Tom Dalton :: Doer of Good

How many digits are in an American Express credit card number?
Which country in Asia gets the least annual rainfall?
What's a good recipe for snow cod that also uses the soy sauce I need to finish off?
Wgnt rnisoal bletang igj prownth en abscrym Jenfrup?

This is just the start of an idea I hope to develop further: I think the ability to use search engines is fast becoming an essential survival skill, like reading. If you can "search," you have answers to a thousand times more questions than before.

At work, I can answer almost any question that somebody emails me. When people ask me in person, I don't know -- I turn to Google. The Internet becomes (how scary is this) almost an extension of my own mind. Okay, that's the sci-fi in me, but it's true to an extent. Having near-immediate access to the best thoughts of the best people all across the world is a tremendous advantage.

Search is important for far more than just commerce.

Did you know there's actually a reason why people talk so loud on cell phones? It's related to the reason your voice always sounds funny when it's recorded. ("I don't really sound like that, do I?")

Here's a fun little CS project I assigned myself on a boring plane flight:

How much space would it take to create and store every possible song?

I'd like to compose every song that could possibly be written, and then sue everyone else who ever writes a song for violating my copyright.

It's a noble goal! Read all about how I plan to accomplish it.

"In both human and rhesus monkey societies, individuals vary in their influence and reproductive potential," he says.

That quote came from a news article about research by a PhD at some university somewhere. That quote is a shining example of the basic failure of science to help move our society forward. The study was investigating "wandering eye syndrome," or why some men stare at attractive women even if they are in stable relationships.

When a researcher sees a question like that and is led to wonder what rhesus monkeys do to see if he can find the answer -- we're in trouble.

Science, where art thou?

Okay. So, the quest is this: record the entire spectrum of TV. Cable, broadcast, whatever. Let's say, for the sake of discussion right now, that I want to record all the ambient broadcast TV.

A few facts that I've managed to piece together:

A typical TV signal as described above requires 4 MHz of bandwidth. By the time you add in sound, something called a vestigial sideband and a little buffer space, a TV signal requires 6 MHz of bandwidth. Therefore, the FCC allocated three bands of frequencies in the radio spectrum, chopped into 6-MHz slices, to accommodate TV channels:

* 54 to 88 MHz for channels 2 to 6
* 174 to 216 MHz for channels 7 through 13
* 470 to 890 MHz for UHF channels 14 through 83

The composite TV signal described in the previous sections can be broadcast to your house on any available channel. The composite video signal is amplitude-modulated into the appropriate frequency, and then the sound is frequency-modulated (+/- 25 KHz) as a separate signal.

VHS tapes have about 3 MHz of video bandwidth. So that's why the quality is lower, I suppose, on VHS tapes. The signal is compressed somewhat.

To tape 100 channels at "full" quality would cost about 600MHz of bandwidth. At VHS quality, it seems like that would be 300MHz.

It looks like you'd need a special oscilloscope or other device to record the whole thing. I'll keep working. Hmm hmm.

I *love* projects like this.

Q. Mass can be converted to energy -- but what happens to the inertia of that mass when it is converted?

What I'm thinking is, take a 50 billion ton object. Say it's a spaceship and I've accelerated it by slingshotting it near a star or something. Now I want to turn it 90 degrees to the left. That would take a tremendous amount of energy. Could I just convert it to energy, somehow rotate that energy, then reconstitute it as matter?

Of course, this is a stupid question. But for a science fiction idea, let's play with it. Is inertia a property of matter that persists when it's converted to energy? Or would it simply be converted into more energy, because its mass has actually increased with its speed. Then when I convert it back, I'd use that extra energy to accelerate it in the new direction.

And how about converting most of its mass to energy to speed it up incredibly. Store that energy -- the intertia would simply result in the smaller mass moving more quickly. Then I could slow it down again by converting that stored energy back into matter.

Maybe that's what stars are. Fuel dumps for an ancient civilization that seeded the universe with pit stops.

How dumb is this?

If I release a single molecule of a gas into a vacuum chamber, I have no idea where it will be at any given moment. No clue what that molecule is going to do. But if I release a volume of gas equal to the volume of the chamber (or half, or double, or whatever) I have a pretty good idea what the condition of that chamber will be at any given time. In fact, I can mathematically model it to such a degree of precision that I could see all kinds of practical outcomes.

People? Similar in many ways. One person -- I don't know what he's going to do. One visitor to my website, one guy who sees my TV ad, whatever. But the stream of people who visit my site? Much more predictable.

The difference between people and gases is that people are unique. That uniqueness means I can't predict exactly how successful my Superbowl spot will be. But the uniqueness is also significantly diminished as lots of people are lumped together. The common elements of people start to stand out more.

And that's where mobs come from. And TV audiences. The common elements are also often the base elements. Dumb, selfish, and lazy.

That's why when I analyze a website, even if not one of the visitors will be dumb, selfish, or lazy, I know that they all will be. (No offense.)

The Wikipedia summary of the problem: if I have a bale of hay and remove one piece of straw, is it still a bale of hay? What if you remove another? When does it cease to be a bale of hay?

Another version of the problem: a museum displays the ax with which George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Over time, of course, the wood decayed so they replaced the handle. And a few years ago, the head rusted and so they replaced that.

The word "paradox" probably stretches a bit when it is applied to this problem. And that gets at the heart of the two pieces of the answer I see to this problem -- imprecise use of language.

Let me introduce two concepts that will form my answer to the Sorites Paradox.

1. Partial Identity -- Let's start with Plato's idea of the 'ideal' form of things. Plato suggested that there is an 'ideal' Triangle, one perfect in form and proportion. All triangles in our experience are shadows of this idea. When we call something a triangle, we mean more specifically that it resembles the ideal of a Triangle and varies in one or more ways. What we typically call a square is also a triangle, if we specify that it is a triangle with one side bent into two, shorter sides.

So a specific bale of hay that you might have in a field is a shadow of the Bale of Hay that would ideally define the class. Let's say in the thought experiment we begin with a perfect bale of hay. (We can't, even in a thought experiement, begin with the ideal Bale of Hay, because ours is fixed in time and space and has all manner of attributes specific to that bale of hay.) Then we remove one straw from it. Is it still a bale of hay? Not exactly. It is now a bale of hay with one straw removed. For convenience in discourse, we'll leave out the details that don't affect the material of our discussion.

But when those details begin to affect the substance of the discussion -- once the bale of hay has less commercial value because the rancher who wants to buy it notices that it is much smaller than the other bales of hay, for instance -- we can no longer use the convenient, inaccurate labels. It's not a paradox, it's just plain inaccurate.

2. Functional Duplicates -- So what if every time I remove a piece of straw from the bale of hay, I add one from somewhere else? Once I've replaced every single piece of straw, is it sill the same bale of hay?

No. It's a functional duplicate. In the case of hay, my rancher customer probably doesn't mind that the hay has all been replaced. The value to him did not come from the original composition of the bale -- merely the utility of its end state. George Washington's hammer, on the other hand, is valuable for its original composition far more than its end state. It's the fact that it was George Washington's axe -- meaning George Washington's handle and blade -- that carries the real value.

When the original handle rotted and was replaced, the label George Washington's Axe reflected a partial identity. George Washington's axe handle was gone, and his blade was now paired with a new handle. When the blade was replaced, George Washington's Axe no longer existed. If the museum continues to use the label "George Washington's Axe," it's only because the new axe hanging up there one the wall has some value as a placeholder. But if the axe went up for sale at auction, it would be very important to be much more precise about its identity.

Practical Applications

Abortion is one of the areas where the 'heap paradox' comes into play. When does the growing fetus become a person worthy of protection by the government? While the framework outlined above doesn't directly answer the question, it helps us frame a few more specific questions.

1. Does the government only protect "people?"
2. To what degree is the fetus a "person?"
3. Why does the government protect people?
4. To what extent do those answers apply to the developing fetus?

Personally, I think the government would have serious issues with me killing the unborn or immature young of a protected species, even if they were inside my house without permission. The partial identity of a developing young member of a 'species' does not exclude it from consideration as a full member of that species. ("It wasn't a protected California red-legged frog, officer! It was a tadpole. Very different." Obviously that's not a functional difference in this case.)

What do you think? Useful framework? At least as a high-level response to the "paradox?"

I think accurate communication resolves 90% of problems. (Or, bad communication causes 90% of problems. Once they're caused, it can take a lot more than precise communication to solve them.)

The only true cons of this type of device is the fact that there is a bolt sticking out of the patient’s neck and the fact that it must be surgically installed.

Yeah. We're talking about headphones, here. Kind of a big drawback for this design.

But I want to build my own bone-conductive speaker to play with. Designs, anyone? Please?

A fascinating discussion brewing on Digg.com: is there science without faith?

I just want to highlight a few interesting points that struck me.

It is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers... These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith," then almost everything we know must be said to be based on of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

I don't think that makes the term lose its meaning. The very idea that we can know anything requires a certain level of faith. That we exist, that there is continuity in time. That people continue exist even if they leave the room. That my memories actually happened, and weren't just implanted moments ago in my mind. All of these terribly important assumptions are simply assumptions; we have to either accept them or go mad. That's faith, and it doesn't damage our ability to learn and know.

Further, science is based upon verifiability. I can trust the word of a scientist because I can verify his claims. Religions OTOH, rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority, and their claims cannot be independently verified.

Religions ought not appeal to authority, exactly, in the sense of appealing to the authority of a priest or other earthly interpretor of God.

James 1:5 -- "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Moroni 10:4 -- "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

Religion asks you to find out for yourself. Faith based simply on authority -- my parents said so, my priest said so -- isn't the end point.

One fundamental difference between science and religion is that scientific text is constantly updated whereas holy scripture remains constant. Historically many scientists' conjectures have been inaccurate but when there is sufficient evidence to reject them, scientists cease to advocate them. In contrast, the religious community refuse to change any holy text under any circumstances.

...Many of the criticisms of religion stem from the underlying belief that religion is false. Unchangingness is sometimes absolutely the right thing to do, when you're right.(Sometimes even when you're right, the right thing to do is change. But that probably has more to do with relationships than absolute truth.)

Anyway, that's enough for now. Just had to respond somewhere less crazy than a Digg comment thread.