Ode to the North Star

O strong North Star, in every glimpse of you,
Do I find that your beauty soars supreme.
Eternal, every day you stay so true;
Through months and years, your glow burns ever bright.

On winds I fly to you in every dream,
Toward your shining beacon of pure light.
Here in this world I can do naught but seem,
Ephemeral as rainbows, clouds of hue.

No thought for rest, you shine throughout the night,
Sweet gifts of inspiration you imbue.
Though none can ever strive to see your sight,
A fool may still have faith in your clear gleam,

Remaining still through storm, earthquake, and fire,
Providing hope in wandering sailors need,
Over the heavens, dearth of all desire,
Lauded by Shakespeare’s sonnet for all time.

All trial and tribulation far indeed,
Removed from deathly thorns and heinous crime,
I dream and fly to thee at breakneck speed,
Soar with the wind, and trees and seas admire.

Innovation

I was listening to a speech by Charles Leadbeater about open innovation, which is essentially the idea that passionate amateurs with new technology can create innovative and successful ideas and products where professional companies could not. Some prime examples he mentions are the development of the mountain bike, the spread of the telephone, and the rise of rap music. All of these were a result of amateurs whose passion for biking, communication, and music led them to raise the standards of their leisure activities to levels beyond those that seemed to benefit corporations financially at the time. Now, mountain bikes account for at least half of all sales, telephones are a technological necessity, and rap is one of the most popular music forms in the United States. Leadbeater’s idea of promoting these “Pro-Ams” (Professional Amateurs) not only has several tangible benefits but also contains vital revelations.

Obviously, “Pro-Ams” have benefited and changed the world tremendously, and in a global situation of economic uncertainty in the midst of innovation, a solution must be found soon. If people with obsessions about certain topics or products were allowed to experiment and design ideas that matched their standards, the economical results would similarly be significant. Innovation is born of necessity, and for the average user there exists none after all of the improvements that have been made on every product imaginable. For example, while software upgrades are beneficial, none but those obsessed with software perfection would claim that they are necessary; in fact, the option generally exists to halt the constant annoyance of upgrade announcements, revealing the dangers of selling to a wide audience over the passionate edges.

A corollary to these theories is that allowing “Pro-Ams” to prosper benefits the world and themselves. If we imagine a world where everyone did what they were passionate about, it would be obvious that everyone would be happier. People like to do what they like to do. Happiness in general has positive reactions by its very nature, including increases in productivity and life span and decreases in depression and suicide rates. “Pro-Ams” are extremely knowledgeable about what they are passionate about and willing to spend extra effort, money, and time to go to their limits doing what they like to do.

I conclude with the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Clearly, not everyone would like to have the same thing done to them, for everyone is unique in character and passion. Yet there remains a solution—everyone would like to be happy, so all people should try to be happy and make others happy. Thus if everyone does what makes them happy, even the universe will be no limit.

Injustice of War

The human rights violations of war and government not only infringe on a greater number of people but also encompass more types of rights. For example, in Darfur there are crimes such as prostitution and rape as well as graver results like death tolls over 20,000. In Nepal, Myanmar, and Kenya, thousands have died as well, but a greater number have been deprived of everything but life: liberty, security, and representation in government. War and government have the greatest potential for human rights violations for two basic reasons: scope and magnitude. Since government is meant to lead a society, its faults affect the entire group of people under it. Similarly, war involves the whole society, forcing otherwise innocent people to choose sides and thus placing everyone in danger of abuse, including even more in an international rather than civil war. The enormous scope of these violations is amplified even more by the degree of violation. From the sheer number of rights to the exponential implications, the gravity of war and government human rights violation is staggering. At least 10 rights (Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 19, 21, 28, and 29) are violated, but the most important can be designated as life, liberty, and representation. In a nation where the citizens are not involved in policy, no viable solution for the abuse they suffer remains. When liberty is denied, the people have no choice about their situation. Finally, at the point of death rights no longer exist.

Myanmar Crisis

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has had a military regime for decades; recently, the people of Myanmar, in particular Buddhist monks, opposition political groups, and student movements, have endeavored to protest in search of democracy. The military junta, led by Senior General Than Shwe, has violated on numerous occasions human rights involving life, liberty, security, and representation. Subsequently, national as well as international attempts have failed to secure a successful and legitimate peace and political agreement between the junta and opposition groups.

The junta’s draft constitution and plan for elections in 2010, released on February 11, has been met with skepticism and contempt on every level. The constitution not only failed to address key rights issues but also gave the military an equally powerful role in government, essentially changing nothing. Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader, won a sweeping victory at an election in 1990; however, the junta refused to accept such results after their ascent in 1988 and has detained Suu Kyi for over ten of the past twenty years, remaining in power and suppressing pro-democracy groups across the country. Mahn Sha, the General Secretary of the ethnic opposition group Karen National Union, has just been killed hours after the denouncing the junta’s plans and constitution proposal. Buddhist monks have been forced to flee persecution reacting against their protests in December, mostly to Thailand but also to several other South East Asian countries. In order to attain democracy, the military junta cannot simply create their own constitution and plans to follow it to fruition without the representation of the people of Thailand. In a country where the majority of citizens violently or nonviolently oppose the government on grounds of human rights and democracy, steps toward reform must include these very people. Otherwise, any election will result in military continual of power, even in an opposition victory, as it occurred in 1990.

The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all people have the right to life, liberty, and security. Although a military government may be slightly safer for the nation, the junta has violated all three of these rights through violent reaction against protests and unnecessary detainment. Similarly, the ninth article refers to arbitrary arrest and detention. Finally, the twenty-first article states that everyone has the right to take part in government, whether directly or through a representative. In Myanmar, the military has destroyed all hopes of a legitimate democracy with power in the people. There is no rationale for the junta’s violation of these human rights except the pursuit of power. No conflict of human rights exists in this country, so truly the only ethical course of action is to support opposition groups in obtaining a constitutional democracy.

Education

I spend a solid 62.5% of my time daily on it. Considering that sleeping is only 29.2% and eating is a mere 8.3%, education is clearly my life right now. Upon analysis, the human body yields no outstanding strength, razor teeth and claws, or lightning speed. Incredibly, we are apparently the fruit of thousands of years of evolution and perched at the pinnacle of the global food chain.
Our one power, the defining characteristic of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is the mind.
Education is extremely important.

Yet a devastating problem in several countries is that people do not receive a sufficient education. More prosperous nations, like ours, give money and aid to these poor countries in hopes of improving the situation. It will surely help, but as the saying goes, "Give a man a fish, and he's fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can teach other men to fish, feeding them all for the rest of their lives." Free schools for the poor all over the world help destitute children to learn and eventually prosper. No Child Left Behind also attempts to spread the knowledge and give a substantial, if not equal, opportunity. So let's give everyone in the world, people of all nationalities, races, and genders, an education, and that foundation will sustain humanity better than a donation.

Sanctions Bad

The United States and the United Nations put sanctions on misled countries in order to attempt to direct them to the right path. The act is analogous to taking away an errant child's food until it behaves.

1) Sanctions by the United States are unjustified. If a country's government is faulty, another nation has no right to interfere with its national sovereignty. It may criticize policies, but actions to change them must remain within the compass of the nation itself and the United Nations. Controlling and coercing another nation, whether through military or economic means, is only a loose or preliminary form of imperialism or colonialism. The United States cannot make decisions for the rest of the world any more than any other country could for the United States. If there is a problem so severe that it must be changed through economic sanctions, then the United Nations should have the jurisdiction to enforce a change.

2) Sanctions cause damage to the innocent. Since sanctions are often simply restrictions of trade and commerce with the chosen country, the people who supposedly are being oppressed or wronged in that country are then subjected to depleted supplies that can only further worsen their situation. Regardless of whether the policy is ultimately changed, sanctions are detrimental to the society. Additionally, sanctions on a country can cause related nations to suffer enormously, depending on the scope of the sanction.

3) UN sanctions are often unable to be enforced. The whole purpose of sanctioning is to enforce a change in law, but in international sanctions there must also be enforcement of the sanctions themselves. However, there is no non-military method of enforcement beyond mere political scorn, so the purportedly non-military tool of sanctioning often requires force to be effective.

4) Sanctions simply have a low rate of achievement. Sanctioning or subjecting a nation to external force in any case can frequently result in favor of the faulty government for which the sanction was intended. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Fidel Castro in Cuba. Known to the rest of the world as a scoundrel and a plague on society, he has nevertheless been able to blame the rampant poverty on neighboring and sanctioning nations, causing the population to rally around him. In Iraq, Sudan, and Myanmar(Burma) have hurt these nations potentially even more than the cause of the sanctions.

Although changes could(should) be made to sanctioning, currently they are an overestimated and detrimental tool for Civil Liberties.


http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/sanction/anlysis2.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=10070

Smile

:] People say I smile a lot. They sometimes ask me why.
=D I don't see any reason not to.
:) It makes the recipient richer without making the giver poorer.
=P It takes a moment but can last a lifetime.
;) Someone might fall in love with it.
:] Everyone smiles in the same language.
=D It's contagious. There are lots of beneficial corollaries to this:
:) It's better to spread joy with a smile than sorrow with a frown.
=P If you're sad, give someone a smile. You may get it back with interest.
;) "Wear a smile and have friends; wear a scowl and have wrinkles." ~George Eliot

S M I L E
:] =D :) =P ;)

Machines R Us

We use machines to make life easier. We control them. It's terrifying to imagine what might happen if they start to control us...

"Oh no! My laptop broke! All my stuff was on it!"
"We're going camping? Cool! Can I bring my DS?"
"Sorry, gotta go. My favorite show is on"

Light and Time

When eyes see any object, the actual process is far more complicated than one would expect. Light waves within the visible spectrum move from a source toward the object. Some of them then reflect into our eyes. The lenses in our eyes cause the image registered on our retinas to be upside-down, but the brain then reverses it once more to obtain the image of the object in our mind. In order for us to see anything, light must move from the source to an object and then to our eyes.

For example, when a supernova blows up, it takes several years for the light to reach our eyes. By the time we see the star, it may not actually exist at that point in time. Therefore, what is seen is not what is.

The other possible explanation for this is that time does not actually exist at all, and the light from the explosion means that there is a star, just not at this point in time, which does not exist. After a while, the rest of the light passes Earth and the star is gone from our sight, so it is truly gone to us. However, the light continues forever past the Earth, steadily becoming weaker until it fades away.

Dreaming of a Perfect Universe

When we dream, it’s seems as if we are in an alternate world with the monsters/people/animals/clouds/etcetera in it. I sometimes wonder if the characters within our dream have consciousness, or if they actually think. After all, some of them express ideas, desires, and they move around. All of this implies thought and sentience. Therefore, it could theoretically be true that we are all part of an enormous dream.
Since we’re so complex, it would have to be an incredibly spacious mind, but it is definitely possible. In addition, if God created the universe this becomes much easier to explain, for the universe could be God’s dream. Thus he would be omnipotent and omniscient, regarding this dream, his universe. There wouldn’t have to be any explanation for the beginning of the universe or the stars because God simply dreamed that it was so.

People are a Virus

People are a virus, not a mammal. Mammals steadily come to an equilibrium in their surroundings, no matter what they are, and thus coexist with everything else in stable harmony, even if it includes one eating the other organisms in those surroundings. Humans, on the other hand, move into an environment, never assimilate into it, and then destroy their surroundings. Then they reproduce and move on to somewhere else after exhausting the former place’s resources. A virus acts in a similar way. They move into a host, reproduce, destroy the host, and are spread elsewhere.
-inspired by the Matrix

Variety is the Spice of Life

The spicy flavour of food actually comes from pain sensors on our taste buds. Yet many people season blander foods with spices in order to enhance their flavour. Since variety is the spice of life, variety must be pain in our life while also making it more enjoyable.

Variety breeds large amounts of pain in our lives. Differences in thought cause arguments which then grow into global wars between countries and nations. Different foods and tastes may appeal to different people. Although variety induces pain and suffering, it also propogates innovation and progress, which in turn augment the prosperity of any given group of people. Animals cannot think at the level of people, so while different species remain the same and eventually die out because of changes in their environment, humans adapt and invent to ease our lives without the aid of claws, wings, or fangs. However, all this innovation is only possible with the presence of natural variety. If there were no variety, everyone would agree all the time and like to do the same things, and a utopian civilization might even be feasible. Unfortunately, all progress would come to an abrupt halt as well, and we would probably live our lives like lower animals without differences in choice and opinion.

Happiness

We do everything we do in order to make ourselves happier. Asking ourselves why we do a given action, and then why we do that cause, always eventually leads to a quest for happiness.
For example, I don't want to do my homework, but I do it. I do my homework to be accepted in a good college and then in a good job. I want a good job for more money, which then provides food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment. All of these things will make me happier.
I don't want to wash the dishes, but I do. Washing them prevents my parents scolding me , which preemptively makes both them and me happier.
I donate to charity and help others although these actions show no tangible benefits to myself. This is because helping people in need makes me feel good because I was raised with a high standard for compassion and respect. Thus altruism makes me happy.

CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

I’d like to talk about corporations and moral standards. This has been a debated topic over the past couple years, but I personally believe that corporations shouldn’t be held to moral standards.
First, holding corporations to moral standards would substantially decrease their efficiency and power in the market. Since a business must survive in the competitive marketplace, it cannot afford to be ethically better to the point of sacrificing profit and gain without corresponding benefit.

Second, holding corporations as a whole to moral standards would unjustly punish innocent people. For example, if an executive makes a bad decision and the corporation is held responsible instead of the individual, then innocent employees will be chastised when they didn’t do anything wrong.



hehe


Lastly, holding corporations to moral standards would destroy life on Earth.
First of all, the United States economy is on the brink of collapse. US trade deficits and imports shadow exports and profit. The dollar has lost about one third of its value against other major currencies since 2002, and has been falling faster. Oil costs are flying high due to tremors in the Middle East. Recent economic reports and corporate earning statements show an economy rapidly losing steam.
Second, corporations are necessary entities in our economy. Our economy needs corporations to invest in advanced products and facilities, crack sophisticated global markets, and push the limits of our productivity and our expertise. An economy needs corporations to have a fair degree of agility in responding to changing market conditions, and too many restrictions on layoffs hurt the ability of the economy to remain competitive. Large corporations are necessary to achieve those governmental and social necessities that small enterprises are incapable of providing.
Like I said before, holding corporations to moral standards would break their value. Thus holding corporations to moral standards would completely destroy the corporate backbone of our market, throwing the economy into ruin.
The collapse of our economy would result in extreme loss of life. Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression. U.S. stocks began to collapse, and there were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression was World War II. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire. Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. Now that more powerful nuclear weapons exist and tension is high on the doomsday clock, a collapse in the economy would result in global terror and genocide, so we shouldn’t hold corporations to moral standards.

Perfection

Perfection would be nice. In fact, it would be perfect. But everybody knows that nobody can be perfect although anybody could see that somebody must be pretty close, because of natural variation.

"Nobody's perfect."
"We're only human."
These are ancient proverbs passed down from the past.
They also happen to be degrading and would be severely detrimental to society if everyone knew it.
These kinds of phrases emphasize the imperfection of humans, which is perfectly legitimate. However, the context in which they are used are, at least 3 times out of 5, as an excuse for a less-than-satisfactory result of something, such as a grade, a project, a software program, or a car. None of these things are perfect, and sayings like those above are sometimes used to waive the consequences.
The key point to realize is that although the state of perfection is exclusively theoretical, we still ought to strive to acheive it. For example, only a few people in the class get an A+. That doesn't mean that the rest of the class does not want or should not try to get an A+; it probably means that they will have to work harder to achieve that high grade. Nobody is perfect, but anybody can try.

TEG

Conservation of energy: There was a certain amount of energy in a particle smaller than a quark in the very very very beginning of time. When it blew up, it created the universe. There is a certain amount of energy in this universe. It doesn't change. Energy can be transformed into different types, but it is never created or destroyed.

Energy is conserved.
In the universe, not the earth.

We lose energy through the atmosphere (a), and we gain energy from the sun's rays(b). If a is less than b, the earth will heat up past the point at which we die. If a is greater than b, we may eventually have no energy left on earth. Right now b stands for bigger.

This is called global warming.
It scares some people enough to make speeches about it.
...I think what we need is a way to cool down...

Thermo-electric generators would let the world relax. There is always heat in the air. With global warming and everything, there seems to be more of it than usual (whatever we define "usual" to be...). Take the thermal energy out of the air, and it gets cooler. There is so much heat in the air, and more coming in from the sun, that energy supplies would sky-rocket because of the omnipresence of thermal energy. This would reduce the pressure put on gasoline and oil-filled countries. After we use it so much that the world actually cools down a couple degrees to whatever it ought to be if global warming didn't exist ("usual"), then we can split energy sources between gasoline, ethanol, which will have been perfected by the time TEGs are potentially created, and thermal energy.
Right now I have no idea how anyone would make such a thing; I just thought it would be pretty cool.

Good kid-bad kid

A "bad kid" leaves home to hang out with his or her friends, possibly doing drugs, drinking, dancing, or playing video games, talks back to his parents, has messy hair and clothes, seems lazy at home but acts like the Energizer bunny at parties, and in general gives you a feeling of "teen." With a personality that rocks the house on its foundations, he or she is the kind of person you see in magazine "success stories" where the kid may be a jock or just in bad childhood conditions but somehow manages to come out on top in a suit and a smile.

A "good kid" stays at home, does all the household and out-of-household chores for his parents, gets good grades without needing to study, studies anyway, obeys his parents, and is a social recluse apart from a few close friends who are always polite and intelligent, just like him or her. He never goes to dances or parties, especially ones with drugs or alcohol, even when he's invited. Startingly isolated from the world, he or she has an almost monotonously positive attitude about life, the universe, and everything.

So...which would you rather have?

GW=Bad

Extreme weather:

• Less predictable climate-such as droughts and storms-lead to destruction of agriculture.
• Increase in storm strength, frequency, and unpredictability leaves many dead or homeless.
• Just as the hurricanes Rita and Katrina left the Southeast United States in shambles, increased shore activity by humans like beach resorts and summer homes combined with the increased intensity and frequency of storms will raise the damage and financial cost as well.
  

Ground temperature change:

• Different climates will cause crops to suffer outside of their key temperature.
• Peat bogs such as those in Siberia will slowly but steadily release as much as 70,000 tonnes of methane gas from the dead plant material, multiplying the greenhouse effect and its consequences even more.
  

Ocean temperature change:

• Water is much more conducive to heat than air, and the underwater ecosystems of fish and plankton will deteriorate as organisms are thrust out of their normal climate.
• Extinction of fish can lead to a food chain collapse, and regions that thrive on sea food, such as Japan and South China, will experience major consequences.
• Phytoplankton that normally absorb CO2 from the air into the ocean decrease in efficiency due to the change in temperature, creating even more greenhouse gases.
• Earth's surface has more water than land. This means that the impact for all of these ocean-problems is even greater.
  

Melting of ice caps:

• Less surface area of the Earth will be covered by ice, which is considerably more reflective than water or land, increasing the sun's effect on the Earth as the latter two absorb more sunlight.
  
• Animals that make their home in the Arctic and Antarctic, such as penguins, polar bears, and seals, will lose large parts of their habitat. In addition, the salinity of the ocean will change dramatically, further destroying ecosystems and possibly species.
  
• The sea level will increase.
  

Increase in sea level:

• The more frequent storms, like hurricanes and tsunamis, will gather strength from the warmer waters across the land. As stated earlier, the surface is mostly water, and global warming only increases it.
• Coastal regions and places with lower altitudes will be underwater, causing loss of homes, financial cost, and thousands of refugees.
• As more and more people try to live on less and less land, disease will spread more easily, potentially resulting in epidemics and mass death.

Glacier retreat:

• This will cause landslides, flash floods, and glacier lake overflow.
• This increases the glacial runoff as the glaciers melt faster and faster.
• The Hindu Kush and Himalayan glacial melt will increase melting water supply to high density regions for a few decades, but then these areas will simply run out of water since the glaciers are the main source of water for many parts of Asia.

Financial costs$:

• "Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown" (The Independent, April 27, 2005)
• Increased national disasters cause the insurance industry to suffer due to increased property and population values in vulnerable coastal regions and increasing flood risks across the globe.
• Transportation systems like roads, airports, pipelines, and railways have to be maintained in the potentially harsh conditions, further raising costs.
• Coastal flood defenses will either have to be installed or upgraded as the number of category 5 storms.

Crazy bads:

• Decrease in land will perpetuate war as higher quantities of people vie for land.
• Repair work for more dangerous storms will use up more and more energy from oil or fossil fuels, and demand for such energy sources will soar.
  
• If something is not done soon, the intensity of storms will cause homes built from anything less than the most durable, expensive, and probably environmentally unfriendly materials will be destroyed, losing all hope of solvency by that method.
• Storm clouds blocking the sun will render solar panels useless

Global warming :)

Indeed, there are some possibilities that global warming could even have positive effects.

Floods and disease would help to stabilize population. This solves population growth and helps diversify life around the world. It can also give more natural organisms a chance to regain control over coastal and other affected regions from humans.

Ice cap melt can be harnessed to provide a supply of fresh water, reducing the need for desalinization. This would prevent the change in salinity in the ocean and help create a surplus in case of droughts.

The new climate could give rise to new species and different behaviors by existing species, creating academic growth and more job opportunities for science. All kinds of people, from meteorologists to biologists, would be able to work together to learn and figure out what the tipping point is for the mass destruction of life on earth.

Warmer weather might even cause milder weather and help agriculture. Longer growing seasons, CO2, and more sunlight and water would help crops, causing prosperity and success. Exotic fruits and vegetables like mangoes and coconuts will have a better environment to grow throughout the world.


Somewhat less important...
Beach resorts will have greater business and help the economy. The water will be warmer to swim in, and people will be able to get better tans. :) This would help professionals and world leaders to relax from the high-stress lifestyle and prevent irritations and anger that could lead to things like nuclear war.

Global warming :|

Global warming is not a problem that ought to be addressed in international governments and schools throughout the world.

First, the effects of global warming are not sufficient to justify taking attention away from other world problems, such as nuclear arms production and economic depression. These problems are not only much more immediate and have a smaller time frame, but they are also easier to prevent.

Global warming is a steady increase in global temperature. While this may cause some species to become extinct, this is not a real problem because life will continue. Academically, if we know that a species is extinct, then we already have data and information about that organism in order to observe that it has disappeared.

The extinction of species could cause the disruption of the ecological balance in nature, but I would like to bring attention to the fact that although the human race simply living on this planet has disrupted and even destroyed many species habitats and lives, there has been no global suicide on our part to restore the balance of nature.

Both of these failures to act are a product of the fact that all life wants to survive. Physically, humans are terribly inadequate to survive in nature. With no wings, claws, fangs, strength, speed, endurance, or senses, the only advantage given to our race was in the mind. Thus in order to protect ourselves from a dangerous environment, we created a new one by destroying the old. Withdrawal from technology only gives up human's dominance over other creatures, as some religions state, and unfortunately most people cannot survive in competition to the forces and creatures in nature.

Attempting to halt global warming only postpones the inevitable. Even if human beings didn't exist on earth, ice ages and heat waves would come and go. The dinosaurs lived in a tropical climate but were extinct in the ice age, where animals like mammoths and saber toothed tigers roamed the land. Then these creatures passed away or evolved into the biospectrum we see today. Life on earth has survived climate changes, however severe, even if the lifestyles or even types of different organisms changed. We cannot hope to prevent a climate change forever, so there is no reason to be preoccupied with global warming.