My "Strange & Stupid" Rants

[8v10un30sun]

Some worthless to most and priceless to a few rants in here.

[8v10un30sun]

Here's a math lab Monte Carlos simulation to calculate the approximation of PI using mathlab.  The code is quite easy to read and can teach you how simple Monte Carlos can be implemented with a big caveat of course.

%  pimc2.m
   %  Optimized Matlab Program to Find Pi using Random Numbers
   %  Tom Huber,  June 15, 1996
   Nrand = 8192;  % Largest size of an array in Student Version of Matlab
   Nmax  = input('How Many Loops (of 8192 Random Numbers Each) ');
   NTrand = 0;
   NInside = 0;
   for nloops=1:Nmax
      Xrand = rand(1,Nrand);        % Generates 8192 Random XY Points
      Yrand = rand(1,Nrand);
      Rrand = Xrand.^2 + Yrand.^2;  % Finds the radius for all 8192 random points
      CheckValue = Rrand<=1.;  % Has 1 if True & 0 if False for each element
      NInside = NInside + sum(CheckValue);  % Total number of Points Inside
      NTrand = NTrand + Nrand;              % Total number of Points Generated
   end
   disp(['Total Generated: ' num2str(NTrand) ' Inside Pts: ' ...
      num2str(NInside)]);
   piapprox = 4*NInside/NTrand;
   pierror = 4*sqrt(NInside)/NTrand;
   disp(['  Approximation to pi = ' num2str(piapprox) ...
      ' With Error ' num2str(pierror)]);

Credits: http://physics.gac.edu/~huber/envision/instruct/montecar.htm

[8v10un30sun]

So today I was thinking about learning.  I thought about Rosetta Stone, a software that claim it has the best learning method through relational symbolic learning (is that a real technical term?).  I believe relational symbolic learning is when you link a picture to a sound and symbol and as you build this knowledge base up  you'll have fluency in the language.  At least that is the premise of Rosetta Stone from what I can gather.  So given relational symbolic learning I thought about values assign to this and I came up with [0-1] for Good or Evil and then I thought, well it's not a discrete model but more so a probabilistic model...this came from a conversation I had earlier with my Pal Tetra who I believe thinks in terms of 0 and 1, when in fact 0 and 1 are expensive to attain or useless to attain so most value lie somewhere in the middle...so I thought, ah ha, Probabilistic Relational Learning or Statistical Relational Learning...I immediatley asked the oracle, google and lord behond, SRL exist!  Incredible...S o today I'll be reading SRL like it's nobody's business.

Good and evil as a probability... .How good are you and how bad are you?  Hrm....variabl e versus discrete/attribute data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_relational_learning

Time to munch of this new concept...

[8v10un30sun]

Somedays I wish I had studied business and more specifically finance and economics including operations and everything else.  So today I was reading about Labor Theory of Value because I was interested in the concept of commodity and how it is defined by the great thinkers which led me to LTV.

Quite an interesting concept Marx wrote (I'm a fan of his...but I disagree with implementation .)  Great idea but poor implementation .  Similar to religion you know...Jesus ideas were grand and great but we as people poorly execute it because we are driven by greed via capitalism...s urvival via capitalism and etc...

"The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally."

So if I create something to automate someone's job I devalue human life!  Technology devalues human life?  Couldn't that be an interpretation?  Anti-Technocrat?  I believe him because it's truly logical and thus if you look, there is a great divide in wealth.  Yet, can we agree our lives are better or is this merely an illusion man made to control the populous?  Intriguing when you extrapolate his thoughts...

[8v10un30sun]

So, I've been reading about Stephen Wolfram because I've thoroughly enjoyed his website and the teachings and presentations on mathematics.  You can it ALL and it's FREE.  This guy is a saint if there was one for the field of sciences and mathematics.  In my research I tripped over his book topic "A New Kind of Science." His thesis is thoroughly intruging and captivating because he claims the world is digital and a new philosophy of science must be so!  I concur!  Data driven is EVERYTHING.  Let the data drive your solution!  Let the data (observation) tell you what it is.  Is significance necessary?  Should one establish a signal in their analysis before continue forward?  NO!  What if the system is TOO complex in such a way that it is chaotic but organize?  What if in a lifetime you cannot understand the chaos but if you were a greater being of understanding you can understand?!  Uncivilize people living in the jungles cannot comprehend the complexity of the world they live in...they simply understand what they can understand and see.  So, taking this point, we can say that if we let the data drive us to the solution, we will start to see and start to realize!

In the fieldwork of Quality Systems, Quality Management and Processes, we can utilize theories such as control theory, general system theory and guess what we'll still be wrong.  We can deploy six sigma, process capability, process validation, and yet we cannot control the variation and variability of the human factor.  What we can do as managers, scientists, and engineers to mitigate the risk through training, process measurement and etc...  Well, I'm sick of that approach...It's a stupid approach and totally wasteful...I'm not going to babysit people, processes, and etc...  The system should do it automatically.  Not only that, the system should be intelligent enough to report to the people with the power and resources to tweak itself because obviously, the system today cannot do that just yet so human being still have to do this...and obviously this is a lagging indicator (for those of us in the finance field who care for such blah blah blah).

So suppose we let the data drive it...How does one understand the system?  One can take a snapshot of the system and see how the data reference similar to a neural node/synaptics.  For a node that has a lot of activities, it has a lot of connection...T his node becomes a permenant memory and this is a good thing because the perspective is good...however, in a problem management and knowledge management system, we normally deal with problem, so a node with a lot of activitiy indicates a problem area.  If this area was mapped like a NEXUS, you'll notice a very HOT area in that zone and all activities similar.  This is similar to meteorology when they try to predict events.  It's somewhat artsy-fartsy but such a system uses some very complex mathematics to create this map

This lead me to my other rant...as smart as human being become and as easy as we make the world of our peers, the quality of the life increases to where we have leisure like the greek/roman time.  So much knowledge was developed during those time and today we have this same opportunity due to technological advantage...Th e danger here is what marx pointed out to in reglards to labor value theory...The more optimize a laborer becomes the less significant the group becomes and the capitalist becomes more powerful...so in a sense, marx is against technology in a way but I think his idea is right in one context and totally proven wrong in another.

[8v10un30sun]

We live in the best time of society.  Our time, people will read about it in history and wonder in awe at the amazing advancement in both technology, sociology, philosophy and ecology in both the material space and immaterial of the mind.  Who can say they live in a time that may be wrought by something close to the french revolution!  Or a time when during the industrial revolution!  So we look at the timeline of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution and we think about the opportunities which present itself to us - those that are alive now, today, this moment.

French Revolution - 1789-1799
Industrial Revolution - 1750-1850

If you overlay these two events, we are at a time of similarity.  The information age and the advent of the Internet and a globalization of commerce have changed how we do business and how technology is applied.  A world that was once far and apart are now linked by an information super highway.  In the industrial revolution, the steamboats and railway connected the new world with the old world and brought forth prosperity like we are seeing today.  In that term, the prospoerity was not without tension as the elite of the French did not gather to this and was lost and thus, France became insolvent due to war and bad leader/management and a revolution sprang forth!  Granted, the Enlightment period had a great deal to do with this because it taught equality, freedom, knowledge, reason and etc...   Today, we are shackled by our materialism and this parasitic desire to want more, and more and more...and to fill our landfill with Chinese made junk versus making good products that last long and that in terms destroys our ecology and planet and etc...  So we have reach a period in which we are at a brink or tip and the 21st century must bring forth a new knowledge a new way of thinking.

Fascinating and exciting is where society will go.  Will be become tree huggers and stop technological advances?  Will we move into a more industrial formate and destroy our ecology in doing so leaving but a wasteland?  Will we accept our technological advances and bring forth a new energy and new way of thinking to shape our mind and the world around us?  Truly fascinating is that we do not know and through this we must will us to create this reality.  Many foresee the world will get tougher before it gets better because it is truly known that our world is finite because resource is finite and through the law of supply and demand, the global citizens will fight for this energy and drive up energy cost which drives up other cost such as food and shelter.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that in the near term, optimization of our resources is the utmost important because we do not know what the new energy will be.  We know that we will run out of coals, will run out of oil, but there are a lot of energy around us.  This optimization will bring forth an age of technological advances in understanding complex systems like a multinational corporation, a global supply chain with n-th tier of supplier, a knowlege learning entity to help us become better and we've seen a trickle of it with M$ Word paperclip character and now SIRI on 4Gs.  Yet optimization is not enough because we've been optimizing since the advent of the computer.  Why do you think the US has exported more goods and still the employment market feels bad...The reason for this is due to optimization.  Marx wrote in his theory of labor value that as smarter, more intelligent, and automated processes come into invention, it decreases the value of a laborer.  Thus a new paradigm for valuing a human being will come into play.  What is it that human being provide for each other if our labor is no longer available?  Emotions?  Connectivity like social media?  A feeling of sense of belonging?  If the social construct of the pack no longer depend on labor then what is it that will be of value? Loyalty?  Idea and Innovation?

To be continue....wh ile I research the social construct and psyche.

[8v10un30sun]

Many of our users on PH did not grow up in a communist country and likely was not educated in a communist country.  Many of the users of PH can be said to be educated in America, under an American system which did not teach communism or the communist manifesto or marxism.  It is perfectly fine not to know this material.  What is not acceptable is when someone presents the literature to the community and the community users who have not read the manifesto or the documents proclaim that another user is wrong by sheer ignorance.  We all have seen how bad rumors can become and many of these users, many of them atheists or shamans or whatever you are, should not continue under such confusion.  Clearly, the manifesto identifies many aspect of what it means to be a communist.  Clearly to be a communist as written by Marx and Engels who founded the communist movement one must not accept religion.

Today, we'll study a tidbit of the manifesto as it pertains to a singular objective - does communism reject god?  In my writing, I'll argue that it does reject God because communist wishes to replace God, superstitution with another set of belief called Communism.  We will begin this by quoting the communist manifesto itself on what it thinks about religion.

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

The manifesto clearly states that it abolishes all religion and insitute a new basis called communism.  When someone abolishes anything, it will put an end to it, and therefore rejecting it.

In my studies into the legality of this, my studies taught me that Communist China once it started it's Speciali Economic Zoning to appease the west, made modification to their abolishment of religion and open up you might say.  Communist China currently allow religious practice so as long as it does not disrupt the politics, policies, and the country - this is tightly regulated on how many student can learn and etc...  Moreover, the interpretation of disrupt is ambigious and groups like Falung Gong have suffer tremendously under this law even though Falung Gong is much like Confucious and isn't a dietic driven belief.  When the central government identifies your religion (belief) as a disruptor of its policies, then you have violated the law.  Thus, we clearly understand that there is no freedom of speech in China because you cannot say negative remark about the country or you suffer the consequences.  This is why the enlighten ones in their vast wisdoms went so far as to say Freedom of Speech is the basis for liberty.  It is better to accept the negative consequences that may result because the benefit out weighs the consequences.