If you haven't already heard about this, MIT has a new initiative call MITOpenCourseWare. Through this initiative, anyone can get access to MIT courses for free. It includes lecture notes, reading assigmnets, lab assignments, exams, tools, lecture notes and now, for some course, complete video lectures and this is All For Free!
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Food for Thought
What I eat has a dramatic affect on my mood and motivation. I need to start eating healthier.
WTF
We have split the atom, sent men to the Moon and probes to Mars and beyond, created the microchip, unraveled the Gene, developed the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. We have looked at galaxies from the beginning of time and particles from seconds after the big bang.
So, why the hell can't I go out and buy an electric car today?
So, why the hell can't I go out and buy an electric car today?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Brain
Have you ever been in a conversation, say at a party, and not been able to make out what someone just said, only to figure it out just as you asked them what they just said? I just found out what the mechanism for this is.
The brain (your brain) has the ability to playback things that just happened. It can literally replay the sensory impulses a second time, so that it can be better comprehended.
I just thought this was amazing. It explains a lot, for me at least.
The brain (your brain) has the ability to playback things that just happened. It can literally replay the sensory impulses a second time, so that it can be better comprehended.
I just thought this was amazing. It explains a lot, for me at least.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Self Audit
I'm feeling a strong urge to create something, in the arts or sciences, but I find myself increasingly getting caught up in the daily routine. I need to figure out someway of breaking the habits that I am developing and find some outlet for my ambition. So far, I've been wasting the most productive years of my life on useless and meaningless pursuits in an attempt to satisfy my ego with superficial activities.
I feel, that if I don't reach out, if I don't start taking a real interest in things, if I don't start taking risks, if I continue to isolate myself, if I keep on this path of short term gains, that I will end up in a job that doesn't challenge me, in a life that doesn't interest me and with a feeling of lost opportunities.
I need to dive head first, run full speed, to be complete engrossed by something or I will self-destruct.
I feel, that if I don't reach out, if I don't start taking a real interest in things, if I don't start taking risks, if I continue to isolate myself, if I keep on this path of short term gains, that I will end up in a job that doesn't challenge me, in a life that doesn't interest me and with a feeling of lost opportunities.
I need to dive head first, run full speed, to be complete engrossed by something or I will self-destruct.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Humans are Naturally Polygamous
(I just thought this was interesting)
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.
Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.
Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.
In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.
Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.
Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.
In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)
The Root of the Problem
In a recent article in 'Psychology Today', Alan S. Miller, PHD, discusses ten evolutionary theories that do a lot to explain human behavior, but is also very politically incorrect.
In the seventh theory, she discusses what Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals. The main point is that men peak in creativity, drive and expression in their early adult hood, usually around age 26. This is attributed to the time in which men need to work the hardest in order to obtain enough status and materials in order to attract a mate and have children. Shortly after this, their productivity drops off.
"Paul McCartney has not written a hit song in years, and now spends much of his time painting. Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid. J.D. Salinger now lives as a total recluse and has not published anything in more than three decades. Orson Welles was a mere 26 when he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in Citizen Kane."
Although, this is very interesting, he goes on to make this point,
"The similarity between Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, and criminals—in fact, among all men throughout evolutionary history—points to an important concept in evolutionary biology: female choice."
"Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes."
There it is ladies. Stop asking for so much from men and settle for less and you can stop all that is evil in the world.
In the seventh theory, she discusses what Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals. The main point is that men peak in creativity, drive and expression in their early adult hood, usually around age 26. This is attributed to the time in which men need to work the hardest in order to obtain enough status and materials in order to attract a mate and have children. Shortly after this, their productivity drops off.
"Paul McCartney has not written a hit song in years, and now spends much of his time painting. Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid. J.D. Salinger now lives as a total recluse and has not published anything in more than three decades. Orson Welles was a mere 26 when he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in Citizen Kane."
Although, this is very interesting, he goes on to make this point,
"The similarity between Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, and criminals—in fact, among all men throughout evolutionary history—points to an important concept in evolutionary biology: female choice."
"Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes."
There it is ladies. Stop asking for so much from men and settle for less and you can stop all that is evil in the world.
Friday, July 06, 2007
RSS Feed
Do you use an RSS Feeder? Do you use iGoogle? If you answered, "Yes!" to either of these questions than I have some exciting news for you!
Now, for a limited time, you can subscribe to the 'Joyride' RSS feed, the blog written and maintained by me, Joshua Carlson!
Be kept up to date with the latest and most interesting stories on the web!
Follow the exciting life of one of Americas rising stars!
Be one of the lucky few that can say that they are part of something truly great!
So 'Click Here' and be part of the rEvolution!
JoyrideTM is a trademark of Joshua Carlson and Joshocar Enterprises. Joshua Carlson retains all the rights and privileges associated with the 'Joyride' trademark and Joshocar Enterprises. Any use or reproduction of information presented must have explicit consent from Joshua Carlson or Joshocar Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.
Now, for a limited time, you can subscribe to the 'Joyride' RSS feed, the blog written and maintained by me, Joshua Carlson!
Be kept up to date with the latest and most interesting stories on the web!
Follow the exciting life of one of Americas rising stars!
Be one of the lucky few that can say that they are part of something truly great!
So 'Click Here' and be part of the rEvolution!
JoyrideTM is a trademark of Joshua Carlson and Joshocar Enterprises. Joshua Carlson retains all the rights and privileges associated with the 'Joyride' trademark and Joshocar Enterprises. Any use or reproduction of information presented must have explicit consent from Joshua Carlson or Joshocar Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, June 29, 2007
From Life, Comes Life
As a whole, we are evolving intelligence. The signs are beginning to show themselves.
From the position of a being observing the planet from far away, we are beginning to show the first signs of intelligence. It is only a matter of time before the creature known as earth becomes self-aware.
Life emulates Life. From life, comes Life.
From the position of a being observing the planet from far away, we are beginning to show the first signs of intelligence. It is only a matter of time before the creature known as earth becomes self-aware.
Life emulates Life. From life, comes Life.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Facebook Generation
Where in our parent’s generation there was a separation that took place between friends due to marriage, moving and/or children, I don’t see that happening to our generation. Our parents lacked the social networking tools that we have today. It is much easier to keep in touch with an old friend if all you have to do is look them up on Facebook/MySpace, rather than trying to find their phone number in a phonebook. It is also much easier to reopen a dialog, either through e-mail, instant messages or messaging over Facebook/MySpace.
There was an article in The Washington Post today that discussed the possibility of Facebook replacing yearbooks in high school. I don’t know if that will ever happen, but when you think about it, Facebook is much better in terms of making photos and interests of old classmates available.
There was an article in The Washington Post today that discussed the possibility of Facebook replacing yearbooks in high school. I don’t know if that will ever happen, but when you think about it, Facebook is much better in terms of making photos and interests of old classmates available.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Web 2.0
I'm not sure if I should upgrade to Web 2.0 or wait until they release the next service pack an and get Web 2.1.
Any Opinions?
Any Opinions?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber
Inside The Mind Of A Suicide Bomber
Science Daily — Suicide bombers are not mentally ill or unhinged, but acting rationally in pursuit of the 'benefits' they perceive from being part of a strict and close-knit religious enterprise, according to a University of Nottingham academic.Research by Dr David Stevens, of the School of Politics and International Relations, suggests that the widely-held view of suicide bombers as brain-washed religious fanatics, vulnerable through youth and poverty, is not an accurate one.
Dr Stevens argues that while religion plays a central role — there are few instances of non-religiously motivated suicide attacks — the suicide bomber is also driven on another level by a rational thought process. This is the desire to be part of a group that engenders strength and solidarity from strictness, and encourages members to submit totally to the collective aims of the group.
Being part of an exclusive group with very strict beliefs requires intense commitment, and engenders a deep belief in shared experience and self-sacrifice, according to a recent paper by Dr Stevens.
Suicide bombers are thus motivated by a “simple cost-benefit analysis”, in which the 'benefits' of self-destruction outweigh the cost. The benefits are perceived by the terrorist to be so great — in terms of membership of the group, achievement of collective goals, the promise of benefits in the after-life, and so on — that they outweigh the cost.
In this way there is a 'marriage' of violence and religion, via the suicide bomber's participation in the group, Dr Stevens suggests.
“Seen in this light, suicide bombing is explicable in terms of rationally motivated actions, and not in terms of theological and/or irrational motives,” he said. “To gain the collective benefits of participation in a strict group requires self-sacrifice, often of extreme levels.
“Suicide bombing is just an extension of this self-sacrifice — the ultimate extension. The benefits are perceived to be so great as to justify the action. Fortunately this is so only in extreme instances, under certain circumstances.
“But then suicide bombing is in actual fact very rare. Rare, that is, when it is remembered that extreme religious groups make up only a tiny fraction of religious groups as a whole, and 99.99 per cent of those groups are in fact peaceable.
“Statistically, then, finding one or two people willing to make such a sacrifice is incredibly rare. However, given the nature of suicide bombing, it only takes one or two.”
The attractions of intense solidarity don't only apply to fringe Islamic sects, but also to other extreme religious groups, Dr Stevens said. Many members of other such groups — from the Moonies to the Branch Davidians — explain their decisions to join, and as importantly to leave, in terms of the costs and benefits of participation rather than in the context of a 'brainwashing' process.
Dr Stevens also argues that contrary to popular opinion, poverty, isolation and lack of education are not typical features of the bomber profile. Mohammad Sidique Khan, for example, who blew himself up in London on July 7, 2005, murdering six people in the process, was a 30-year-old with a young family of his own and a job working in primary schools with special needs children.
Likewise it is a common misconception that suicide bombers are mentally ill or irrational, Dr Stevens argues — because it would make them a liability to the terrorist groups with which they were involved.
He said: “From purely an organisational point of view, working with deranged individuals is extremely hazardous. Terror organisations go to extreme lengths to keep their activities and set-up secret. The costs of discovery are immense for all involved.
“Under such circumstances, who would want to work with someone completely unpredictable — a maverick, a loose cannon — someone likely to give the game away at any stage through an act of sheer madness? Even terrorists don't want to work with those with a death-wish — you achieve very little that way.”
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Nottingham.
Link to Original Story
Science Daily — Suicide bombers are not mentally ill or unhinged, but acting rationally in pursuit of the 'benefits' they perceive from being part of a strict and close-knit religious enterprise, according to a University of Nottingham academic.Research by Dr David Stevens, of the School of Politics and International Relations, suggests that the widely-held view of suicide bombers as brain-washed religious fanatics, vulnerable through youth and poverty, is not an accurate one.
Dr Stevens argues that while religion plays a central role — there are few instances of non-religiously motivated suicide attacks — the suicide bomber is also driven on another level by a rational thought process. This is the desire to be part of a group that engenders strength and solidarity from strictness, and encourages members to submit totally to the collective aims of the group.
Being part of an exclusive group with very strict beliefs requires intense commitment, and engenders a deep belief in shared experience and self-sacrifice, according to a recent paper by Dr Stevens.
Suicide bombers are thus motivated by a “simple cost-benefit analysis”, in which the 'benefits' of self-destruction outweigh the cost. The benefits are perceived by the terrorist to be so great — in terms of membership of the group, achievement of collective goals, the promise of benefits in the after-life, and so on — that they outweigh the cost.
In this way there is a 'marriage' of violence and religion, via the suicide bomber's participation in the group, Dr Stevens suggests.
“Seen in this light, suicide bombing is explicable in terms of rationally motivated actions, and not in terms of theological and/or irrational motives,” he said. “To gain the collective benefits of participation in a strict group requires self-sacrifice, often of extreme levels.
“Suicide bombing is just an extension of this self-sacrifice — the ultimate extension. The benefits are perceived to be so great as to justify the action. Fortunately this is so only in extreme instances, under certain circumstances.
“But then suicide bombing is in actual fact very rare. Rare, that is, when it is remembered that extreme religious groups make up only a tiny fraction of religious groups as a whole, and 99.99 per cent of those groups are in fact peaceable.
“Statistically, then, finding one or two people willing to make such a sacrifice is incredibly rare. However, given the nature of suicide bombing, it only takes one or two.”
The attractions of intense solidarity don't only apply to fringe Islamic sects, but also to other extreme religious groups, Dr Stevens said. Many members of other such groups — from the Moonies to the Branch Davidians — explain their decisions to join, and as importantly to leave, in terms of the costs and benefits of participation rather than in the context of a 'brainwashing' process.
Dr Stevens also argues that contrary to popular opinion, poverty, isolation and lack of education are not typical features of the bomber profile. Mohammad Sidique Khan, for example, who blew himself up in London on July 7, 2005, murdering six people in the process, was a 30-year-old with a young family of his own and a job working in primary schools with special needs children.
Likewise it is a common misconception that suicide bombers are mentally ill or irrational, Dr Stevens argues — because it would make them a liability to the terrorist groups with which they were involved.
He said: “From purely an organisational point of view, working with deranged individuals is extremely hazardous. Terror organisations go to extreme lengths to keep their activities and set-up secret. The costs of discovery are immense for all involved.
“Under such circumstances, who would want to work with someone completely unpredictable — a maverick, a loose cannon — someone likely to give the game away at any stage through an act of sheer madness? Even terrorists don't want to work with those with a death-wish — you achieve very little that way.”
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Nottingham.
Link to Original Story
Monday, June 11, 2007
Happiness in a Pill
If there were a drug that had no other affects other then to make you feel happy and content, no matter what happens in your life, would you take it?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Grey's Anatomy
Some excerpts from the New York Times article on the show,
"Everything wrong with “Grey’s Anatomy” and its soon-to-be spun spinoff is the fault of 'Ally McBeal.'"
"It wouldn’t matter, since the show is admittedly over-the-top escapist fantasy for women, except that it is troubling that even in escapist fantasies, today’s heroines have to be weak, needy and oversexed to be liked by women and desired by men."
"People complain that hip-hop stars use obscene lyrics and lewd music videos to demean women. Sometimes, so do even the most bourgeois women’s television shows."
Does anyone out there who watches the show even know what the title is a reference to?
Plus de poissons ?
The worlds fisheries will be gone by 2050 if the current trends in fishing continue.
At least someone is trying to stop it.
At least someone is trying to stop it.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Speaking of Pi
"I'm sorry, but I don't judge a person by the sin of their theta or the color of their skin.
Love is non-linear, like sin(omega*t) and you can't differentiate it into something linear. You just need to learn to roll with the waves. It's not about how big her omega is or how long her period is, but rather it's about whether or not you are harmonics of each other.
I love all women, even if they can't differentiate their way out of x^2."
Love is non-linear, like sin(omega*t) and you can't differentiate it into something linear. You just need to learn to roll with the waves. It's not about how big her omega is or how long her period is, but rather it's about whether or not you are harmonics of each other.
I love all women, even if they can't differentiate their way out of x^2."
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The MET
I realized, during my trip to NYC, how much of the art in the MET was sponsored and created in order to revere religion and the rich. The shear number of portraits of the rich or the noble amazed me.
I think is says something about us that we honor these things. Well, now that I think of it, I don’t really think anyone who goes to the MET, or any other museum at that, really goes to see a portrait of a rich women or man from the 1600’s or a picture of the resurrection. I think these are just filler pieces.
It seems that in order for a museum to be considered world class, it has to have a massive collection on display. Like the Louvre in Paris, France.
Most people go to a museum to see the famous pieces, by artists they have heard about, like Picasso. Not to see all the filler pieces.
However, I also think that these pieces have left a mark on people. In general, it seems that people judge a piece of artwork by the skill it took to create it. I think this criteria is wrong.
Art should be judged by the emotion it brings out in you, by what it is trying to say and by how you relate to it. Not by the skill of the artist to create a photograph like painting.
This, I believe, is the main barrier that many people face when they are confronted with contemporary and modern art.
I think is says something about us that we honor these things. Well, now that I think of it, I don’t really think anyone who goes to the MET, or any other museum at that, really goes to see a portrait of a rich women or man from the 1600’s or a picture of the resurrection. I think these are just filler pieces.
It seems that in order for a museum to be considered world class, it has to have a massive collection on display. Like the Louvre in Paris, France.
Most people go to a museum to see the famous pieces, by artists they have heard about, like Picasso. Not to see all the filler pieces.
However, I also think that these pieces have left a mark on people. In general, it seems that people judge a piece of artwork by the skill it took to create it. I think this criteria is wrong.
Art should be judged by the emotion it brings out in you, by what it is trying to say and by how you relate to it. Not by the skill of the artist to create a photograph like painting.
This, I believe, is the main barrier that many people face when they are confronted with contemporary and modern art.
Perspectives
This should help put a perspective on the scale of pollution that is taking place in todays world.
*The haze is actually changing rain patterns
**Similar haze is seen in India
This is just cool.
*The haze is actually changing rain patterns
**Similar haze is seen in India
This is just cool.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Over-clocking
If I offered a service which, for a small fee, would over-clock you current computer, making it faster, would you be interested in it?
It would extend the life of you computer and would be cheaper than buying a new one.
It would extend the life of you computer and would be cheaper than buying a new one.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Compound Interest is a Powerful Thing
If you have money sitting in a saving accout, invest it. You are actually losing about 3% of it every year to inflation.
In the long run, on average, the stock market grows about 8% a year. If you are diversified, in the long run you will make 8% a year on your investment.
Based on these assumption,
If you invest $1,000 a year, you will have $113,283 in 30 years.
If you invest $5,000 a year, you will have $566.416 in 30 years.
If you invest $15,000 a year, you will have $1,699,248 in 30 years.
For those of you interested in investing here are some links that will help you out,
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/begininvest.htm
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/beginmutual.htm
In the long run, on average, the stock market grows about 8% a year. If you are diversified, in the long run you will make 8% a year on your investment.
Based on these assumption,
If you invest $1,000 a year, you will have $113,283 in 30 years.
If you invest $5,000 a year, you will have $566.416 in 30 years.
If you invest $15,000 a year, you will have $1,699,248 in 30 years.
For those of you interested in investing here are some links that will help you out,
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/begininvest.htm
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/beginmutual.htm
Friday, March 09, 2007
Artificial Intelligence
If scientists were able to create an artificial intelligence far greater than any persons, that was able to manage our government in such a way that we had,
no crime,
no hunger or poverty,
no war and we were all able to live happy and productive lives,
would you be willing to follow it?
Even though it is a machine?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
