See http://www.khanacademy.org/
Khan Academy is a phenomenal place to learn many useful technical subjects. The level of subjects spans middle school through university education. A bright, motivated student, young or old, can potentially learn a subject in short order, that might otherwise take many months. Note that the presentations alone are probably insufficient, as one must work exercises and apply knowledge to truly learn it, and supplemental information from the web or books might be helpful, too. Still, Khan Academy is an amazing resource, and it potentially foretells the future of education.
In some ways, Khan Academy is revolutionary and disruptive, because its spirit counters the common, burdensome, tracking and age-locked education system of today. By using this site, a bright, motivated kid -- with proper guidance and assistance -- could acquire much of a quality college education by age eighteen.
If public education were properly redesigned, the teacher's role would change from information spoon-feeder, taskmaster, disciplinarian and baby sitter to tutor and consultant. Higher quality education could be delivered at lower cost, and the stature and importance of teachers in society would be restored to its proper, high level. Why should a teacher deliver the same, ad-hoc, boring lectures over and over, year-in and year-out? It makes no sense.
Meanwhile, these courses can help a student readily master standard school courses and sprint ahead. Parents, educators, students, and self-educators take note!
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
future evolution and human legacy
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
I'd like to widen people's awareness of the tremendous timespan lying ahead -- for our planet, and for life itself. Most educated people are aware that we're the outcome of nearly 4bn years of Darwinian selection, but many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. Six billion years from now, it will not be humans who watch the sun's demise. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoebae. -Martin Rees, cosmologist and astrophysicist (b. 1942)
Friday, July 22, 2011
Monty Python's Green Door
Human beings are wondrously marvelous creatures -- but with limitations. Humans have evolved in a way that prevents them from seeing certain problems, solutions and situations correctly. That is, solutions that seem obvious or common-sensical are simply wrong. It happens that the solutions to such problems can be seen, but only if you look at them in the right way, a rather unnatural way. These problems are really vexing. Following is a great example of one such problem:
Please think about it some more. Better yet, imagine that there are a hundred doors (all with smelly goats behind them, except for one hiding a car), and the host opens all the doors except one. So now, only two doors are closed: your initial choice and the one the host didn't open. Would it improve your chances to switch doors? Ask yourself, when you chose that first door, what were the odds that it had a car behind it? Then ask yourself, what are the odds that the car is behind the door that the host left closed??? "To switch or not to switch?", that is the question.
Don't be hasty, but for the solution (and the source of the above problem statement), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors [and will win what is behind the chosen door]. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one [uniformly] at random. After the host opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1, and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?" Is it to your advantage to change your choice?Baaah!
Please think about it some more. Better yet, imagine that there are a hundred doors (all with smelly goats behind them, except for one hiding a car), and the host opens all the doors except one. So now, only two doors are closed: your initial choice and the one the host didn't open. Would it improve your chances to switch doors? Ask yourself, when you chose that first door, what were the odds that it had a car behind it? Then ask yourself, what are the odds that the car is behind the door that the host left closed??? "To switch or not to switch?", that is the question.
Don't be hasty, but for the solution (and the source of the above problem statement), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Clear Thinking vs. Groupthink
Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence. -Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (b. 1920)
Courage may be a sine qua non of clear thinking, but more ingredients are often required. It happens also that "there is strength in numbers" (a nice double entendre, and we don't mean lying with statistics, either).
Much to the irritation of Western individualists, it turns out that difficult problems are best solved by groups of individuals, and the best ideas come from groups, too. What, designed by a committee and a product of groupthink? Are you, a believer in the supreme power of the individual, shocked and aghast? You should be, because the evidence is compelling. See Chapter 26, "How Many Inventors Does It Take to Make a Lightbulb", in Evolution for Everyone, by David S. Wilson.
This annoying conclusion is the tip of a dangerous iceberg, that humans have a kind of group mind, where the whole is sometimes smarter than any individual. Not always, but sometimes, and those times can be very important. So we're playing coquette today, teasing you with truth, but not the whole truth, and returning later...
Courage may be a sine qua non of clear thinking, but more ingredients are often required. It happens also that "there is strength in numbers" (a nice double entendre, and we don't mean lying with statistics, either).
Much to the irritation of Western individualists, it turns out that difficult problems are best solved by groups of individuals, and the best ideas come from groups, too. What, designed by a committee and a product of groupthink? Are you, a believer in the supreme power of the individual, shocked and aghast? You should be, because the evidence is compelling. See Chapter 26, "How Many Inventors Does It Take to Make a Lightbulb", in Evolution for Everyone, by David S. Wilson.
This annoying conclusion is the tip of a dangerous iceberg, that humans have a kind of group mind, where the whole is sometimes smarter than any individual. Not always, but sometimes, and those times can be very important. So we're playing coquette today, teasing you with truth, but not the whole truth, and returning later...
Monday, July 18, 2011
The War on Drugs, Prohibition Redux, and A War on Sanity
Remember the bumper sticker, "End this War", modified to read "This Endless War"?
That's the so-called War on Drugs (WOD), which has mutated into corporate socialism for the prison industry and jobs-for-life for prison guards. It's also an excuse for cops to finance their organizations via "direct taxation," i.e., seizure of property from drug offenders.
Remember prohibition in the U.S? It resulted from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, sponsored by well-meaning folks infused with the Puritan Ethic. Seems like only folks nostalgic for Eliot Ness and Al Capone remember it now. It was a bad idea then and a colossal fiasco. It's a bad idea now, too, and we've had a newer version of it since the late 1960's. A better idea is harm reduction, where the cure is not worse than the disease and does not destroy the patient's life.
Drug abuse (read: abuse, not use) is bad for everyone, but the WOD is even worse. The violence in Mexico and Colombia are direct results of U.S. policy. Even more ironic, drug importers and dealers want the U.S. to retain its current policies, since it keeps the price of product up: it's the market in action, but trade is not free, due to the U.S. embargo, which helps sustain the high profit margin, violence, and loss of freedom and life. A sarcastic cynic might call this American Capitalism at its finest.
The United States imprisons a much higher percentage of its population than any other country. Is that the price of security? No, but the WOD is part of the reason. See this for the shocking reality, which deserves more commentary: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html
Let's end this nonsense now and spend the money on treatment and education. Money spent on education is money well spent, an investment in the future.
That's the so-called War on Drugs (WOD), which has mutated into corporate socialism for the prison industry and jobs-for-life for prison guards. It's also an excuse for cops to finance their organizations via "direct taxation," i.e., seizure of property from drug offenders.
Remember prohibition in the U.S? It resulted from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, sponsored by well-meaning folks infused with the Puritan Ethic. Seems like only folks nostalgic for Eliot Ness and Al Capone remember it now. It was a bad idea then and a colossal fiasco. It's a bad idea now, too, and we've had a newer version of it since the late 1960's. A better idea is harm reduction, where the cure is not worse than the disease and does not destroy the patient's life.
Drug abuse (read: abuse, not use) is bad for everyone, but the WOD is even worse. The violence in Mexico and Colombia are direct results of U.S. policy. Even more ironic, drug importers and dealers want the U.S. to retain its current policies, since it keeps the price of product up: it's the market in action, but trade is not free, due to the U.S. embargo, which helps sustain the high profit margin, violence, and loss of freedom and life. A sarcastic cynic might call this American Capitalism at its finest.
The United States imprisons a much higher percentage of its population than any other country. Is that the price of security? No, but the WOD is part of the reason. See this for the shocking reality, which deserves more commentary: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html
Let's end this nonsense now and spend the money on treatment and education. Money spent on education is money well spent, an investment in the future.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Counting to Ten in the Age of Partial Enlightenment, part I
The metric system is a wonderful tribute to the Age of Enlightenment idea of all things of, by and for man, in the words of the French philosopher Condorcet, to be "for all people for all time". Unfortunately it didn't go quite far enough, and now we're stuck with their oversight for the foreseeable future -- and beyond.
The problem is that the standard number system is based on ten. Why? Because most of us have ten fingers and ten toes. After all, what could be more important in arithmetic than counting on your fingers?
But first, let's ask why the has U.S.A. resisted metrification? True, the U.S. is conservative and slow to change, highly resistant to many good ideas that originate in government, and due to its bizarre organization, states have power over policies that would elsewhere be centralized. But that's not the reason. Evidently, the reasons have to do with proportion and with convenience of the number system. A yard does correspond to a meter, but that's about it. A foot corresponds to a human foot, which is approximately 30.5 cm, an odd duck of a number. In contrast, a foot has twelve inches, a number nicely divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6 (but not by 5). And a yard is three feet long, because three feet fit therein. Why do you think a day has 2X12 hours (instead of 10 or 20) and an hour and minute are each divided into units of 60 (instead of 100)? They didn't get metrified, at least not until you start measuring in milliseconds.
There is also evidence that many things manufactured and designed in metric units, just don't look right: their proportions are slightly off.
We understand that these ideas may be a little strange to the reader, but a bit of research and thought might be convincing. We are convinced, so let's get to the point.
The point is that the Enlightenment should have changed the base of the number system from ten to twelve. This would throw off finger-counters, but it makes arithmetic otherwise easier for people.
We realize that this notion is a bit difficult to grasp. For example, two new digits would be needed to take the please of the two-digit numbers 10 and 11. Just for fun, let's use a phi (ϕ) to represent 10 in this system. For 11, we can use a 'U' character. So to count, it would go: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,ϕ,U,10,11,12...,19,1ϕ,1U,20,21... and so forth. It works exactly the same as before but with more digits.
There are some other changes, but while initially odd, they work out better. Let's consider division by 2 (in base 12 arithmetic). For example, ϕ/2=5, U/2=5.5 and 10/2=6. It's just like dividing inches in a foot. It works much better than if a foot were divided into ten inches!
So a meter would be divided into 12 units, four of which would correspond to a foot. Each of those 12 units would be divided into 12 more, and so forth, just like the metric system, only in a different number system. It would be unimaginably better. The problem is the "unimaginable" part, so it's just not going to happen. Too bad those smart folks missed their big chance...
The problem is that the standard number system is based on ten. Why? Because most of us have ten fingers and ten toes. After all, what could be more important in arithmetic than counting on your fingers?
But first, let's ask why the has U.S.A. resisted metrification? True, the U.S. is conservative and slow to change, highly resistant to many good ideas that originate in government, and due to its bizarre organization, states have power over policies that would elsewhere be centralized. But that's not the reason. Evidently, the reasons have to do with proportion and with convenience of the number system. A yard does correspond to a meter, but that's about it. A foot corresponds to a human foot, which is approximately 30.5 cm, an odd duck of a number. In contrast, a foot has twelve inches, a number nicely divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6 (but not by 5). And a yard is three feet long, because three feet fit therein. Why do you think a day has 2X12 hours (instead of 10 or 20) and an hour and minute are each divided into units of 60 (instead of 100)? They didn't get metrified, at least not until you start measuring in milliseconds.
There is also evidence that many things manufactured and designed in metric units, just don't look right: their proportions are slightly off.
We understand that these ideas may be a little strange to the reader, but a bit of research and thought might be convincing. We are convinced, so let's get to the point.
The point is that the Enlightenment should have changed the base of the number system from ten to twelve. This would throw off finger-counters, but it makes arithmetic otherwise easier for people.
We realize that this notion is a bit difficult to grasp. For example, two new digits would be needed to take the please of the two-digit numbers 10 and 11. Just for fun, let's use a phi (ϕ) to represent 10 in this system. For 11, we can use a 'U' character. So to count, it would go: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,ϕ,U,10,11,12...,19,1ϕ,1U,20,21... and so forth. It works exactly the same as before but with more digits.
There are some other changes, but while initially odd, they work out better. Let's consider division by 2 (in base 12 arithmetic). For example, ϕ/2=5, U/2=5.5 and 10/2=6. It's just like dividing inches in a foot. It works much better than if a foot were divided into ten inches!
So a meter would be divided into 12 units, four of which would correspond to a foot. Each of those 12 units would be divided into 12 more, and so forth, just like the metric system, only in a different number system. It would be unimaginably better. The problem is the "unimaginable" part, so it's just not going to happen. Too bad those smart folks missed their big chance...
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Who increased the U.S.A. national debt the most? ...and the War on X
A: See http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/5684032538/sizes/l/in/photostream/
...subject to "fact check", of course, but accurate enough for politics.
The Republican War on Taxes is a War against Government, a war against a balanced budget and vital government services. The U.S.A. has the lowest taxes of any industrialized country except for Japan.
Repealing the Bush tax break for corporations and the upper echelon would nearly balance the budget, and a War on War (War for Peace?), i.e., avoiding needless war would put the country on the debt reduction road. (So which wars are needless? A: Most of them.)
...subject to "fact check", of course, but accurate enough for politics.
The Republican War on Taxes is a War against Government, a war against a balanced budget and vital government services. The U.S.A. has the lowest taxes of any industrialized country except for Japan.
Repealing the Bush tax break for corporations and the upper echelon would nearly balance the budget, and a War on War (War for Peace?), i.e., avoiding needless war would put the country on the debt reduction road. (So which wars are needless? A: Most of them.)
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The "royal we" vs. the "imperial I"
...or, we vs. me. Why doesn't this observer and commentator call itselves "I"?
A: Think "Benign Borg", with many benefits, but, sorry, memberships and voluntary assimilation are unavailable. Insistence is futile.
A: Think "Benign Borg", with many benefits, but, sorry, memberships and voluntary assimilation are unavailable. Insistence is futile.
Root causes of Global Warming, i.e., global climate change
Nearly nobody seems to notice or want to talk about the connection between burgeoning human population, degradation of the environment, exhaustion of natural resources, and reduction in quality of life. There is a connection -- and a causal relationship. Meanwhile, good Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, et al, continue to reproduce themselves willy-nilly because their religions and relatives tell them to, so they'll have someone to take care of them when they're old, and to maintain an illusion of immortality.
Of course, most people want and have kids, and only a cad doesn't love children. That's why the discussion ends before it begins. "...for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7 KJV, Christian Bible)
However, there is a glimmer of hope to be seen. In time, the population of industrialized countries becomes stable. (Why? You tell us.) The only exception is, as usual, the U.S.A., but in that case it's due to its immigration policy (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, industrialized countries are enormously wasteful and polluting, and they have an insatiable thirst for oil. So let's look for a country whose energy needs are satisfied by a non-carbon energy source. When and where will it happen? Will its population stabilize?
Of course, most people want and have kids, and only a cad doesn't love children. That's why the discussion ends before it begins. "...for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7 KJV, Christian Bible)
However, there is a glimmer of hope to be seen. In time, the population of industrialized countries becomes stable. (Why? You tell us.) The only exception is, as usual, the U.S.A., but in that case it's due to its immigration policy (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, industrialized countries are enormously wasteful and polluting, and they have an insatiable thirst for oil. So let's look for a country whose energy needs are satisfied by a non-carbon energy source. When and where will it happen? Will its population stabilize?
Pregnancy for Dummies
The other day, we were howling with laughter upon seeing the book title Pregnancy for Dummies. Various thoughts came to mind such as, "It's as easy as falling off a log -- or a romp in the hay." and "Any dummy can get pregnant." (Of course this isn't true for some people, and it may cause them distress.)
Later we realized that the book is not about how to get pregnant but about managing the condition so as to result in the mother having a healthy, happy baby, etc. In any case, be sure to first browse it and read the reviews before running out and (not) buying it...
Closing thought: Is there a follow-on book, Raising Children for Dummies? Should there be?
Later we realized that the book is not about how to get pregnant but about managing the condition so as to result in the mother having a healthy, happy baby, etc. In any case, be sure to first browse it and read the reviews before running out and (not) buying it...
Closing thought: Is there a follow-on book, Raising Children for Dummies? Should there be?
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Mil-newspeak or neutral term: Warfighter?
They used to be called soldiers, sailors, and then airmen. They are military personnel and (too-long term) "members of the military"; some once were "freedom fighters". We have our warriors, and now we have "warfighters." Why the rebranding?
From a historical perspective, we have William Astore's analysis:
Is it a good idea to have a professional, enlisted army? Would the U.S. have fewer military adventures if the draft were brought back? Consider this spectrum: temporary slave, draftee, professional soldier, mercenary. Should the U.S. Defense Department return to its old name, "War Department"?
From a historical perspective, we have William Astore's analysis:
When did American troops become "warfighters" -- members of "Generation Kill" -- instead of citizen-soldiers? And when did we become so proud of declaring our military to be "the world's best"? These are neither frivolous nor rhetorical questions. Open up any national defense publication today and you can't miss the ads from defense contractors, all eagerly touting the ways they "serve" America's "warfighters." Listen to the politicians, and you'll hear the obligatory incantation about our military being "the world's best."
All this is, by now, so often repeated -- so eagerly accepted -- that few of us seem to recall how against the American grain it really is. If anything -- and I saw this in studying German military history -- it's far more in keeping with the bellicose traditions and bumptious rhetoric of Imperial Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II than of an American republic that began its march to independence with patriotic Minutemen in revolt against King George.
So consider this a modest proposal from a retired citizen-airman: A small but meaningful act against the creeping militarism of the Bush years would be to collectively repudiate our "world's best warfighter" rhetoric and re-embrace instead a tradition of reluctant but resolute citizen-soldiers.
If that's not to your liking or too circumspect for you, a more neutral perspective is here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-warfighter.htm
Friday, July 1, 2011
Is George W. Bush a war criminal or a sincere defender of American security?
Seen in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w._bush but notably absent from U.S. news controlled by mainstream media outlets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/02/hbc-90007967
After Bush announced a planned visit to Switzerland in 2011, Amnesty International, in a memorandum to the Swiss authorities in February 2011, asked Switzerland to uphold its "obligations under international law" to arrest and detain the former president for "his alleged involvement in and responsibility for crimes under international law, including torture...." Event organizers, United Israel Appeal, canceled the visit. Reports differ over whether the cancellation was because organizers feared Bush's arrest for war crimes,[377] or, as was stated by the event organizer's lawyer, the event was canceled to avoid the prospect of violent protests.[378] Human rights groups have vowed to continue to seek Bush's arrest.[379]More reportage:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/02/hbc-90007967
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Humans are not biological, and they are not evolved.
A majority of Americans do not "believe" in the theory of evolution, and many people think humans are "above" biology and not part of nature. In the words of former U.S. president G.W. Bush about evolution, "the jury's still out." Well, the jury is not out, but the light bulb is. Dear reader, biologists can scarcely talk about biology nowadays without considering evolution. It's not even controversial, because the evidence is compelling, and because it explains things better than any other theory. That's a fact.
Note: "theory" means that the facts support it. The facts support Darwin's theory.
Now you don't have to believe us. Even more surprising, it turns out that you can even have religion and appreciate the power of Darwin's theory of evolution. Please see this wonderful book, Evolution for Everyone, by David Sloan Wilson:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214
http://evolution-institute.org/foci/
http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/
One of the great surprises is how much evolution explains -- and this tsunami of understanding is only starting. Evolution is a tide: you can swim in it, but you can't escape it. Or, mangling more metaphors, it's the tip of an iceberg, easy to see a little, but if you look below, the implications are enormous.
You won't regret reading Wilson's book; we promise!
Note: "theory" means that the facts support it. The facts support Darwin's theory.
Now you don't have to believe us. Even more surprising, it turns out that you can even have religion and appreciate the power of Darwin's theory of evolution. Please see this wonderful book, Evolution for Everyone, by David Sloan Wilson:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214
http://evolution-institute.org/foci/
http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/
One of the great surprises is how much evolution explains -- and this tsunami of understanding is only starting. Evolution is a tide: you can swim in it, but you can't escape it. Or, mangling more metaphors, it's the tip of an iceberg, easy to see a little, but if you look below, the implications are enormous.
You won't regret reading Wilson's book; we promise!
Why Democrats Have Trouble Getting Elected -- and What To Do About it.
Here's a fascinating tale of partial blindness and the emperor's new clothes, a story of good intentions but bad behavior. The analysis is compelling; it's a great talk, and Dems would do well to pay heed.
Prof. Joan C. Williams gets right to the heart of it -- after the intro, at around 02:20:
https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/joan-williams-why-are-democrats-embattled-and-how-can-they-win-again-6311
Prof. Joan C. Williams gets right to the heart of it -- after the intro, at around 02:20:
https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/joan-williams-why-are-democrats-embattled-and-how-can-they-win-again-6311
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)