Friday, October 28, 2011

Regarding The Occupy Movement

I think we are getting to the point where some of our old laws and ideals are breaking down.  The US is competing against countries that will do whatever they can to gain a competitive advantage while the US is making laws to help multi-national corporations. 

The problem is that these corporate citizens can and do expatriot for tax breaks.  However, their main shareholders often live in the USA.  If we tax these individuals at a reasonable rate that ensures some return for risk the US could solve its deficit.  The current practices of executive compensation often rewards performance over excessively short periods and often artificial "accounting gains".  Taxing any household income above $7.5mm yearly at 60% would not retard the economy while providing the USA with much needed resources. 

In general our living standards are being undermined because others in the world do not have great standards.  I think that any items sold in the USA have to meet certain minimum work standards, for example a minimum pay of $10 a day and workers compensation insurance.  This would help Americans compete in all sectors including manufacturing while helping people overseas. 

What does this have to do with the what the Occupy Movement is about.  Well the fact is the Occupy movement is unorganized and that is a blessing.  A great man said as soon as you organize a truth it becomes a lie.  Right now you have a bunch of guys with ideas like I have outlined above who want to see some change.  There is some real beauty in that.  Because the fact is the system is very close to breaking (partially because our international competitors are purposely stressing it with undervalued currency) and it needs change. 

We need to fundamentally evaluate every part of the government and pragmatically determine if its working.  (Enter conservative appluase.)  For example the department of education can likely be shrunk.  The DEA should problably be shrunk. 

The US should also look at their laws and evaluate their cost and if they make sense.  This country is not as free as our founding fathers envisioned.  Prohibition failed, but we still spend countless trillions on prohibition of a plant that literally grows like a weed throughout the USA, and is actually quite useful for ethanol production and medical reasons with almost no side effects of ingestion.  In fact the governments own research confirms that there is no indication that smoking marijuana causes brain damage, cellular damage, or even cancer.  It might be the only thing in the world that you can smoke that doesn't cause cancer.

The prohibition on Marijuana makes no sense and endorses the more dangerous tobacco and alcohol as alternatives while charging every tax payer millions and countless people in quality of life. (Enter conservative gasps.)

The only thing the Marijuana prohibition is doing is making Mexican Drug Cartels rich.  We could bring those jobs stateside, they pay pretty well.  Most importantly not another American law officer has to die to defend a law of questionable intent and purpose.

These are ideas that the Republicans and Democrats won't embrace in part due to lucrative deals.  In fact the Republicans and Democrats may have too much baggage to be able to govern effectively at this point.  We may see the next election decided with a subtle context of Occupy vs Tea Party. 

The sad part is that these two movements are closer than they realize but they problably won't work together. 

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Regarding Lased X-Rays Emitted by Blackholes: Have they ripped through the fourth dimension?

I first heard of the discovery of the same lased X-rays hitting the earth on different sides of the planet simultaneously in college undergraduate physics.  These X-Rays were thought to be so poweful, and hitting the earth from so far away that it challenged our modern rules of physics in terms of the energy required to generate them.  The thought was that the distance required for these beams to hit both sides of the earth would violate our rules of physics.  I propose that it would only violate the laws of physics along the fourth dimension. 

I believe in the 1990's a scientist came up with the idea that these x-rays were "lased" or coherent which would allow these laser to fall within our current rules of physics including the speed of light within the third and fourth dimension. 

Recently though as I was driving through dense fog I saw a bolt of lightning literally rip through the three dimensional fog and it made me realize that these lased x-rays may infact be so powerful that have ripped through the third and fourth dimensions.  If you think about the ability for the same beam to hit both sides of the earth simultaneously, this hypothesis makes sense, that these beams are no longer limited to traveling along the third and fourth dimensions.  Instead of being generated from vast enough distances to be able to be bent to hit both sides of the earth another real possibility is that these beams are measurable in our dimension but have reached such a great energy/time that these beams are no longer confined by our third and fourth dimensions. 

After further reasoning, I came to the conclusion that like electron states, our dimensions are likely to be quantum, not continuous, and that a great enough energy should be able to rip through the current dimension and allow the energy beam to begin to travel through dimensions where distance, time, and space are not as we perceive and are not limited to the speed of light. 

I would imagine that the energy sufficent to exceed the speed of light is sufficent to take the particle or energy to the next quantum dimension.  The phenomenon of time and space dialiation as we approach and obtain the speed of light would be supportive of my hypothesis.  Another way to thing of it is that at speeds greater than C, the time and space dialiation would make things similar to "wormholes" that are higher dimensional phenomenon caused by the need to have each dimension purpendicular to every previous dimension.   Another way I think about the dimensions is that each subsequent dimension has an unlimited amount of the prior dimensions.  The fourth dimension is unlimited third dimensional spaces, the fifth dimension would be unlimited number of "times" or fourth dimensions, the sixth dimension includes an unlimited amount of the fifth dimensions, or an unlimited unlimited amount of times, which is in my opinion an unlimited amount of potentiality.  This heuristic works for higher and lower dimensions. 

By being able to travel through higher dimensional fields the prior constraints of the speed of light, distance, and time, are all eliminated.  These lased x-rays hitting both sides of the earth at once, may infact be passing through the earth, and we're only able to detect slices of the beam as we detect gravity. 

Sunday, May 1, 2011

The Case For Mars

I would highly encourage the US to consider building a "Mars Capable" spaceship as a shuttle replacement.  If a new spaceship will be delivered in 10 years anyway it should be able to integrate as a core piece of a Mars Mission.  I would suggest this would be best executed by building a long distance space explorer in space that would be capable of long distance cruising due to the fact that it doesn't need to haul and burn "lift off" fuel and other weight that would be needed by an atmosphere capable vehicle.  We have the technology to build such a vehicle that would be self contained and allow humans to cruise for up to 24-36 months.  Remember there is no drag in space other than gravitational which would need to be calculated for optimum trajectory, allowing a space ship to cruise at exceptional speeds for long distances.

If we were to attempt a landing on Mars I'd like to see a separate automated launch of a landing and take off vehicle which would arrive perhaps months in advanced and land on the surface and/or enter into rotational orbit.  Sending up the landing/takeoff vehicle separately further reduces the weight needed to be carried, the only need is for the long distance cruiser is to be able to travel long distances (several million miles) enter into a rotation and mate with a landing vehicle, then leave the orbit and travel to other destinations.  This vehicle would never land, even on earth it would always stay in orbit.  Again it would just mate with an landing capsule and splash down safely on earth leaving the ship to orbit until needed.  With the space station we could assemble and maintain such a vehicle in space.  I would also advocate that such a vehicle could be equipped to fire fusion bombs that could alter the course of large space objects that might be on course to strike the earth.

The only missing piece is the launch and return vehicle(s).  This will still be a need in the future (e.g. what the shuttle was) but a one solution sled will not be sufficient to expand our ability to explore space by significant margins.  I'm plainly advocating for a separate launch/landing and space exploration vehicle.  I think even the launch/landing vehicle could be different.  For example the launch vehicle could fly home by itself and the humans could utilize a separately launched safety optimized landing capsule.  The ability to launch objects into space with relative certainty of their placement is invaluable to our ability to explore our solar system. 

In the past technical superiority was demonstrated with weaponry.  I'd like the US to solidify world wide confidence by attempting and executing a feat no other nation would be able to match at this point. Thus inspiring confidence in our Dollar and our ability to further the reach of the human race.  I think there is a real need for human kind to be able to explore and colonize uninhabited planets.

All ideas are original all rights reserved 2011 Cliff Mark as is all content on this blog.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Bing is copying Google Results by Monitoring User Behavior from IE8

Most of us have heard about Microsoft (henceforth MS) "copying" Google SERP results.  The most disturbing aspect of the story to me is that it appears MS is monitoring user behavior from Internet Explorer

look similar to this synthetic result by google (no relation to search query)?

This is different from most companies that will monitor behavior if you have a toolbar or are currently on their site.  Some developers call this effect "sandboxing" where one site cannot monitor your activity across the other sites that you're utilize your browser for.  MS is apparently copying Google's results by monitoring user behavior on Google when surfing with Internet Explorer with the "Suggested Sites" feature on.  In other words, Ineternet Explorer makes note of what you click on and searched for when you run a google search.  What isn't clear is the scope of user activity they are monitoring, if this isn't limited to just Google, I would strongly suggest users find another browser. 

I always suggest forgoing toolbars unless they serve a very specific purpose.  Like Ninja Tickets' "Live Results" toolbar, which would help run a real time search to find the latest event ticket results across multiple sites.  The sad irony is that our toolbar was incorrectly flagged as spyware by certain programs whereas, it appears, both the "Suggested Sites" feature and the "Bing Toolbar" are actually spyware.

Microsoft should utilize Bing as the default home screen for IE8 rather than if they are serious about competing with Google.  The MSFT I knew from the 1990s would never back down from a bold decision like that.  They should also focus on their own algorithms.  There are really cool Search Algorithms out there that haven't been implemented yet and Bing should attempt to implement them, not copy Google.

There's even room to compete aggressively in aggregated/combined vertical search.  Perhaps Microsoft should focus on building out featuresets.  Google is lagging on; for example, event ticket search or travel ticket search where algorithms intelligently identify a vertical search and apply special rules and databases.  This is the future of search and Microsoft is copying the current using questionable methods rather than building out for new opportunities.  It's not as if MS doesn't have money for R&D or M&A.