Over the years there have been many, many discredited “facts”. This is because people do not understand the difference between a fact, a theory and the truth.
Over the last six years the DNA theory has come into question. DNA is both very simple and very complex. DNA is a mixture of facts and theory. The math behind DNA is sound, BUT, the math requires that all variables be understood.
Suppose you have a cookie jar with 10 cookies in it. You know that your child takes one cookie every day. You have 10 days of cookies. After 5 days the cookies are gone. You badger your child and your child insists that they only had one cookie a day. You convict your child of cookie theft and ground them.
Is it a fact that the child took the cookie?
No. It is a theory. You know that you and your child are the only people who had access to the cookies and 5 cookies are gone. The theory is that your child took the cookies. The theory is sound. The math is correct.
The reality could be anything. Suppose you later discover that you have a raccoon in your attic that has been taking cookies. Your jar has a hinged lid so the lid closes automatically after the raccoon manages to get one out.
This is the situation with DNA.
Scientists got together and studied DNA. They discovered quite a lot about it. We don't know everything about DNA though and we are learning more all the time.
Since we don't know everything about DNA we cannot say that there is no variable that we do not understand.
Arizona opened their criminal DNA database for scientific study. The data discovered did not support the DNA theory. Instead of admitting this, people argued it.
You can't argue a fact. 2+2=4 right? Wrong, 2+2=11 IN a base 3 number system. 0,1,2,10,11,12,etc.
In the statement 2+2=4 we do not define all of the potential variables and we assume a known variable, the base 10 number system.
In grounding the child for taking cookies we assume that we know all the ways cookies can be removed from the cookie jar.
In claiming that DNA is an individual characteristic we are assuming we know all the possible variables that effect DNA.
All of these determinations require a level of assumption and typically that assumption is arrogant. Most of the time our assumptions may be correct. Other times our assumptions will be incorrect and that is the difference between FACT, THEORY and the Truth.
A FACT is something about which no assumptions are made.
A THEORY requires assumptions based on data or evidence or whatever.
TRUTH is that there are very few FACTS and most people couldn't tell the difference between a FACT and a theory to save their lives.
We have to live our lives making thousands of assumptions every day. We assume that the sun will rise in the morning and we assume that the sun will set at night. These are not facts, it is possible that the sun will not rise or set. The Earth could be hit by a giant meteor and be destroyed.
I am not asking anyone to quit making assumptions based on very low probabilities like giant meteors or raccoons. The only thing I am asking is that people recognize that they are making assumptions and not dealing with facts.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Optical vs Magnetic computing, black and white vs color television
Most people don't remember having only black and white television sets because color television sets are so cheap almost everyone owns one.
When I was a kid we had a black and white television and my mother didn't have a color set until I bought her one when I got out of the Army.
Computing today uses black and white technology, basically even worse than black and white television. At least black and white television had shades of gray. In computing today we have just black and white, a 2 bit system really.
We gather together groups of bits in clusters of 8, 16, 32 and 64 but these are only groups of 2 bit systems. On and off switches.
Optical computing offers the opportunity to bring to data what color television brought to home entrainment.
With optical computing you can store 10 gig of data in the same space we store 100K of data now.
The problem is producing the optical storage medium. Back in the seventies people used crystals. Now people are using proteins and nano-lasers. The newer technology can probably be commercialized within ten years.
In thirty years we will have optical data storage mediums that are so far advanced we can't even begin to understand them today.
When I was a kid we had a black and white television and my mother didn't have a color set until I bought her one when I got out of the Army.
Computing today uses black and white technology, basically even worse than black and white television. At least black and white television had shades of gray. In computing today we have just black and white, a 2 bit system really.
We gather together groups of bits in clusters of 8, 16, 32 and 64 but these are only groups of 2 bit systems. On and off switches.
Optical computing offers the opportunity to bring to data what color television brought to home entrainment.
With optical computing you can store 10 gig of data in the same space we store 100K of data now.
The problem is producing the optical storage medium. Back in the seventies people used crystals. Now people are using proteins and nano-lasers. The newer technology can probably be commercialized within ten years.
In thirty years we will have optical data storage mediums that are so far advanced we can't even begin to understand them today.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Lying with Data
Recently I decided to "prove" that when the Big Ten wins the RoseBowl the economic condition of the United States improves.
It makes perfect sense, when people in the midwest are depressed over losing the RoseBowl they are less productive and the GDP suffers. When those nutcases on the west coast lose, who cares?
It is not difficult to deliberately misinterpret data and this is the problem with gullible warming and most of the crap that the Democrats support.
When you can't hide the obvious discrepancy in the data you can always hide the data and this is something the democrats are terrific at.
The Democrats are pretending they are being more open in government, and what they are doing is publishing crap data.
Essentially they modify the data available on websites like BEA.gov and GPOACCESS.gov to support their stupidity.
It bugs me, but, it is what I expect.
The Democrats started whining about a resolution against a Turkish Government that fell a century ago because of that government's support of a genocide.
When people in the international community pointed out to the stupid Democrats that they had supported multiple genocides in the United States the Dem's dropped that resolution.
Were they open? Did they tell people, "Hey, we supported genocides in the United States in our past, but, we have changed and don't kill people any more."? No, because they hide data they don't want people to see and pretend to be open so morons refuse to look any deeper.
You have to question data and you have to review data in context.
Economic data is more difficult. For example, the comparing the GDP before we switched totally from the Gold Standard to the current GDP is not really a valid comparison.
I think Obama is going to try printing more money next year to pay down the National Debt so it does not go over the GDP.
This will be transparent to international economists and it will toast the US credit rating.
But, the data won't show that to the average person and the democrats will lie about the issue.
Do not trust what any one tells you, review the data yourself!
It makes perfect sense, when people in the midwest are depressed over losing the RoseBowl they are less productive and the GDP suffers. When those nutcases on the west coast lose, who cares?
It is not difficult to deliberately misinterpret data and this is the problem with gullible warming and most of the crap that the Democrats support.
When you can't hide the obvious discrepancy in the data you can always hide the data and this is something the democrats are terrific at.
The Democrats are pretending they are being more open in government, and what they are doing is publishing crap data.
Essentially they modify the data available on websites like BEA.gov and GPOACCESS.gov to support their stupidity.
It bugs me, but, it is what I expect.
The Democrats started whining about a resolution against a Turkish Government that fell a century ago because of that government's support of a genocide.
When people in the international community pointed out to the stupid Democrats that they had supported multiple genocides in the United States the Dem's dropped that resolution.
Were they open? Did they tell people, "Hey, we supported genocides in the United States in our past, but, we have changed and don't kill people any more."? No, because they hide data they don't want people to see and pretend to be open so morons refuse to look any deeper.
You have to question data and you have to review data in context.
Economic data is more difficult. For example, the comparing the GDP before we switched totally from the Gold Standard to the current GDP is not really a valid comparison.
I think Obama is going to try printing more money next year to pay down the National Debt so it does not go over the GDP.
This will be transparent to international economists and it will toast the US credit rating.
But, the data won't show that to the average person and the democrats will lie about the issue.
Do not trust what any one tells you, review the data yourself!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Gullible Warming, ecology and conservation
Gullible Warming
The scientific proof behind global warming is total crap and any open minded, intelligent person with a reasonable education in science can tell you that.
The theory behind global warming makes sense.
So what is the problem? The problem is propaganda and the gullibility of the average person. Some charismatic nut job like Al Gore runs around and tells everyone the world is ending and people get scared enough to do anything. The next thing you know the world does not end and people ask why.
In thirty years ecologists and conservationists like me will be lumped in with the nut jobs who claimed everyone would need a gas mask by 1990 and we would have another ice age by 2012.
These fricking morons who ride mountain bikes with ?Fight Global Warming? tee shirts and leave their pedal reflectors and water bottles all over the back country for guys like me to clean up are destroying conservation and ecology.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that every change in energy creates some heat which is lost to the surrounding environment. Essentially this is the law that prevents perpetual motion.
Flip a bicycle upside down and spin a wheel. It will stop sooner or later. If the bike is well tuned the wheel will take longer to stop because less energy is lost on each revolution. If the bike sucks the wheel will stop quickly. This is called ENTROPY and it is the reasonable theory behind global warming.
Essentially most of our energy conversion devices (gasoline engines, electric motors, etc) waste some energy when we use them. Cars waste about 70% of the energy we put in them. Some things only waste 10%. On average we waste about 50% of the energy we use to ?heat?.
The heat has to go somewhere, into the air, into the water, somewhere.
The more people, the more energy we use, the more heat we generate and the more heat builds up.
So far, this all makes sense.
The problem is when you include climate change. There is not enough data to say that climate change will occur because of waste heat. It makes sense that we should consider the possibility, but, to claim that we will have another ice age in a couple of years is really stupid.
That makes guys like me who want to work on making energy more efficient and the world cleaner look stupid when the world does not end.
I want to see our use of energy approach 95%. I want to see the world reduce pollution. Not because a bunch of morons are afraid the world will end, but, because we all need to work to make the world a better place.
The scientific proof behind global warming is total crap and any open minded, intelligent person with a reasonable education in science can tell you that.
The theory behind global warming makes sense.
So what is the problem? The problem is propaganda and the gullibility of the average person. Some charismatic nut job like Al Gore runs around and tells everyone the world is ending and people get scared enough to do anything. The next thing you know the world does not end and people ask why.
In thirty years ecologists and conservationists like me will be lumped in with the nut jobs who claimed everyone would need a gas mask by 1990 and we would have another ice age by 2012.
These fricking morons who ride mountain bikes with ?Fight Global Warming? tee shirts and leave their pedal reflectors and water bottles all over the back country for guys like me to clean up are destroying conservation and ecology.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that every change in energy creates some heat which is lost to the surrounding environment. Essentially this is the law that prevents perpetual motion.
Flip a bicycle upside down and spin a wheel. It will stop sooner or later. If the bike is well tuned the wheel will take longer to stop because less energy is lost on each revolution. If the bike sucks the wheel will stop quickly. This is called ENTROPY and it is the reasonable theory behind global warming.
Essentially most of our energy conversion devices (gasoline engines, electric motors, etc) waste some energy when we use them. Cars waste about 70% of the energy we put in them. Some things only waste 10%. On average we waste about 50% of the energy we use to ?heat?.
The heat has to go somewhere, into the air, into the water, somewhere.
The more people, the more energy we use, the more heat we generate and the more heat builds up.
So far, this all makes sense.
The problem is when you include climate change. There is not enough data to say that climate change will occur because of waste heat. It makes sense that we should consider the possibility, but, to claim that we will have another ice age in a couple of years is really stupid.
That makes guys like me who want to work on making energy more efficient and the world cleaner look stupid when the world does not end.
I want to see our use of energy approach 95%. I want to see the world reduce pollution. Not because a bunch of morons are afraid the world will end, but, because we all need to work to make the world a better place.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Why I hate Democrats
I hate the Democratic Party. Aside from it's past genocide and current popular status as the party of the people the Democrats are an elitist, bigoted political party determined to create a two class society of "have" and "have nots".
Obama comes into office and cuts spending on AIDS in Africa in half, then his administration creates a fantasy budget and a 787 billion dollar stimulus bill on top the the money President Bush had already spent. That bill pushed the deficit to 85% for this year and insured that our deficit would grow exponentially over the next few years as we tried to pay interest on the deficit.
Just what did Obama do with that stimulus money?
Create Jobs? Nope, he paid back the rich people who voted for him. Check out this link at George Mason University:
http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts
Obama and the entire Democratic party disgusts me.
Obama comes into office and cuts spending on AIDS in Africa in half, then his administration creates a fantasy budget and a 787 billion dollar stimulus bill on top the the money President Bush had already spent. That bill pushed the deficit to 85% for this year and insured that our deficit would grow exponentially over the next few years as we tried to pay interest on the deficit.
Just what did Obama do with that stimulus money?
Create Jobs? Nope, he paid back the rich people who voted for him. Check out this link at George Mason University:
http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts
Obama and the entire Democratic party disgusts me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
