Reflection on growing up in socialistic environment - am I becoming political?

Despite general negative opinion regarding socialistic societies, my childhood was almost ideal - thanks to my parents. I didn't feel restrictive influence of communistic regime, I had nice roof over my head, enough food, toys, interesting things to do, family happiness, education. I did plenty of sports, I spent a lot of time outdoors fishing and trekking with my parents. I loved to read a lots of books - mostly sci-fi of course. I was frequently involved in philosophical discussions about contrast between ideals of capitalism and communism and at that time it looked logical to me that equality and wealth for everyone is good idea. By growing up (wising up - I want to believe) and being exposed to capitalistic showcase and changes in society my opinions started to soften and the vision of "equality" started to erode. The idea that geniuses and dumb are having same contribution to society and therefore same compensation started to look suspicious to me. Is this equality good enough motivation to deliver better, more efficient technologies, more scientific breakthroughs? The hype of first revolutionary society changing times was over in sixties, although occasionally was in the air in my time.   

   I still remember that we were forbidden to wear jeans in school. There were many health reasons constructed for this restriction (erectile disfunction between others!), but deeply in our worldview we had jeans as a symbol. For many wearing jeans was rebellion against the establishment and other symbols (heavy metal music for some - Jimi Hendrix for others,  ) were usually accompanying jeans wearing. Nowadays it looks silly but all this little symbols contributed to fall of "iron curtain" in early years of last decade of 20th century. The "symbols" were accompanying the other capitalistic by-products, nicer cars, nicer wear, tools and gadgets and many technologies that made life easier.  Until now I can't decide whether it was more about desired civic freedom or more about unrestricted greed and ownership of "things". Obviously the second reason seems more and more obvious, since people 20 years later woke up and realized that actually there is a limit on ability to obtain goods but there is no limit on greed. Everyone can have (or better say can buy) whatever they want, but naturally majority can't afford it, therefore in dissatisfaction they look back on what they lost by converting to capitalism and the conflict is eminent (here I have in mind former communistic countries or so called "east block")  . People traded in life security (small crime rate), social and employment stability and their status. By "status" I mean that from "important" society builders and active capitalism opponents (remember "equality" made people with elementary education equal to ones with PhD in their qualification to make important decision in business and policies in everyday lives) they degraded to statistical taxpayers whose influence on society is mere question of voting for certain party and paying their taxes in time and for few to become elected officials with a lot of privileges (unfortunately to become privileged, one doesn't to be better, more experienced, better educated than rest). The aura of importance has diminished and everything seems so ordinary. The question of freedom becomes for majority actual day to day routine life, from time to time spiced by vacation to affordable popular locations. There were voices trying to resurrect socialistic way of life recently - fortunately unsuccessful. There has been few studies showing that material satisfaction is much better now, compared to that before 1989, but many more personal responsibilities and choices to make, create atmosphere of stress, delusion and doom. It will take much longer time than 20 years to appreciate freedom and build new society .....
   

Election pause.

It has been 2 months since I posted last blog. At that time I thought it would be wise not to get involved with any election buzz and I wanted to stay free of politics. When I started this blogger account I told myself to stay away from politic and religion. This two subjects are very peculiar and subjective so ones feelings can get hurt just by triggering avalanche of unwanted responses. I am still holding the stance on this but I never say never (actually I already am playing with some ideas how to spice up this boring place here...). So 2 months later, same president in office, economy slightly improving but still slower than we would like it be, some tragic events happened that pushed few teardrops from my eyes and in media revitalized discussions about the guns and the end of the world was postponed - again. X-mass lights are on and today I noticed few snowflakes. So pretty eventful end of the year. Looking back at my posts I register highest number of readers interested in my career post (Career move) followed by social networks post (Do social networks stand to their promise?). These two posts were far ahead of other themes. Well shall I learn from this experience and oscillate around these two themes or prevail and keep writing other stuff that satisfies my curiosity but it seems not to attract much of attention?
I am patient humble man. I do many things to please others but I definitely like to do things that please me. After consideration I decided to keep my course and keep writing about the themes that twist my mind (like potatoes? - really?) and the initial trigger to write was to exercise my self expression after all. I am still missing any feedback. No remarks, no comments nothing. I understand. I myself am still fighting with inhibition to comment on someones blogs even I feel I have something to say or question. And yet - nothing. Soon as I click on post comments button I realize that I start questioning my knowledge of the subject, I have hard time to find the words, I doubt my expertise and I end up canceling my response. Well  here I come - next week I will do it..... Anyone else?...... Waiting.......

P.S.: The posts: Career move 2 and Do social networks stand to their promise 2 will follow soon - as the end of the year summary of gained relevant experience since posts were published.

Android orchestra - art or no art?

How would you like the idea of attending a classical symphony concert, where performing humans will be replaced by robotic Droid-musicians (Let's assume for sake of argument that the sound quality will be equivalent to sound produced by classical instruments), you even can imagine orchestra stage with androids positioned as in real orchestra setting, dressed as classical performers with screens instead of faces?

I had recently this debate: Is it art or is it mere reproduction when musicians perform on paper recorded compositions? From amateur perspective I can argue that the orchestra is as good as each individual player is, perfectly using the instrument, synchronised with other players and precisely following the notes. Any individual approach will be neutralised and resulting sound is average of all instruments (of one kind). The synchronisation is maintained by conductor (pacemaker). From interactions with knowledgeable people I understand that the attributes mentioned distinguish good orchestra from bad orchestra. The good conductors have tendency to perform with good orchestras. The good conductors are usually considered the ones, who enforce pace in most effective and understandable way. Of course the public likes not only the best pacemakers, but also the best entertainers - body expressions of good conductor is important (I still remember the guy who almost felt to audience while conducting). So there is no place of individual artistic approach other than previously mentioned quality of reproduction within the orchestra with exception of soloists. What is the appeal of going to concert? You know what you are going to listen to - you have heard it most likely before. You know that there will be errors in play - deviation from composer's recorded notes (the extent of deviation depends on quality of orchestra of course), you know that there is a chance for distractions - your neighbour is sneezing, someone in hall is coughing. The chairs might cause you some discomfort and your position in auditorium actually affects the quality of sound and perception of your experience. Simply put cheap tickets will probably result in different experience than expensive ones.

A week ago or so I stumbled on the blog dealing with Audiophile understanding of music  (Read Eduard's blog). When you think about it you realize another valid point of view on music. I actually see it now when talking about the music as a art(regardless on genre classic, pop, rock..) as a 2 slightly distinctive forms. At concert you get whole package of social (people, dresses, glamour), musical (the piece on play) and performing arts (the orchestra with slightly exhibicionistic conductor..) satisfaction. The second artform represents actual musical masterpiece that you enjoy without any distractions and discomforts - in nice cozy environment most likely at home, in slippers or pijama, at the front of nice warm fireplace with good cup of tea in hand. As it appears both have music in center, but both are quite different each from another.

  It boils to some basic understanding of what the art is. There are multiple definitions of art but in focus of most of them is "creative skill" and "communication of emotion" employing creative skill. Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses. I am asking again, is the android orchestra an art form? Looking at definitions above I would say yes. There will be definitely communication of emotion, there will be process of this communication if there is an audience..... I assume Isac Assimov would agree....

West culture - What is so appealing?

 The other day I was reading the story of Spanish boy that was separated from his family at age of 14 months  to become spiritual leader in southern Indian monastery (dalai-lama-osel-hita-torres). When he reached 18th year in his life, he decided to leave monastery for Madrid where he studies film. As it seems, the isolation, spirituality and being worshipped as reincarnated Lama, didn't keep him on the path of lama but western lifestyle has attracted him more (at least for now). In my past travels and from communication with friends from all corners of the world I observed that this attraction is exhibited everywhere. What the attraction of so called "western lifestyle" is? On Wikipedia you can find few definitions, they all spin around "western culture" and "European civilisation" terms. The social norms, ethical values and rationalism, based on early Greek and Roman philosophies are believed to be the core of this culture. Creation of rational, logical system (I will not discuss in detail this topic - some other time), how to observe and describe the world created basics for philosophy and science which together represent rosetta-stone of western societies. Why do I say rosetta-stone? Removing or inhibiting  one of the principles like rosetta stone in arch, might impair or even revert the direction, where the culture is heading - asymptotic idea of freedom (absolute freedom is impossible, similar to asymptotic curves never reaching axis or ideal state). When trying to find the essence of eastern culture I would highlight some observations that I find most important in understanding of drive behind particular behaviour. Eastern social behaviour is -social - socialistic versus individualistic in western society. When thinking in terms of population sciences the society with more members (growth most likely possible due to abundance of resources in generally better local environment)  has higher chance to survive external changes than smaller society, because there is greater potential for selection of individuals with proper adaptation to new environment. Of course it is more difficult to maintain such society, where demands on sustaining lives of society members are reaching close to actual capacity of the system abilities - balancing around equilibrium. Simply put, there are limits to population growth without social unrest. Such society requires selfless mindset where individuals obey the rules and agree with the limits given (egalitarianism). In reality such society will be more of the flavor of dictature than of the free open society and practically this is true "socialistic society". In contrast smaller societies that due to harsh environmental conditions and scarce resources balancing on the edge of extinction (prehistoric Europe) rely on strength of each individual - which in turn nurtures strong individualism and less social behaviour. The good example is so called "pioneering personality" that relies only on self and trusts no one with hand close to gun. Interestingly the society consisting of individuals of second personality is more likely to be expansive, aggressive and "greedy", even first type of society has more need to expand - due to density of population, food resources etc.  In former socialistic countries - "east block", people of western culture heritage (Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Hungary etc..) were forced to live eastern culture lifestyle for 4 decades. The situation has been proven impractical or at least in-sustainable. Simple desire to look over the fence, to posses what people on the other side of fence posses, the urge to be individual and nurture ego, aversion against the crowd, made "Socialistic experiment" short lived. This difference has also interesting twist on understanding of invention and innovation process - will be subject of some future post.

Do social networks stand to their promise?

After lengthy polemic about  psychology of social networking in previous post - "Social networks - psychology behind blogging practice." - I decided to share my personal observation in regard to my post from August 23rd - "Career move" (there is big chance, that you didn't read the post so if you don't mind, screen it briefly before continuing reading this post - thanks).
What is LinkedIn?  LinkedIn connects you to your trusted contacts and helps you exchange knowledge, ideas, and opportunities with a broader network of professionals (exert from LinkedIn web page).  The web has currently plenty tools that can be used for analyzing traffic to the web page, so I know for sure that some people did read my "Career move" post.  Currently I have network of more than 300 people and number of reads of my post is far, far less. I know from few close friends that they log in to their LinkedIn once in a while. It seems that only few opted to receive LI updates with some frequency. Looking at response rate to my post I think it is true - "My network" uses LinkedIn, mostly as a resume place rather than targeted knowledge exchange. I am actually not disappointed - it is just evolution as it seems. I understand the inhibition to comment in between peers - especially ones that matter for our career. After all, we spend at work most of the conscious life, and to ruin our career by exposing ourselves too much simply is not good idea. LinkedIn is group of peers, not a bunch of friends (FB is designed for interaction with friends) - this is generally accepted idea.
For LI definition to became true, in this case I would anticipate some (any) reaction  to my Career post. Well I did address my peers and I expressed some need to find the answer to my Career question. Statistically speaking I should be not surprised that I had no feedback, since there were only few visitors to my post. It comes back to: what people do when they log in to LinkedIn.

Social networks - psychology behind blogging practice.

I am sitting on my folding chair on porch in my backyard, sipping coffee and having my laptop in my lap. Wonderful Sunday afternoon, almost autumn. Waiting for idea what to write about and hesitant whether to write at all. If you read one of my first posts - about write or not write the blog - you remember, I had this dilemma already. I speculated about why people write blogs and why it is good to write one. To me it was about the exercise. Well as it seems I didn't do many exercises, but...  there is always but. I did suffer with lack a feedback. As usually, authors want to see that someone did look at the the work and they anticipate reaction. Of course positive reaction is appreciated, but critique can help even more. Here I want to touch base with social networks. Frequently I read someones blog - opinion on something. Well, everyone is entitled to have an opinion. And if the opinion is expressed on public network with option to write comment, then anyone is entitled to write an comment on presented opinion. This is understood well. But the way how to present opinion and how to comment seems to be even more important than actual opinion. During reading many blog - opinions I already anticipate chain-reaction of comments. And yes they are there but after reading few I stop reading - vulgarisms, disrespectful comments,  strong counter -opinions (of the type - I know it better, you stupid and my opinion is louder and must be truth) - and many thanks to few with constructive opinion (there of course are still such a opinions. But as it seems in such loud environment I frequently inhibit my urge to write comment, because as it seems I am already afraid that I can't handle this opinion war. Then I realize - there is no constructiveness if I don't write, but I am still afraid to do so. So the same way I started to judge my most commonly used social networks - Linked In and Face book. For the second one I am going to make few comments - as it seems, many of us are just voyeurs, we like to watch, more private more dumpy is better and for the same reason we don't want to post, because - well - there are voyeurs that want to observe us you "dummy"... So the silence is the result. Why do we care then to have so many friends in friends list? First comes to mind is: more channels = more watching. Secondly many of us are  exhibitionists perhaps and we like to be watched??? Then maybe this is an answer - balance - like to watch and liked to be watched... Frequently I am thinking when I see people just trying to make an appearance that we mostly don't know how and what but we want people to know about us - we just press like button somewhere, thinking others will see at least what we like. Here I again see the problem with expression - we are afraid to express ourselves, because - what if the comments are not in favor of our expression? And here it is deep in us rooted - need for approval and worry of disapproval. So here I am with all my inhibitions - I will post some pictures - something that I like and maybe this wouldn't cause negative response. Then I look and voila - someone pushed like.... great - I am happy..... So little effort to make me happy...?...
And what about Linked in? It is professional network tool. What it is good for- maintaining contacts up to date, seeking people of certain professional background, presenting ourselves and showing our best, because this is what we anticipate of our contacts. Well this is at least what comes to my mind first thinking about Linked in. Of course human resources people (HR) love the "tool" for making their work easier when millions of people voluntarily offer information that otherwise they would need to gather some other way - more costly, more time consuming = more work. And then there is this self-promotion aspect. Well I can just post some general data and update it when I have some change, or - I can publish/update on daily or weekly base some information - which after each update shows my name in my entire linked to me network (this is analogue of FB - LIKE button). Then you can express your opinion, your critique - but wait - this is professional network - it is serious. They (superiors/bosses and potential bosses) can see you, what you think, what you dislike. They can see that you actually can express opinion and - is this always good? What if someone criticizes you in comments and everyone who matters can see it??? Well here is the problem of Linked- in and us and - Linked in being "social network". It is a tool so far to exchange CV data. It is big database. There are groups where actually social network idea can work, but being linked to our (not anonymous)  profile it will (or can) show our peers what we think...

P.S.: ups.... I guess you will be curious next time you see my FB pictures addition - or link to blog posting or my profile update on Linked in......

Knowledge management - Chapter 1 - big picture.

It is all about survival - stupid....
The other day I have been discussing with friend how violent humans are. The basis for discussion was the question whether being armed (or possession of the gun)  is good or not, whether right to protect your family can make you to use the gun? This discussion branched to different directions.   As it seems the wars are ongoing reality and as it seems that questioning morality of war depends on which side of the front line you are asking the questions. So I started to play this mind game to actually understand why there is still so much violence and why it will probably not disappear any time soon. Whenever you ask anybody about the war the answer is = war is bad. Well, the same is about the violence. Peacefulness is core of most religions and philosophical  movements. Most of economy scholars agree that in general for society war is having very bad influence on economy. Of course some might dispute the issue, because there is always someone making a lot of money on war, but in general for society it is destruction, lost opportunity and a lot of workforce wasted. If you count how many lives were lost with so many potential Einsteins, how much effort was lost to rebuild the cities, how much money were invested again just to rebuild lost infrastructure, you might get to conclusion that we would have been much further evolved as a mankind if there was no war. If you think about the civilization as a dynamic growing entity, building up the mass and expanding experience = knowledge, then this knowledge should expand in parallel with population growth curve. Well, all wars reflect gained knowledge - the conflicts becoming more and more technologically sophisticated - the fruits of technology evolution in real life test - stronger technology wins*. As it seems looking backwards at human history you can find few arguments suggesting that actually this is natural way of human evolution. In many cases it was the war that triggered technology evolution, it was the ultimate threat of defeat and death that triggered invention. As collateral many other areas of nonmilitary needs were satisfied. My comment will probably upset all rationally thinking pace-loving minds, and I will be accused of macho and testosterone influenced behavior - or maybe fascist.   Nietzsche's wrote: "what doesn't kill you will make you stronger" - he referred more to individual development as I take it, but it will apply to society too.

NASA's NEO statistics. 

Now I refer to subtitle: It is all about survival - stupid... In biology we are taught that life has some properties that differ life from ordinary dead matter. One being propagation and urge to spread and secure new territories. The evolution theory teaches that species most adapted (or adaptable) to environmental conditions survive. In human society it is similar. The brain helps compensate or supplement adaptation ability. First it was small human populations vs. Nature. When there was more of humans that possessed ability to defend themselves against the Nature and Nature was no more threat, they thought other humans - well there was this skill to fight so there was need to utilize it, right? - and there was growing human population, and there was teritorializm. So basically humans follow same urge as primitive bacteria: spread and propagate...
But wait, did I say "Nature" was/is no more threat?


When we look at it even in wider picture I have to show this bar-chart posted on NASA website listing Near Earth Objects (or Asteroids)**. The chart represents quantity (y) of objects of 5 sizes (x) that were spotted near Earth. Summary: 9000 of known, spotted objects, flying in Earths vicinity! Here I will ask myself - Can we extend the term "NATURE" to space? Well I suppose so. Then I would take back statement of Nature being no more threat to Humans. Dinosaurs and perhaps 80 - 90% of species that lived on Earth in past would be witnesses that the Space is quite dangerous place. Well and after this longer (than intended) article I finally come to conclusion what I wanted to say:

People - we should invest more to space research and it is essential to do so - for mankind and for some 9 million animal species and 300.000 plant species - not even counting fungi, bacteria, viruses - simply for life. Philosophically speaking the humans might be just the kind of evolution result which life on earth - Gaia, or how you want to call it- intended, or was in-avoidable in order for life preservation. In the Earth history were 4 mass extinctions so far discovered, the last one labelled K-T extinction 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, known for the extinction of Dino's. The next one - there is statistical certainty that there will be next one - time is only factor - so the next one can be even more devastating.

Therefore I urge you throw some diamonds on Moon (The man who sold the Moon (1949)- Robert A. Henlein) and colonize space - there is soo much space out there - So we don't have to suffocate down here....

P.S.: this all was written under influence of first successful private space endeavor by SpaceX company and Dragon spacecraft.

*- I will disagree with this statement in some other post.

**- I would love to come back to this chart in one of my next posts...

Career move.

Today I received daily communication email from Harvard business review with subject: Are you ready for your next career move? Well the timing is incredible - I have been asking the same question for few days if not months. I have discussed this question with few friends employed in human resources in different companies and they have noted after seeing my resume: “wow, you will have many good offers in no time”.  This is what I thought when I expanded my PhD title with MBA almost 2 years ago and, well the reality is not matching my expectations. I really am not complaining about my life at this moment. Until now I had perfect balance between my personal and work life. I just returned from amazing vacation in Slovakia and I am well refreshed, but with my fresh view I looked at my perspective at my current place and I got excited again. Change... Change is in the air. I like change. But.... Well I started to look at opportunities, sent few applications and... No offers yet. I didn't send tons of applications as few career websites suggest (it is a must to beat statistics they say). I did send few and I targeted applications to friends, but... Too many buts. So? What seems to be the problem? I seem to have opened forthcoming personality, I am communicative, knowledgeable in many different fields, interested almost in everything, easily excitable, patient and yet, I am still waiting for "the" opportunity to harness my experience and qualifications and turn it into gold. Well, at least in good feel that I really am doing something what I was built for... Any chaperons or mentors out there? Any job offers?

Harry Seldon said II.

There is one interesting implication for the "psycho-history". As mentioned in post "H.S. said I.", the system must let the subjects (people) behave absolutely random (unaware of the prophecy) - based on their choice and free will. Only then the final outcome can be predicted. So any influence of "single direction" - dictatorship of any kind should be prevented - therefore democracy is a must (any strong power initiates strong opposition).... Well any kind of democracy.... And I suppose any religious influence is unwanted interference too (therefore separation of state and church?). Unpredictable outcome of clutches of different religions in the past are good sign of why there is need for coherent (uniform?) society..
What is then such prediction of the future good for?

• First reason that comes to mind - obviously - is mankind's preservation. Past few thousand years of Human history gives quite violent picture of genus Homo sapiens. Last 60 decades Humans dance on the edge of extinction of nuclear war. Even after 2 decades of the de-nuclearisation of the world there is still enough of nuclear weapons to wipe out the life from the surface of the Earth (well, not all life- the bacteria and maybe some bugs would be evolutionary winners). To prevent such a downfalls/fluctuations would definitely be a big step towards Human preservation.  Good reason right? 
• The second reason that bounces in scull is "the control". What control? Well society control, mankind control, human evolution control. So if we assume that there is someone - wise man - behind the scene and in shadow and is playing with us to keep us on track, preventing us from self destruction  it seems that psycho-history can potentially benefit mankind, but... Here comes the number of conspiracy theories with different explanations why actually it is not good and we are then not free etc. Well, Harry Seldon might ave good intentions, but.....who controls the controller?

Here I got an idea for another post... will continue......

Potato II.

I just posted the story how the potato triggered industrial revolution and right away I got caught by story of "Irish famine". As it seems we humans need really strong stimulus to change our behavior. In the years of 1740/1741 the climatic disaster and very cold and lengthy weather caused bad harvest of potatoes and oats (seems to be main source of calories in Ireland at that time) which in combination with cold, caused death of about 30% of Irish population. It took Ireland many years to recover and about 100 years later the "Great Irish (Potato) famine" happened. This time low potato harvests were caused by potato plant disease. About 10-15% of Irish population died and about the same number emigrated from Ireland. As it seems New World has benefited at that time from influx of willing and cheap labor to feed industrial growth (thanks to potatoes?).
So as we learned before, dependency on limited number of energy sources can have fatal consequences (similarly mentioned in the post about human sacrifice by Aztecs...) and it is not always the story about oil and current techno-society .....

How Potato changed history.

I really like to browse in Wikipedia. I always find something new something that interests me and triggers my curiosity. Recently I have been researching the low carbohydrate diets and obviously I looked upon different carbohydrate food sources (I will get to this topic in different post). So I crossed my reading path with potato. The Wikipedia nicely wraps up the history of the POTATO.
In East Slovakia potato has been the most important source of calories since it has been introduced in this area.  Actually it has pushed out of the area crops that has been growing there for centuries. The resources (Wiki) state that planting potatoes, 4x more of the calories can be harvested compared to grains. So there has been correlation between farming of potato crops during 18th. century and development of industrial revolution. It was simply regrouping and availability of workforce, farmers freed from work on fields looking for job in industry and then later potato easy source of energy for hard working people in industry. So if there were no potatoes, this workforce would not be freed from farming and therefore industrial revolution would be much slower. Yet again, another piece of puzzle of why western civilization was dominating world's politics in 19 and 20th centuries and why expansion to the New World made Europe winner in this expansion and not the Asia (there will be post with this theme).

Harry Seldon said...

I love Science fiction. This statement should be expanded for Fantasy as I learned that sci-fi maintains story within more less plausible situations in regards to current laws of physics and supposedly ignores supernatural, while Fantasy deals mostly with supernatural. Well I believe that this definition is not carved in stone and frequently some of the supernatural aspects appear in scifi. I started on this post motivated by opening capitols from Prelude to Foundation (Isac Assimov) where Hary Seldon met with Emperor Cleon I.
Harry established basics of new science: psycho-history where he married mathematics and sociology to predict long term behavior of human society. The aim was to predict downfalls and avoid them or at least neutralize their effect and secure continuity of civilization. Similar to physics where quantum theory can statistically predict behavior of particles in matter - let's say electrons - but not whereabouts of single particle.  Cleon's concern was more of individual future - himself - and his legacy. Emperor Cleon envisioned to use of credible scientist with credible formulas to create prediction of possible future, where everything goes well for Empire and especially for Emperor - self fulfilling prophecy. People usually pay attention to authorities (sophisticated scientist with math and formulas sound like authority...) and then their action is influenced by the prophecy and there is tendency that the odds are shifting in favor of the prophecy - especially the one positive for Cleon.
The actual Seldon's psycho-history keeps predictions secret from general population precisely for that same reason. People knowing odds of future start working against the impersonal unbiased prediction and actual process of creating and calculating this prediction will loose it's power and become obsolete. The "particles" will change behavior due to the prediction therefore rendering prediction useless (parallel of physical measurement where actual process of measuring the temperature of cup of water changes water's temperature).  Hence secrecy of psycho-history and only elite is allowed to be involved. All this is directed with big-picture of the human civilization survival.

The translation to our everyday life means that since there were wise man in history (philosophers, politicians, writers) that thought of this interesting issue,  there is a good chance that some of them were wealthy and influential and potentially did something to make sure mankind will survive... And here we are - conspiracionists would scream - hallelujah. I am just talking about someone who must stay behind the curtain, all knowing, absolutely influential pulling strings of puppets -us - PUPPET MASTERS!!!

DISCOVERY.....

The "Space Shuttle era" has reached the end. It is sad, especially for people who grew with it. I still remember excitement after first flight in 81 when space enthusiasts anticipated that by 2000 we  will be in space like at home. It was still socialistic "darkness (as we are told)" and the Space Shuttle was at this time for many the symbol (perhaps almost like a Jeans) of capitalistic expansive behavior and seven years later when Russians responded by Buran (btw. looking almost as identical copy of Space Shuttle) there was cheer that socialistic ideals might catch up and space competition goes on. Well after the first and only flight Russians realized the cost is tremendous and they cancelled program. Now almost 25 years later the same fate meets Space Shuttle program. In the same time I personally think the privatization is the way to go. If there is greed, there is also invention. So Let's welcome new era of "private space exploration".

Smithsonian Castle represents new life for Discovery.

Farewell Party for Space Shuttle at the Mall.

Goose chasing the Shuttle.

Aztecs and energy crisis.

 I have realized, how much I am missing by watching mostly prerecorded shows and movies on DVR and skipping on adds. Yesterday by watching Indiana Jones (crystal scull - definitely not my best Indiana)  directly on cable and surfing other channels during advertisement (well other things what usually adds are for I did during other adds) I found in position 669 (FIOS)- channel  - "Wealth". I have stumbled upon this channel in the past and as before I was attracted by content and not (as my wife would say) by colors and beautiful anchors and flashy lifestyle choices... Well the theme was Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica - Inca, Aztec and Maya. From many interesting bits of information I was amazed by similarity of their needs and crises to ours. Energy (oil, electricity) in particular. Why? The human sacrifice that Aztecs are so known for is very similar to what we currently do to maintain status-quo of our civilization (Iraq wars, etc...). Aztecs adopted from some predecessor culture believe that ancient gods sacrificed themselves to ignite Sun and keep it running. So it was traded that life-force is needed to maintain Sun's performance and therefore good harvests and happy society. Well to do this they cut open chests and removed hearts from war prisoners and criminals and sometimes of political figures of opposition. The "energy demand" was growing with growing Aztec empire and there are reports of sacrificing 84000 prisoners on some special 4 day celebration. Well the experts now say that "logistics" of such undertaking would be so humongous that  the number is likely much much smaller - perhaps only 2000. Regardless needs for such number of hearts stimulated war and expansion efforts, because internal resources were limited and citizens wouldn't like the idea of potentially being sacrificed when the clouds obstruct sun. Expansion of empire created more worrying citizens and further expansion was needed.
Another interesting fact:
because ancient Mesoamerican civilizations didn't have draft animals that would carry people (only perhaps lamas in south america?) and that would stimulate development of the wheel and carriage, they mostly used people to carry cargo and news - messengers. In such case they just needed simpler road with simpler maintenance and these are still present and they were few thousand miles long (they even had built latrines every 15 miles)....

Friday 13th, 2012....

Just got back from Costco and can't help myself to think about stashing reserves for the "bad times". One way or the other, it seems to me that it is more economical to do one big shopping every two weeks than stopping by store every day. Bulk is cheaper, less gas/diesel is used and after all time is saved. Speaking of freshness: I don't believe there is fresher produce (or much fresher) at the local store, unless it is farmers market, and frankly, how many of us buys from farmers regularly? There is one disturbing point of "Supermarkets" - since they turn a lot of produce, there is tremendous volume of BIO waste. I feel pity for all this fruits and veggies that made it to the store but will end in waste..-I always wonder where actually. I am leaning to idea that frozen (properly) is way to go. It cost some energy, but ultimately it will be used and not wasted, while fresh produce cost energy too - storage and eventually -waste.. And You need more chemicals (or actually supermarkets need chemicals to delay wasting) so we all would be perhaps better with frozen (and of course local).

Blog or not to blog.

As many times before I ask the same question. Is it worth to do it? Well as in stated in my title motto, my thoughts are taking shapes when writing them down. So perhaps it will be good for something. I always approach this question with prejudice that if I have nothing to say is better not to say anything. But..... Well even saying something worthwhile requires training. As the theory says brainstorming is the best way to formulate new ideas - particularly feedback is the key. So I will try to organize my thoughts and anticipating that YOU will help me to see them from different angles. So this is for my start after a long vacation......