correct, then as population increases people become wackier and less reasonable and we should be able to track the intelligence of a culture or population using popular fiction.


Are the fictional problems in books easier or harder for the reader to solve?  Are the imaginative problems created by popular writers like Edgar Allen Poe, H. Rider Haggard or Edgar Rice Burroughs more imaginative or more difficult to solve than the problems Stephen King, Dean Koontz or James Patterson have developed?

If a clinical psychologist skilled in intelligence evaluation were to review fiction published over the last few hundred years what would the result be?

Now that is interesting,

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Incredibly ignorant fireams

More calls for making laws on firearms more restrictive.  People never learn.  History repeats itself.

Restricting alcohol didn't work and it created a violent black market.  Restricting recreational drugs didn't work and it created a violent black market.  Restricting prostitution didn't work and it created a violent black market.

Of course guns are different, they are too difficult for the multi-billion dollar cartels to manufacture and sell.  You know, the cartels that build laboratories in the jungle to refine cocaine and build submarines to smuggle cocaine.

Ignorant people doing what they think is right, trying to jam their ideology down other peoples throats, because they are not educated enough to know any better.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

The Past, Present and the Future

Back in 2000 I was working on automating engineering website development.  I was working with Solidworks, a 3D computer aided design (CAD) software, which has a wonderful API, Application Programming Interface.  I wrote programs that took an assembly built with the CAD software and created an HTML hierarchy of web pages where all of the components were listed by name, part number and any other selected attribute.

This allows the manufacturing person on the shop floor direct access to the design so they can determine dimensions or tolerances required.  This is a method of stream lining the manufacturing process and it requires a loot of training.

It solves a problem, design communication, but, it requires significant training and responsibility on the part of the manufacturing personnel.

This idea never really took off.  Today we still use blue prints, or 2D drawings of objects for the most part.  Yes, manufacturing people still have access to the models, but, prints create a paper trail for litigation.

Someone could change a model and my HTML hierarchy would change.  Someone up stream from manufacturing could make a mistake and the person in manufacturing could be blamed for it.

The person doing the design could be in India and the person doing the manufacturing in Germany.  The whole thing was portable to the Internet or Intranet.

It sucks, but, in the end most commercial manufacturing that is outsourced will have prints that can be signed and approved.  The end product will be checked against approved prints and that determines if the manufacturing contracts have been met.

This paper drawing legal issue has been about the same for hundreds of years all over the world.

It sucks because this limits the ability of manufacturing to move into the 21st century.


Direct manufacturing.

Manufacturing people set up machines which build parts and even assemblies directly from 3D models.

Typically these systems use powders or "wire" or a kind of hot melt glue gun as precursors to the  completed part.  There are a lot of benefits to these process and as a result the processes are being developed and costs are being reduced all the time.

There are some very inexpensive 3D printing systems out there and Makerbot is one of the most popular.  Recently Makerbot made the news because they removed some 3D models of gun parts from their website.  Not a big deal, these models are widely available on other websites, and the Makerbot is a big 3D glue gun.  Censorship has always existed and always will exist.  People will always want to destroy knowledge they are afraid will endanger people.  I used firearms in this example, but, there is no end to censorship.

So in looking at the future of manufacturing we have the same issues we have always had, litigation and censorship.

There is also the problem of skilled employees.  As direct manufacturing becomes more and more capable the need for skilled manufacturing labor becomes lower and lower.  There will always be room for craftsmen.  You can still buy a hand made buggy whip.

We can't limit the future by limiting the implementation of new technology.

As skilled trades die away the middle class dies away and we become an economy of servants, just as it has been in the past.

And what happens when there is a two class system?  Revolution.  Always.  It may be a peaceful revolution or it may be a violent, bloody revolution.

What I expect is that people in the States will submit to authority and become a 2 class system and they will have some terrorism and some peaceful demonstrations that will be about as successful as those actions were in Rome 2000 years ago.

What then?  Population grows and Asia needs land to feed their people.  North America has a land surplus and so Asia will invade North America.  By then, just as in Rome, the military will be a high tech heavy "cavalry" that will be over run the same way Roman cavalry was.  The people won't care who is in charge anymore than the Roman plebeians did.

So when does this happen?

In 30 years the world population will be over 10 billion.  There are 4.4 billion hectares of land available for growing crops.  It takes about 0.25 hectares to produce enough food for one person for a year (that number depends on a lot of non-renewable resources).  So we have enough land for 17.6 billion people, right?  No, there are droughts and pestilence so we need a safety factor of about 2:1 or about 0.5 hectares per person.  That's arguable from a production standpoint, but, in real application we already have people starving to death world wide so...practical application we can support maybe 8.8 billion people.

20 years from now, right around the time computers take a dump because of the date issue.

That isn't so far away, and it can become closer depending on what happens in the world.  A disaster here, famine there.

The world isn't going to end, it will go through a political upheaval the same way Rome did.

It sucks, but, history repeats because people don't learn.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Obama proves theory of evolution is wrong!

Okay, so you can't prove a negative, but, you can show that the probability of a theory being correct is very low.  Low enough that the probability of it being correct is minuscule.

So how does Obama reduce the probability of the theory of evolution being accurate?

By advocating for laws restricting firearms.

Every time a government passes restrictive laws an unregulated, untaxed black market is created.  The more divisive the laws the more violent the black market.  Alcohol, violent.  Drugs, really violent.

Making recreational drugs legal would help stabilize governments and reduce violence in the United States and many third world countries.  Making recreational drugs legal would reduce enforcement costs and save the lives of law enforcement officers.  Making recreational drugs legal and taxing them would pay the deficit off in 1-2 years.  Making recreational drugs legal and releasing non-violent drug offenders would save billions in prison costs.

So, we keep drugs illegal because we enjoy destabilizing governments, subjecting third world countries to violence and having a public debt so large that it could literally bankrupt the world.

Does this sound like the decision of a fit mind?  Of course not, this is the decision of an unfit mind.  The fact that the United States has been the world super power during the ridiculously stupid war on drugs should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that survival of the unfit is the rule.

It becomes better.

Now Obama wants to expand the black market in firearms by making more restrictive laws!

During the assault weapon ban in the United States manufacturing of assault weapons by individuals and small, unlicensed companies exploded.

Insane, right?  If you disagree you actually prove my point.

When we increased restrictions on alcohol we created a violent black market.  When we increased restrictions on recreational drugs illegal we created a violent black market.

Now Obama wants to repeat the mistakes of the past, increased restrictions on firearms and believe that the world will become a better place the same way it did when we restricted alcohol and recreational drugs.

Repeating the same mistakes over and over is not something a fit species does.  Obama's actions in calling for restrictive firearm laws prove that our species is not the fittest.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Old Ignorance in the United States Again

I'm always amazed at my own reaction when people keep making the same mistakes, over and over again. I always expect people, as a group, to learn from their mistakes but they never do and I am always amazed when they don't.

The British created a bunch of restrictive laws governing tea and the response was an armed insurrection against the British Crown. We call it the American Revolution. Others call it a guerrilla war of terror on the British Colonial Government. Whatever anyone calls it, it was a reaction to restrictive laws that the populace felt were unfair.

I could quote thousands of examples from history. Prohibition, restrictive laws on the sale of alcohol is another shinning example of stupidity. The “war on drugs” is a great example. Prostitution another.

What happens when governments make restrictive laws that a significant number of people disagree with? The government loses control of the market. Whatever the government restricts, blue jeans in the soviet union for example, becomes an unregulated, untaxed, uncontrolled black market. If enough people disagree with the restrictions there is a revolution, violent guerrilla terrorist war like the American Revolution or peaceful revolution like “glasnost” was in the Soviet Union.

So some jerk decides the world is ending Friday, he wants to save the children from the horror of it all so he goes to a school and shoots them all.

Now people want to make the same mistake they made with prohibition and recreational drugs.

Amazing isn't it. People making the same mistakes, over and over again. Sometimes I wonder how stupid people are. Other times I just have to shake my head at the pure, unadulterated stupidity.

How violent will the black market in guns become as restrictions increase? Well, we can predict that based on the violence created by restrictions on alcohol and recreational drugs. See, the more people that want something (demand) and the more people who can make it (supply) the more violent the market becomes. Competitors killing each other and the public off.

I know that people who are ignorant of basic manufacturing and engineering often think guns are too difficult to manufacture illegally. The Israelis built clandestine underground factories to build guns and ammunition. Guns can be powered by almost anything explosive, gasoline (using fuel injector systems), butane, propane, natural gas and almost anything including compressed air. I know some people are thinking pellet guns, but, built right compressed air guns can shoot like a 38 special at up to about 25 yards.

The United States is filled with do-it-yourselfers. Guys with mechanical skills who understand how to make things work. Guys who used to work in manufacturing and are unemployed. Guys who are going to need to feed their families and some of those guys will build lighter fluid powered sub machine guns firing ball bearings from bicycles to make enough money to feed their kids.

They can't force people to obey the law in China, the Soviet Union or in super max prisons. The likelihood of everyone in an economic crisis obeying new laws that they disagree with and that open up a way for them to make money to feed their families is pretty slim. About zero.

People amaze me. I can't believe we evolved to destroy the planet, or maybe I can.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Rome, Venice and the United States

The problem with primarily socialist economies is that people begin to expect entitlements from the government.  This observation is pretty obvious and some sarcastic people are probably thinking "really?"

Unions are considered socialist organizations because they make workers equal, the same way democracy is supposed to.  To benefit from a union a worker has actually work for their benefits, medical, dental, holidays, retirement.

When the government guarantees these benefits they are no longer something we work for, they are considered entitlements.  Yes, we pay into Social Security as a disability and retirement benefit.  People still consider government sponsored benefits entitlements even though we have to pay for them.

Back at the beginning of the twentieth century the United States began going through a workers revolution where unions began building up popularity, primarily because corporations refused to provide reasonable working conditions.  If a worker wanted to work they were subject to zero benefits, terrible conditions and maximum hours for minimum pay.  There were no age limitations, no disability, no workman's compensation and the liability laws favored the employer.

We are headed back toward that same failure because people say "American Workers" cost too much and are lazy.

After all no one ever became a billionaire paying workers more than their competition does, right?

Well except for that guy, Henry Ford.  He must not count though.  Sarcasm.

Good management can pay workers more and make profits.  Bad management pays themselves more and goes bankrupt.  Look at the AMC Tower, Sears Tower, Chrysler Center, etc.  All monuments to bad management giving themselves more.

The truth is many places make money paying their employees more money than the competition.

So we have union workers, people actually working, making money and receiving benefits based on their work.

We also have people depending on government entitlements.  How did that happen?

In order to stop the union tide rolling over the United States and the perceived spread of socialism our Government passed a lot of laws protecting workers and establishing benefit programs for workers.

Really BAD move.

If unions had been allowed to spread naturally benefits like retirement, health and other things our government is now involved in providing would have been provided by employers.

The employers didn't want to pay these benefits so the U.S. government subsidized the employers fight against unions by regulating and providing benefits, entitlements, that people would otherwise have to work for.

Every worker receiving benefits, disability for example, from the government instead of from an employer is an example of our government subsidizing employers.

So what is going to happen?  If we look at the past, Rome, Venice, other places where governments attempted to subsidize capitalist enterprise, like the United States went broke paying out benefits that employers should be paying.

Eventually the United States will have to stop paying out those benefits and when that happens the unionization movement will start up again.

Because the United States government is looking out for people with money as opposed to the average citizen laws, like the recent "right to work" laws in Michigan, will be passed in an attempt to stop unionization.

History tells us that as government sponsored benefits are withdrawn and workers are oppressed revolution will occur.  Violent or non-violent, a revolution will occur.

If the government manages to suppress a non-violent revolution the people will become apathetic and eventually the government will fall to an outside force.

Why would an outside force come into the United States?

Land.  They ain't making any more of it.

This explanation is actually pretty simple.

Fertilizers are made using non-renewable resources like phosphorus rock.  As population increases agriculture production must increase.  North America has the most arable land per person in the world.  As agricultural resources run out production per acre or hectare will be reduced.  Population pressures in countries like China will force them to either starve passively or accumulate land.

Right now, with inorganic fertilizers, it takes about 0.6 acres or .25 hectares to feed a person for a year.  Historically it takes about 1.2 acres or .5 hectares per person per year.  To deal with production issues like drought or pestilence there should be a safety factor of about 2 so we need about 1 hectare or 2.4 acres per person.  The world can support about 4.4 billion people.

Unless we can invent land.

The obvious thing to do is control populations, but, the Chinese tried that and have been vilified.

So the United States could support unionization and the natural development of union-employer bargaining or the United States can continue down this course of union oppression and entitlement which has failed in past cultures.

People grouping together to address issues is natural, politics, political lobbies, unions, churches, etc.  Oppressing the natural system always has very bad results, and throughout history people have repeated the same mistakes over and over and over.

In a very simplistic model the United States will be conquered by the Chinese within the next century.  Not economically, militarily, because the Chinese will need the land.  Not want, not negotiate, need.  It will be a life and death battle for the Chinese and probably India.

If people in the United States continue to be apathetic because of worker oppression there is very little doubt that the Chinese will succeed and the United States will be conquered the same way Rome and Venice were conquered.  Maybe the first attempts will fail, as they failed with Rome, but in the end they will succeed.

If we look at Rome we see that the government subsidized employers and entitled workers while violently suppressing any change to their system.  In order to maintain the government benefits provided to the citizens the government stripped the military and depended on "technology", at the time heavy cavalry.  When people needed what Rome had, Rome was conquered and destroyed.

 History repeats itself, over and over again.  In the end, if the United States continues making the same mistakes previous cultures made, the United States will be conquered the same way previous cultures have been conquered and for the same reason.  Resources, primarily land.

Oppressing the natural order of people grouping together and addressing issues always has and always will fail

Providing government benefits rather than worker benefits always has and always will fail.

This ain't rocket science.  It ain't complicated. 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Michigan, Unions and the battle for workers

Back before unions developed the workers in the United States worked as near industrial slaves.  The inheritance laws made it possible for some families to accumulate wealth over generations while other families were stripped of what they had.  There is a Bible passage that supports this, but, only if people insert themselves in the place of God.

Matthew 25:29
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

That doesn't sound like God alone does the taking, but, this is a parable and it is really about our spiritual connection to God, not material wealth.  In the passages following Christ speaks about the spiritual reality, separating the sheep from the goats.  Some people like to place themselves in the seat of God, separating the sheep and the goats.

One of the reasons God forbids usury, or the charging and collecting of interest, is because God knows greedy people like to strip others of what they have.

One of the few things every person in the world can offer is their labor.  Before unions 12 and 16 hour days were common.  There was no workman's compensation or disability.  There were no retirement benefits.  There were no medical benefits.  Unions fought for those things.

To prevent the spread of unions and "Socialism" the government instituted laws that provided workers with minimal benefits so they would not have to join unions to receive these benefits.  Social Security is one of the government benefit systems designed to protect workers.

Workers are losing benefits.  Workers now have to provide their own medical benefits, this is one of the requirements of the new "Obama Care" law.  Employers are fined about half of what it costs for a health care plan if they do not provide health care so the responsibility for medical insurance falls on the worker.

With Social Security near failing there is no doubt that unions will become popular once again. Unions once fought for retirement benefits, but, when Social Security was implemented worker retirement was insured by the government so workers did not have to join unions.

Over the last twenty years the IRS has worked tirelessly closing "loopholes", really eliminating tax breaks for individuals starting or running businesses from their homes.  These tax laws reduce the potential for entrepreneurship by making it more difficult for people to start their own businesses.

Those that have, corporations and families who already own their own businesses, are favored while people who do not have, those starting out, are taxed out of existence.

Why does our government do this?  Quite frankly greed.

10% of the taxpayers, individual and corporate, pay 50% or more of the taxes collected.  By increasing the income of that 10% the government can make more money than by increasing the income of the other 90%.  The people making up our legislatures are just greedy.

There is a coming labor war.  It will be a violent, guerrilla style war fought between the workers and corporations.  In the beginning it will look a lot like the 1960's and early 1970's left wing terrorism.  Workers will have their rights stripped away and eventually it will become a full fledged revolution.

The United States will become a third world country begging from China, India and Japan.

We can stop this now.  We can pass legislation that supports Social Security.  We can pass a real health care law that provides every person in the United States with health care.

Or we can allow our own greed to destroy us.

Thursday, December 06, 2012

Bob Costas is a moron

No one agrees about everything with anyone.  No one disagrees about everything with anyone.  People who think they have the right to force others to adopt their opinions and beliefs as reality are destroying this world.

“Even if all those guns were obtained legally, you can’t have 65 guys in their 20′s and 30′s, aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening,” said Costas.  Apparently aggressive young men with guns are all bad.  Thanks for that glowing endorsement of the United States military!

Bob Costas is an idiot who believes his opinions and beliefs are reality.  The guy is living in a totalitarian fantasy world where people who disagree with him are "wrong" and "bad".  People like Costas make this world a very bad place.  He is still defending his belief that things are evil and bad things would not happen if people didn't have bad things.

Lets look at that.  California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  In 2010 California had more murders than any other state.  2011 stats are not posted yet, way to be transparent Obama!

69.4% of murders in California are committed with a firearm.  Of those murders 52% were committed with handguns and 11% were committed with an "unknown" type of firearm.  Unknown is a euphemism for "zip gun".

I have written blogs on the unregulated economic black markets that restrictive laws always result in.  If there is a demand and resources to supply that demand a market will develop regardless of what totalitarian morons trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs think.  Want a cure for cancer?  You can buy one.  Will it work?  Probably not, but, you can buy it.  Prostitution, the war on drugs, all examples of black markets created by restrictive laws.

Okay, but guns are complicated are gun powder is complicated so we can make laws that restrict those things and ...... create more black markets.

I can design and build a propane, natural gas, gasoline or even lighter fluid powered gun.  A company brought out a propane powered paint ball gun, but, they stopped selling them.  Converting a paint ball gun into something that shoots 1/4" ball bearings really ain't difficult. 

The easiest firearm to build is a sub machine gun.  I could explain, but, I am not going to.  In Israel during the British occupation the Israelis built underground manufacturing plants where they built guns and ammo.  One of the guns they built the most of was a copy of the Sten sub machine gun.

I have no use for morons.  People develop the most ridiculous, ignorant (uneducated), opinions and believe those opinions have some basis in reality.

My brother and I once argued about safety.  He believed (and believes) that overloading a small, powered open boat in mildly rough weather is safer than leaving people with a small (row) open boat for an hour.

Which of us is right?

Neither of us really, we just have differing opinions.  Sure, my kid brother is in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard has manufacturers put a tag on boats that specify the weight limit.  My brother believes that his opinion on overloading boats is better than the regulations of the organization he works for.

At the same time, he believes that leaving his family on an island without a power boat is wrong, except when he decides it is ok since he actually does it all the time.

Logically I make a pretty good case for my opinion.  If my brother had developed an opinion from ignorance, if his opinion or beliefs were uneducated, my position would be different.  To me this argument was just a power play since my use of reason and safety were objective and his educated opinion was based on subjective "I'm right, you are wrong" analysis.  Brett does this all the time and he never apologizes when he is wrong, never admits being wrong.  At least not to me, sibling rivalry stuff.

Does the subjective analysis used make my brother wrong?  No, because my brother is well educated on small boat safety his decision to disregard Coast Guard safety recommendation and enforce his own inconsistent "safety regulations" makes his argument or position unreasonable, not wrong.  His opinion is educated.  Unreasonable, but, educated and not "wrong".

Bob Costas is wrong.  He is developing subjective and ignorant opinions.  He isn't bothering to educate himself on the issues.  The guy is a moron.  Bob Costas, and most anti-gun idiots are wrong.  They are ignorant and in my opinion are too stupid to know just how ignorant they are.

This is not the semi-totalitarian monarchy of Britain.  This is the United States.  This is the land of independent "Do It Yourselfers".  11% of murders committed in California were done with "undetermined" firearms which, I am told, is a euphemism for home made guns.  In Britain they have ver restrictive gun laws and people build and use air guns.  Britain does not have "freedom of the press" and they keep a pretty tight rein on news and statistics released so we don't know how many zip guns, air guns or propane powered guns are used in Britain.  We only know that "undetermined" firearms are being used there.

The United Nations is working very hard against the illegal manufacturing and distribution of firearms.

The harder people work to make guns illegal the more profitable illegal manufacturing becomes.  The more profitable manufacturing and sales of firearms becomes the more investment that manufacturing will draw.

Drug lords have probably already built their own weapon and ammunition manufacturing plants.  The illegal manufacturing of weapons is big business in Africa.

Thanks to morons like Bob Costas.

The more restrictive we make laws the less regulated black markets become.

If you want to ensure, ENSURE, that grade school kids can buy sub machine guns they way they can buy crack cocaine keep making restrictive laws and I guarantee it will happen.

In fact,like all markets the price will probably be driven down by competition and without things like liability to worry about the price of your average street sub machine gun will probably go way down.

Free Market economics based on Demand and Supply rules.  No amount of subjective, unreasonable totalitarianism has or will ever stop it.

Monday, December 03, 2012

People are stupid

80% of people are ridiculously stupid.  Another 18% are just stupid and maybe 2% of people in the world are smart enough to make things work.

There are about 7 billion people in the world.  How many people can the world support?  About 4.4 billion.  I won't bore you with how I determined that number, it is based on the amount of resources required to grow food in a sustainable way.  If you were one of the 2% you would understand and probably agree.

I'm smarter than you.

People don't hide their reactions very well.  When I want to know how smart someone is I tell them I am smarter than they are.  80% of people respond by becoming upset or annoyed, etc.  18% respond by essentially ignoring the comment while either becoming condescending or laughing and 2% (and this is rare) by understanding what I said.

See, I didn't say "I'm smarter than you", even though those were the words that were coming out of my mouth.  What I said was "how smart are you?"

If you have no clue what I am talking about and are getting annoyed you are one of the 80% of people.

If you are laughing and asking yourself what kind of reaction I am looking for you are in the smarter portion of the 18%.  If you are annoyed and you think I am arrogant you are in the stupider portion of the 18%.

If you understood that the only reason someone would say something like that is because they wanted to observe a reaction then you are in the 2%.  If you are annoyed I used the time based then rather than the comparative than you are annoying and need to chill.

Communications are based on content, not form and if improper grammar or bad spelling or etc annoy you then you are a problem.

If I just lost you it only means you are in the 80%.

We are talking about communications.  Not the method of communication, but, the content of communications.

What people are saying, not how they are saying it.

I say "I'm smarter than you are".  My actual communication is, "How smart are you?"  Morons focus on the form of communication, the way I phrased my question, and smart people focus on the content of the communication.

This is an easy one.

Communicating with people is a lot like doing a crossword puzzle and this is why there are so many problems in the world.  Most people are really crappy at crosswords.  People are really arrogant too.  Prove a negative?  Not possible, but, morons will claim they can every day.  If you ever hear someone say that a negative can be proved run, saying something like that means the person thinks they know everything and can define every possible scenario.

People are stupid.  They need stuff handed to them on a silver platter all laid out and explained for them, but, they don't want to do the same for other people.

I don't exempt myself from this.  The difference between myself and most other people is that they exempt themselves.  The more complex something is the more questions I ask and the dumber people think I am and the dumber or more arrogant people think I am the dumber I know they are.

People don't understand how difficult communications are.  Essentially most people, the 80%, think everyone thinks the same way they do and communicating is easy.  People in the 2% are willing to take the time to communicate and understand each other.  The 18% will range from stupid to almost smart.

People in the 2% are willing to focus on the content of the communication.