fractalnavel

not acceptable ;-)

craig ran across this new multi-dating-site search service, by lycos.  it's in beta, and looks pretty good.  needs a couple features ironed out, like the fact that using certain criteria that is not available on a searched site will exclude that site entirely.  they at least need to indicate which site(s) each criteria applies to.  and they could also let you choose the sites to search, and then show only the available common criteria.  that sort of thing.  finally, they also need to work in the “reverse match” and “mutual match” features that match.com has, so that people can find those who want them as well.

anyway, in order to use some of these features, you have to put in your own profile, and i hadn't done that at any dating site in some years now, so i figured, what the hell.  one of these sites, tickle.com (yeah, goofy name, i know) had the most comprehensive criteria, and they also had a number of personality etc. tests integrated, so i figured i'd use that one.  it's a fun exercise in self knowledge in any case.

dating sites typically review profiles before they are made public, including photos.  well, for some reason they rejected the one at right.  i thought it was a great idea for a secondary photo (the primary being something approaching a normal portrait).  i think it captures personality and creativity etc. very well.

so i was going to deactivate my profile after i showed it around to friends for kicks, but then i thought, what the hell, i'll leave it up, see what bites ;-)  not that i'm exactly in any sort of dating shape at the moment.  part of the motivation came from the fact that my usual pessimism about these things was somewhat disproved.  with a few minor tweaks to profile and search parameters, i was able to find some legitimate possible matches. go figure.

i also filled in a match.com profile, with essentially the same information, but not as complete, because i wanted to play with their better search features.  quite fun, and again, i'm surprised at the results.  so i'll leave this one active as well.

i noticed that in both cases the profile reviewers are free to crop the photos and make at least minor edits to the text - and even some of the choices, it seems.  now, i think that's male bovine excrement, but i suppose some people find it helpful.  i know how to frame my images, thank you.  in one case they cut half of one picture off, which completely removed its humor (the “chicken or egg“).  and when it came to text, they felt free to put in their own profile title.  that's not minor.  i had put in the same innocuous crud i used at tickle.com, and match.com changed it.  the pics at match.com haven't been reviewed yet; we'll see what their reaction to the collage is.  at first glance, it seems their image policies are a bit more liberal.

one thing i noticed was that they had initially shifted the target age range down five years.  which is interesting; maybe i should think about that.  but not too seriously ;-)

so we'll see.  i'll leave this active while i'm on the road the next week and a half.  maybe there will be more than chirping crickets ;-)

| |

i may not like the company much, but this ad really hits the spot for some reason:

"do-do-do do do-do do-do-do doo-do ..."

;-)

| |

it's been long gone from this neighborhood, even though there the nearby slopes are still open.  i just haven't been too enthused about ambient cold rain [sorry, jon!].  in fact, here we are, nearing the end of february, which spells spring in this part of the world, and i've done nothing.

so, although delayed a month or so from the usual schedule, i'll be on my way to my sister's annual shanty creek get away tomorrow.  we'll be in a different part of the resort too.  i'll try and reserve judgement, enjoy the trip for what it is, but it will be hard not to compare with all the prior years.  consider it an experiment, i guess.  if it fails, we will have learned something that we couldn't have claimed knowledge of before.

my other sister was wanting a house sitter / mayhem minder out in maryland as she and hubbie head for a rare weekend get away of their own the following week.  i've procrastinated on that, don't know why.  mostly guilt over the lack of doing anything about the lack of employment ;-)  we shall see.

i guess i should be getting to that practical pre-trip stuff...

| |

an interesting viewpoint:

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003



I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. ... [more...]

good thoughts.  but i kinda disagree about his conclusion about the need for science.  do what we will, the universe will ultimately persist.  it's immaterial whether that persistent state is “favorable” to humans or not.  this is part of the “religion” of which he speaks, yet he missed that point.

our anthropocentrism is not even truly about humanity, it's focused on mankind as we currently perceive it.  we ignore the fact that both humanity and our perceptions are constantly changing.  not that this really matters, since “humans” are not the point anyway.  there is no point.  why is that a problem ?

fact: the fractalnavel is a moving target.

| |

not part of the flow, but this item on things to consider when starting to dive was triggered by a question from a sister-in-law.

| |

weirdest thing.  having some problems with connectivity after playing around with the web server and dns.  none of the aol stuff can see out.  imaybe i 'm thinking i'll have to reinstall things,  what do i need to backup ?  they sure hide this shit good. ok, make the copies, and get generally prepared in case shit hits the fan.  let's try xp's system restore first, hitting the latest checkpoint.  ok, and i should reboot everything else as well, just in case bad stuff is cached in the dns or router or whatever.  don't fix what ain't broke, eh ?

everything restarted?  ok, last chance, how's aol?  hey!  it works!  not only that, but a couple of aol communicator related services i thought were irretrievable lost last year are now working!  like my news ticker, and the radio.  don't know what happened, but as long as it works, i ain't questioning.

cool.  time to look around.  hey, what's that ?  an all led zeppelin channel - !

| |

craig is ranting on about potential censorship of a frontline episode, and i did it earlier about “saving private ryan” censorship.  it reminded me of carlin's old bit about the “seven words you can't say on tv”, and as usual, i wandered by wikipedia to see what they had to say about it.

a short article, with some interesting links.  but this part of the “history” section caught my eye:

“This decision formally established indecency regulation in American broadcasting”

is this a fair evaluation of the impact of that case ?  don't know; could be.  following the link to the case itself and doing some browsing around is eye opening about things like fcc powers.  it also has a huge volume of links and references to first amendment issues.

but what occurred to me was that, if that statement is true, then carlin inadvertently turned the tide of censorship - in the wrong direction.  nasty backlash effect, eh ?

could a radio station broadcast that bit today ?  how might the supreme court's decision have differed had the case been heard in a different era ?

i don't know if we should be fearful of poking the bear, but perhaps timing is important.  unfortunately, that was part of the supreme court's decision as well.

| |

today is “spend some time learning more about social security” day.  there is a lot of interesting stuff out there; i put a few links on my “reading” list.

i'm not going to try to interpret that all for anyone.  there are a lot of issues to consider, and i'm not at a “conclusions” point yet.  i'm pretty certain no one can actually conclude anything without some serious poring over of actuarial studies and doing a lot of calculations themselves.  sure doesn't stop our politicans and interest groups, though, now does it ? ;-)  especially after they hear things from the technical experts third or fourth (or twentieth) hand, with everyone putting a spin on the discussion in inverse proportion to their distance from the decisionmakers. 

which kind of brings me to the point i do want to talk about:  what exactly constitutes an interest group in this context ?  doesn't it seem that the majority of those making decisions and throwing their weight around are those who will be least affected ?  those in the government (civil servants, politicians) are not affected.  current aarp members are not affected. 

our current elected officials also do not fairly represent those (directly) affected.  i guess the idea is that “we're all in this together”.  but are we ?  as in, why should some retiree on florida be able to vote on what retirement will be like for a teenager in wisconsin ?

i wonder if there should be some sort of proportional voting rights in this case.  and there are probably other cases as well that may benefit from such a precedence.  actually, the precedent already exists.  geography, for example.  and non-geographical associations such as professional memberships, etc.  not to mention global considerations.

but since the real focus on social security reform is not so much financial as it is socio-political, maybe this doesn't apply.

or maybe it always applies.  should people be given a vote proportional to their life expectancy ?  how about in inverse proportion to their financial health (a way of accounting for power already in hand) ?  maybe the factors should vary according to the issue - ?  just what is democracy, anyway ?  surely nothing as simple as “one man, one vote”.  no one really has that anyway.  nor is there equal opportunity for candidates.

pragmatically, it's all managing expectations, i guess.  teach people what they should expect (value, prefer), and make sure that's what they think they're getting.  kind of hard to go wrong when you control every part of the equation.  it's all sheepherding.

bu truth - ah, now that's a different matter.

i think i'll take a stab at this book that's been sitting on my shelf for ages: Princeton Symposium of Social Insurance Its Philosophy Impact and Future Development. not something you're likely to find at amazon.com ;-)  there's essays by the book's honoree at J. Douglas Brown; will take a shot at that too.  stuff i used to deal with from way back in my actuarial days.

counterpoint from an essay:

But suppose we got a Townsend-type of administration in power in Washington, somebody who wanted to change everything. What would be our best protection? The people who had contributed under the old system, because they wouldn't be too sure the new system was going to pay off, especially if we did something foolish.

--- J. Douglas Brown

| |

thanks to warrierz for this one:

Free burgers at White Castle

http://www.fatwallet.com/t/22/438264/

http://www.whitecastle.com/_pages/offer.asp

Passcode: ALWAYS OPEN

coupon for two fresh burgers, or 35¢ off frozen six pack, will be mailed.  uh oh - i feel a crave coming on ;-) 

it doesn't seem to mind if i keep hitting “submit”.  hmmm....

| |

there are some phrases people should know better than to use around me  ;-) 

craig:

[snip 1] So what do you think of the premise that a free liberal society that stresses individual liberties and freedoms cannot survive? That there must always be a boogey man out there to unify against at the sacrifice of individualism. Individualism decays into selfishness and the destruction of a society.

[snip 2] So what do you think of Howard Dean getting the nod to lead the Democrats? I realize the position doesn't really have much power but still now he has a microphone. I never much liked the guy when he was running, had some whacked ideas. It'll be interesting to see how much cnn time he gets. We really need another political party in this country. Think of it this way, in the Soviet Union they had one person to vote for, in the US we only have 2 people to choose from. Democracy?

me:

we've never really had pure democracy here, but the complexities are beyond average folk, so this is pretty much ignored.  and i'm still trying to figure out what they did in iraq - people elect an assembly, which in turn selects a president and two vice presidents, who finally pick a prime minister and cabinet, who do the actual governing.  say what ?  and the primary task this time around is to create a final constitution.  so when the sunnis boycotted this election, they left themselves without a voice in a one-time-only process, not like some news commentators are reporting, "oh well, next time they'll vote".  this can leave permanent scars in the process.

 

and look how long it took for the us constitution to be "finalized".  one false start and significant last minute amendments to the next version.  and this was in simpler times when brighter minds were around.

 

me, i'm not even sure what we have now.  i need to re-study forms of government.  browsing through wikipedia seems pretty efficient these days.

 

so, the reality is that we are still muddling through systems of ever increasing complexity, with some popular illusions of what we have, motivated by our "leaders" to preserve those illusions.  i've said for years, and heard it echoed recently in one or more of those programs i downloaded, that what separated the us from its communist counterparts was that it was far better at propaganda.

 

which, really, is all that most people want or need, apparently.  and that "better propaganda" process doesn't waste its time interfering in non-essentials, for the most part.  so, in many senses, the result is "better" for the average person.  i guess one could argue that the neo-cons and religious conservatives are making their big mistake in that their agenda is too recognizable.  actually, that's pretty much a given.

 

are there "liberal" causes with a similar degree of far left leanings ?  using those labels is problematic, since liberals are much harder to pin down in many ways.  problems with the label itself, and maybe with the reality...  so this indicates, maybe, that either the "liberals" are doing a good job at keeping their agenda under the radar, or that they truly have organizational difficulties.  i'd say it was clearly the latter.

 

but the problem is with the labels on all sides.  for example, extreme free market reforms are formally known as a "liberal" cause (liberty = freedom).  however, this is part of the conservative agenda.  and the conservatives also have a tradition, at least lip-service, of wanting less government involvement in individual lives - eg, reduction of government size, reduction of taxes, reduction of entitlement programs, etc.  yet, in a seeming contradiction, conservatives also tend to enact laws which attempt to impose "morality" driven limits on behavior, and to subordinate civil liberties to nationalistic and corporate interests.

 

the labels are basically useless; we need to focus on line item agendas.  this could solve problems ranging from the intentional confusion of the relgious right and neo-con agendas, the lack of liberal identity, and the creation of new parties that are free of these baggage issues.

 

but see, this perennially gets democrats smacked down.  "intellectual elitism", and the like.  the popular vote _likes_ dumb politicians - or, more accurately, those that can put on that act most effectively.  so this phenomena - right or wrong - disqualifies the likes of kerry or carter from party leadership, presidency, etc.. 

 

dean, on the other hand, is just the kind of dumb politician that people identify with (? odd thing to say, but there it is).  however, the democratic agenda doesn't mesh well with that type of presence.  in other words, there is an inherent conflict between the message and the delivery.  you can't make them fit without fatally compromising either or both.

 

in this sense, the republicans seem to have forced democrats into a corner.  i think you were trying to express this in terms of the inherent instability of the liberal cause, in that individualism tends to tear apart its own system, for whatever reason.

 

i don't know that another political party is really the answer.  libertarian causes will always result in the same dilemma. 

 

but dilemmas are usually an indication of a problem that needs reframing.  dilemmas are opportunity smacking you in the face.

 

what's the opportunity here ?  well, identify the underlying conflict:  individualism vs. government, right ?  it seems that the former is developing so far as to evolve into a non-governed form, or at least far enough that the still significant population that clings to government can cause it damage.  not my conclusions - these are being played out in society right now.  interestingly, socialism and the like are also strong governmental forms that would counteract such liberalism as well.  see ?  liberal is not leftist. (of course, the "liberal" label will probably never be sufficiently disambiguated to make it useful again).

 

in some senses these are good events, this conflict of evolution and stasis.  the idea is to become conscious of them so as to make the best choices, for the right reasons, and not fall into the confusing illusions and associations.  then one can determine and enact a practical course of action based on these decisions.

 

as in, the world is probably not ready for complete individualism yet, but it clearly is _not_ inherently unstable once the context is set (look at how strong it has been at self-organizing in the face of opposition).  but that context does not yet exist, so this must be dealt with.  i think freeing the natural evolution of human society is a good cause.  as if we had  much choice, or that much control.  which is why government should give way to self-organizing individualism. 

 

yet the pitfalls are always there.  interestingly, we may have put in place sufficient mechanisms to prevent those pitfalls from materializing enough to destabilize the overall structure.  ie, no more hitlers - and no more bushes.

 

the struggle right now might be considered a last stand of strong central government (note the republican hypocrisy here) against a new form of emerging individual-based organization.  it's not anarchy, it's not socialsm, and far from communism.  it's something new. 

 

scares the hell out of many.  we are still in the midst of the fight, of course.  and there is still a practical need for many forms of centralism (maybe we need to shit-can the term "government" as well).  this is due to the varying state of human evolution across the planet, among other forces. 

 

so, how to get there from here ?  well, you can't really direct self-organization.  this is still a focus of research.  so let us then merely _participate_ in it.  what practically needs to be done ?   how best to do it ?

 

for one, how can we get the best fit among people and systems for the jobs at hand ?  to date we have been in this oversimplified mindset of "one size fits all".  for example, why in hell should a conservative administration be appointing people to head up what are clearly liberal departments ?  or vice versa ?  let's get the liberals in where they should be, and the conservatives in their favorite posts.  they can fight over the budget, etc.  a congressional / presidential split can help some, yet in other ways blocks needed progress (and regress).  if we're going to continue with a two party system that seems entrenched, then we need additional constitutional safeguards.  or, one may also conclude, that there are current consitutional objections to the current operating form of government and politics.  in any case, there's a clear disconnect.

 

so, let's recast the discussion in terms of centrism vs. individualism.  the agendas are much clearer along those lines. 

 

and then we need to knock down the structures that support corporate entities as autocratic extra-governmental fiefdoms where the bill of rights stops at their doors.  since when ?  this seems to be the biggest current danger to continuing social evolution.  businesses are good, it's just that some of the conflicts between corporate and individual need revised resolutions.  unfortunately, the rest of the world needs to evolve somewhat first to prevent corporate escapism - which is represented now by offshoring and globalization in ways that are abusive here and abroad.  probably an inevitable transition effect.  but the transition needs to be kept in hand.  not prevented, not let loose - managed.  i think this is one area in which protective mechanisms fall short, and where pure "free" market economics is not valid due to the global imbalances in things like human rights, labor pool, education, systems of government, and so on.

“what do i think?” - ha !

| |

do the sports bars go empty on valentines day ?  

i always dreaded that holiday.  it takes planning, and i never planned.  it also takes a sort of hypocrisy where there's an expectation of romance.  romance to me was always spontaneity, acts of unexpected kindness and passion.

i always sweated it out, whenever i was dating someone, because i knew it wasn't me.  hell, i didn't like celebrating any holiday, much less one that was so contrary to my personality.  do it for her ?  yeah, she loves it when i fake it.  that's a gift ?  i don't think so. 

but i understand that most people are not like me.  some people get this, little by little, but never as much as when expectations are set in such high contrast.

so it didn't matter that i treated girfriends as if almost any time we were out was romantic, dinners, walks, movies, trips, whatever spontaneous passion arose.  if i blew v-d, that was it.

guess i'm hardly marriage material ;-)  no shit, eh ?  “no planning” and “weddings” just goes so well together, dontcha think ?

which brings up a whole lot of other internal psychodrivel for me to ponder.  i won't burden anyone with that.  for now ;-)

| |

for a fee, of course: movielink.com

and for "aol for broadband" subscribers (like me), they are offering a number of older movies for free (like, this one looks interesting).

why is it i don't care about owning a movie if i pay, but music is different ?  music also has more replay attraction (it helps that individual pieces are much shorter, i guess).  maybe i've just been well-trained by the entertainment corporations.  think of how different media is treated by public libraries, and why.

the prices should come down a bit, and/or the viewing terms should be expanded, but it starts to show at least some response to the new marketplace.  not a bad idea, really, but i'd rather avoid the movie industry altogether these days, given recent mpaa actions. 

also, i haven't searched, but i suspect that the movielink library is limited to mainstream offerings. 

| |

some odds & ends thoughts over the last couple of days:

• watched “outfoxed”,  more free speech/press stuff.  not sure how valid and balanced their own point of view is, but surely their comments on fox news' relationship with far right ideology is worth paying attention to.  not so much for what it says about fox itself - their views have been pretty clear from the outset - but for what it says about large media conglomerates in general, and the dangers to press, and thus to society.  old stuff, but people seem to forget, so it bears repeating.  downloaded from bittorrent ...
• ... speaking of which, another one bites the dust - and the big one.  lokitorrent.com went under after taking substantial donations from users.  the resulting confusion and sense of betrayal is causing some backlash.  this la times article adds a bit of perspective.  note that this time, user logs got snagged in the ruckus.

  in any case, this is an issue worth following, in terms of concepts of privacy, ownership and market forces. of course, in the current political environment, there's little hope for reform.

• i got this comment from some recent mailing:

  Beneath the incomprehensive [sic] federal budget numbers -- a record $2.57 trillion budget, a record $427 billion deficit, a record $419 billion in military spending -- the federal budget is a moment of truth.

  never mind the context i pulled that comment out of, i have a way to address the incomprehenisbility: measure such figures in “gates”, which is the largest example of personally held - and in principal, personally comprehensible - fortune (bill gates wealth clock)

  while he may not be always be THE richest person due to fluctuations in the markets, he has the longest time up there at the highest level, and at a younger age (i think).

  comprehensible ? well, sort of. i was browsing wikiquote, ran into this random one:

  “When I started Oracle, what I wanted to do was to create an environment where I would enjoy working. That was my primary goal. Sure, I wanted to make a living. I certainly never expected to become rich, certainly not this rich. I mean, rich does not even describe this. This is surreal.”

  -- larry ellison (who ranks somewhat below gates in the "shitload of money" department)

  anyhow, at the moment of writing, that budget is about 43 gates. the military spending is 7 gates.

  now that's context.

  ---

  update: a little more generic unit might be “greatest accumulation - single person”, or “gasp”, or variants like that.  has a good ring - “the budget has risen to 43 gasps”.  but a “gates” has a geeky appeal, even if it does lack a certain panache.  but what did you expect from a geek ? ;-)

| |

“we have met the enemy, and he is us”

could standing up for free speech devalue all speech ?

here and there the last couple weeks there are news pieces on the colorado professor's right to state his opinion, no matter how odious.  his job is protected by tenure rules - so far. 

well, first, i object to the fact that any sort of tenure is required to protect a person's job for making any statement.  there's a problem right there.

but on the flip side, statements by “supporters” condemning the content of his statements, yet purporting to support his right to say them, only reinforces the fallacy that “everyone has a right to his opinions” and “all opinions are of equal worth”. 

bullshit.

of course, that kind of “support” implicitly says exactly what i'm saying - they are still making it clear that a judgement as to value is necessary.  most people - sheeple - seem to miss that critical point.

but i've seen this often flipped around, where some people dismiss issues at will by declaring that it's “just an opinion”, while attempting to deflect objections to that insult by the condescending “and everyone has a right to theirs”.

speech is not free, not in the practical sense.  it comes at great personal and societal cost, in some cases.  and in others, it is so cheap as to be meangless drivel.  but never free.

there is a misunderstanding of “freedom” as “unrestricted”, i think.  there is no such thing as a constraint-free existence, nor would such a thing be comprehensible.  “cost” is a useful way of expressing that. 

and one cost of freedom is the risk inherent in it.  the risk of attack.  the risk of ridicule.  even the risk of success.  freedom without risk is not freedom.  i say “risk”, not “sacrifice”, especially sacrifice in the cause of reducing risk.

freedom is responsibility, not entitlement.  freedom is only found in reality.

is there reality behind what this professor has to say ?  sure.  odious ?  not a bit.  controversial ?  good.  are we so arrogant as to believe that only the insane could take issue with the behavior of americans ?  we are far from perfect.  everyone is far from perfect.  there are perfectly reasonable perspectives where, yes, americans are the villains.  and perfectly reasonable perspectives that conclude that violence is the only answer.  we do it all the time.  why not others ?

but who likes to see their own position weakened ?  or insulted ?  no kidding.  the cost of speech.

in fact, the most valuable speech is probably that which is offered in spite of the lack of freedom, not when blessed by it.  the balls to stand against the world, to scream into the wind, to risk all.  anyone can be nice, maintain personal, social, political relationships.

is this professor right ?  never mind that.  why can only a professor be defended ?  how free is speech if only the specially protected and cloistered can truly partake ?  which is my point: the academics are seen as having earned their “right”.  paid a price.  the cost.

contradictions and paradox.  which basically indicates a poor perspective on the issue, a formally badly posed question.  clearly, it could use deciphering. 

just wanted to toss some thoughts down before they dissipated. if it sounds like muddling, it's because i'm muddling.

follow up - free speech and blogging:

• Right to Free Speech Has Limits on the Job
• Don't Blog - Blogging headlines from the future backlash
• Blogger Influence Raises Ethical Questions

nasty shit.  and yes, i had this on my mind while writing the above; in the periphery, at least.

| |

worth repeating: more, uh, good reads at goodreads.ca, this time on things theist, “truth”, etc.  i've only been occasionally following this site the last few weeks, but so far has consistently solid finds.

that's a very interesting first article.  in some respects i'm envious of that little girl's (the author's daughter) atheistic upbringing.  what must it be like not to have that god concept drilled into the recesses of one's skull ?  but it gives me a headache to think that way; pulling on those (personally) ancient threads can unravel so much.

| |