Golden V. Silver Round II.I

Holiday season 2012, wishing everyone a happy new year. Merry Christmas.

I had a frank conversation with my father and asked him to read Round II. He felt my explanations were unclear. Instead, he drew the following picture to illustrate from my conditionalization of the ethical imperatives. It stems from his ever present grammar school math basics which says that in a set theoretic axiomatic logic system the statement

if P then Q has the following Venn Diagram:

Because Q is true exceeds the situations when P is true, but not vice versa, therefore the containment relationship. After some quick calculation, due to the inversion and making sure the relationship still matches, the golden and silver rule when put into the same "action space" produces the following Venn Diagram:

It takes a moment to convince one's self that the smallest set "Confucius wants" fits inside what "I want". But if you image the outside of "Confucius wants" is Q above in the negative space and outside of "I want" is P in negative space and is therefore superset to Q.

This is now indeed very clear. By visualizing the action space over which both ethical imperatives
reside--those things within my ability to do to other and to be done onto--suddenly we find that these sets of actions: things I can do, things jesus wants me to do, things Confucius wants me to do, and things I want to do, have a superset relationship. The large sets are always proper super set of smaller sets unless I want done to me include all possible things or nothing.

It's kind of surprising that Confucius silver rule recommends doing fewer things than Jesus's golden rule--But then again, it may make sense, Confucius speaks much of humbleness, about learning from teachers, he puts greater value on meta-knowledge about one's own knowledge than the knowledge themselves. Perhaps this conservative valuation of self prevents him from doing as much.

Jesus on the other hand, son of god, savior of the world asks follower to do more in pursuit of heaven. Let's celebrate his birth...

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Golden V. Silver Round II

I want to revisit the Golden Rule and Silver Rule of ethics comparison.

 Recall that Golden Rule, is most commonly stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", where the silver rule is the negated form that most frequently appears as:"己所不欲，勿施于人"

In my previous posts(here, and again here), it would appear that we have written about a result concerning two person one following the golden rule and one following the silver rule benefitting differently based on his or her likes and dislikes.

I should think a second analysis is in order on this Thanksgiving eve of 2012. We begin with the observation that both the golden rule and silver rule appear to be stated for sentences who's verb is transitive.

A Verb B

Golden rule says if you want to be B of a sentence, then you should always be A of that sentence.

Silver rule says if you do not want to be B of that sentence, then you should never be A of that sentence.

These imperatives are translated into logical conditionals as follows:

Golden: if "I want to be B" then "(Jesus says) always be A" of the action "A verb B".

Silver: if "I do not want to be B" then "(Confucius says) never be A" of the action "A verb B".

I want, ->O, Gold, Silver

Y, Y, T, T

Y, N, F, T

N, Y, T, F

N ,N, T,T

So this means under golden rule, the following can take place :

I want, do to O (*)

I don't want to be done onto, do to O

I don't want to be done onto, don't do to O.

under silver rule, the following can take place:

I want, do to O

I want, don't do to O

I don't want to be done onto, don't do to O. (*)

In reality, when there are two outcomes to the same antecedent, we usually cannot both do and do not do Verb onto O. So, a easy simplification, without biasing towards either rule is to take a maximum entropy approach. For the strategic ethicists, here are the strategies for this game of ethics:

Golden rule:

I want, do to O 100%

I don't want, 50% do to O 50% don't do to O.

Silver rule:

I don't want, do not do to O 100%

I do want, 50% do to O, 50% don't do to O.

With these relaxation in mind we shall commence analysis in a world where there are only two people, one strictly following the golden rule and one strictly following the silver rule. Given any want/don't want combinations there are several possibilities in the utility a person may take from a situation. 

A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1

A verb Me and I don't want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I don't want to be verbed: 0

To person G or S, the utility of A Verb B taking place under these circumstances are

S1: G wants B, S wants B

S2: G wants B, S doesn't wants B

S3: G doesn't wants B, S wants B

S4: G doesn't wants B, S doesn't wants B

S1: G 0.5, S 1

S2: G 0, S 0

S3: G: 0, S 0.5

S4: G:  0, S 0

Summing everything up, G gets 0.5, s gets 1.5

Here, we will also consider the concept of a winner if in this world, under these rules and these strategies applied according to the rules that the rule's follower gains higher utility. In this case Silver rule follower wins, by 200%. This is quite interesting, because the golden rule is setup as if one is only rewarded by action when the same is desired, therefore, when Silver rule follower enters, the Golden rule follower suffers. This inspires us to reverse this and create a world where Silver rule follower is disadvantaged:

A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0

A verb Me and I don't want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I don't want to be verbed: 1

That is, if the world really is such a way that would cause one to create the silver rule, then what are each party's utility?

S1: G 0, S 0

S2: G 0, S 0

S3: G: 0.5, S 0

S4: G:  1, S 0.5

Totals G:1.5, S: 0.5

Aha, when the world is such that one would want to create the silver rule, silver rule follower benefits less when interacting with a golden rule follower, again by 200%. These two worlds seem to have produced very intuitive results: in the prior case, our world is one where one is only rewarded when actions on taken onto him only when he himself desires it; in this case silver rule following wins when in presence of gold rule follower, even tho he himself does not act with certainty when he desires it. In the latter case, our world is one where one is only rewarded when he is not done onto when he does not desire it. But in this case Golden rule wins. The conclusion one is tempted to draw from this is that rules are made in a world/society under its reward system to gain the most utility, but when interacting with members following rules from different world with different reward structure, then members of the foreign rule tend to benefit more from world/society than the natives.

Suppose our world is where inaction never create any disutility. And suppose also that doing the opposite thing is only half the damage as reward of doing the right thing:

A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1

A verb Me and I don't want to be verbed:  -.5

A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I don't want to be verbed: 0

Totals G: 0.25, S: 0.75

So, in this world where inaction does no damage and wrong action is somewhat forgivable then Silver rule follower is 200% better off than Golden rule follower. 

Another interesting case is the inaction world is where one is rewarded for wanting. Even when one doesn't get what one wants, he is still rewarded, though not as much as getting what he wants.

A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1

A verb Me and I don't want to be verbed:  0

A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0.5

A does not verb Me and I don't want to be verbed: 0

Totals: G: 1.25, S:1.75

In this case, Golden rule follower actually loses by 20% to silver rule.  Similarly if we are slightly rewarded for not wanting even if we get something, the winner is reversed and Silver rule follower loses by 20%. As in the first two cases, the losing rule in a situation tend to be the rule inspired by that world, and that rule will lose when interacting a rule that would have been inspired by the opposite world. It seem to suggest that the society/world that inspired the silver rule would have rewarded members for not wanting where as the opposite is true of the society that inspired the golden rule.

These two widely known rules of moral and ethics known as Golden rule and ethics and Silver rule of ethics arise from different places in the world of different language and culture. Upon closer inspection, we discover that the logical interpretation of their meaning yields an extremely interesting problem regarding what to do in the situation when the rule gives no prescription for what to do. In this analysis we have taken a maximum entropy approach and created a mixed strategy profile for two persons one using golden rule and one using silver rule. In both cases when no prescription is given the follower will do one of two possible actions with 50% probability.

Under this relaxation of both rule, we put two people, one following each rule, together in an artificial world where utilities are assigned for four combination of one wanting to be B of "A verb B" and whether "A verb B" happens. It is found that the world with utility seeming to inspire a rule tend to favor the other rule's follower, follower of rules inspired by the world seem to suffer and gain less utility in the process of interacting with the other rule's follower. This would make sense in two ways: when the world rewards for some kind of action, the follower of the rule suffers when he does positive things to others but does not receive the same action in return. And secondly when the world punishes some action, the person coming from a world where there is no such punishment and does not know (from his rules) that he should not avoid it, and is therefore does bad things the native and hurts him.

With this in mind, the winners in two groups of worlds suggest that golden rule comes from a world/society where inaction never creates disutility where as silver rule come from a world where lack of desire (not wanting) is always rewarded.

Things of a Clandestine Nature (3 of...

Money
There should be money value to losses of privacy. Every time an organized clandestine action is done onto me and that their actions is proven wrong, there should be consequence.

Having suspicion is a right, a duty of these law enforcement folks. But acting on an incorrect suspicion(whether justified or not) should carry consequence. Just as they are rewarded for following a hunch and catching a crook, there must be punishment for following a wrong hunch and negatively impacting a person's life.

In fact, I feel that even the access and analysis of my private information (email, files, my personal space such as my home, the airspace above my head, signals sent into my person and my possessions) these invasions of privacy must be punished when proven to be wrong.

Each violation must state hypothesis and the condition of test requiring invasion of privacy. If test proves hypothesis wrong then a punishment is assessed. If it is proven right then a reward is given.

Every kilobyte of my email you read, you should be paying me $x. If you retain the data then you will be charged $y/year.

This belittles human privacy rights, but it is one way that we can use to quantify, regulate and monitor the clandestine sector.

Things of a Clandestine Nature (2 of...)

What is power? What is privacy?

I am not a very forceful thinker. I find myself thinking of every matter from multiple perspectives. More often than not I argue myself out of my own position.

The organized clandestine activities are organized for a reason. A large enough and powerful enough intelligence has recognized its necessity and has facilitated it's existence. That originator of this clandestine organization mandates that the clandestine activities be clandestine in all ways I have described in my previous post.

The consequence of this is that the clandestine organization must satisfy a certain level of service. Similar to the concept of an SLA, the clandestine organization must obtain information (in stealth) within a certain time period of it becoming known. When it masquerades, it must succeed in fooling all involved into believing that the party being masqueraded is truly doing it.

This ability is a power. And in effect it is not a power if it cannot be wielded freely. Similar to my right of speech. If I speak, and my voice is interfered with every time, or if my blog is unsearchable by some search engine trick then effectively my right of speech has been impinged upon. Conversely if here is a regulation that restrained the clandestine activity, then it decreases it's usefulness.

Let me give a simpler example to illustrate. If we are to guarantee the power of these clandestine organizations the ability to masquerade as me typing into my computer, then they can always type into my computer. If the operator (the member of clandestine organization) is have a bad day, if he is having a seizure, if he is unhappy that I oppose the existence of his job, if he made a typo and affect what I type into the computer as I work, then that is allowed.

Because if we regulate these abilities to try to prevent his foul mood or desire to keep his job in affecting my job performance then we have not given these clandestine organizations absolute power, and consequently they cannot function effectively, right? Consequently they are not liable for major failures like 911 right?

If any of the theatrical depiction of clandestine organizations are any where close to reality, it is safe to assume that all of them are insane. They are all paranoid and all able to argue for 100% absolute clandestine power!

Oh, and let me be obnoxious for once, having be target of obnoxious behavior so often... The aurora shooting, why don't the people watching my screen and analyzing my blog and causing typos in my keyboards and making my mouse fly around weirdly at work and home, why don't they go and wreck some havoc in an actual bad person's life? Why don't you go and prevent a really bad thing from happening? instead of secretly watching my activity?

The Chinese has Infected America Mentality

It's Tuesday, 7/30/2012 and there is a small controversy at the Olympics. The American media (see below Google news search result, plus the TV for the past few hours) is reporting that America is complaining that a Chinese women has beat American men in swimming performance. I took a snap of results available to me right now and I cannot see why 4:05.18 gold medal performance in 400m IM by Ryan Lochte is beat by Chinese women Ye Shiwen's 4:28.43. Her's is a full 13 seconds slower!! WTF?

The world is about to end... Look at this massive disaster in India where there is more people without electricity than US and Canada population combined... and nearly all of Greenland's ice cap has melted, but all of that cannot compare to the loss of American individual propaganda free mindset. 

THE CHINESE have had for the past three decades the observation that China is 阴盛阳衰: the Yin prospering and the Yang in decline, or "Weak" according to google translation today. The female Chinese athletes have in the past performed better in the international competitions than the Chinese men, things like soccer, volley ball, tennis... Chinese Men can only compete in Table Tennis and similar small-balled games. 

But today! All of American media have taken this same view and said that Chinese women is faster than American man even when the results are clearly not so. The Chinese women DID NOT JUST BEAT AMERICAN MAN IN SWIMMING. OH! MY!! FUCKING!!! GOD!!!! this is so fucking offensive to me as a Man, an American, and as a Chinese man!! And as an Internet professional that our industry lets this kind of crap seep into it's mainstream.

The British authorities on the matter have declared that she won that women's competition dope-free. Yet American media has refused to report on this. Even Google's automatic algorithm is refusing to pick up the BBC headline on the matter. I mean, I even feel like suggesting that the Brits are just trying to kiss the Chinese's ass in case it needs the goodwill economically in the near future. I mean, really? Did North Korea's starving athletes just really won Gold in Judo? REALLY????

But a corrupt Olympic games, athletes and officials is not really a concern to me, as I am not an athlete and I am not uplifted by the Olympic spirit:
 

Citius, Altius, Fortius.
 

and I didn't get up at 5 this morning to watch Olympics, and I most certainly did not get up early to watch American TV and least of all to read news on the Internet.

This is the end... mark my words..., the loss of Chinese moral, American media integrity, universal symbols of progress and betterment of men.

What to do with all that $$USD ??

Okay, I recently found out that the Chinese (PRC) government couldn't stop buying American debt (That is it lends money to the US government which gives it a little bit of interest regularly until sometime in the future when it gives the money back)

There are some attempts, by the Chinese to spend money in the US. Some were blocked blatantly by the US government such as 3Com and UNOCAL, while in other cases, it seemed almost certainly win-win for both sides due to Chinese expertise, manufacturing resources and unique perspective but ultimately failed: Yahoo, Maytag, etc. All this protectionism may or may not be beneficial to the American people. Here for instance is another very very specific case of preventing China from spending all this debt America owes it by way of the "country with special concern" designation which prevents lobbyist from being paid by the PRC. article. Btw, I've heard of this from a second radio source as well, but it doesn't appear to be listed on congressman Wolf's website.


This, btw, is fantastic news for the people of PRC. The government won't be spending their tax money on American politicians. AND it is fantastic news for other lobby interests all of whom now have one fewer competitor and therefore has to pay much less.


But let's for the moment assume that China has too much US $$, and that most avenues of investment: equity in companies, real estate, lobbying, etc. have been ruled out as certain losers. What else can it do with it's money

Well, let's see... The one thing that we see the most in America, aside from Chinese restaurants and those evil cult protesters are poor Chinese students. They come to the US having beat everyone else in their own country in their respective arts and sciences or skills, and they often end up delivering food for those aforementioned restaurants or joining evil cults for residency and working rights in the United States. Why doesn't the Chinese government establish a scholarship for any Chinese student being normally accepted into an American institution so that they can pursue their dreams of excellence in their arts and crafts? Would that not be the most effective investment?? And let me assert that the Chinese government have enough money in the bank to pay for a decent education for all of its students accepted in the to schools in the US. This, btw, is entirely legal in America, even if the funds are managed and disbursed in an American entity.


Oh, WTF, while we are at it, why don't the PRC. government endow a general scholarship (name it the People's Republic of China Scholarship for Excellence) that is given to the best candidate of any nationality and race. Imagine some twenty years later, and the president of France, or prime minister of India, or some Nobel laureate proudly thanks American university for an education and China for it's awesome scholarship. Wouldn't that be quite an accomplishment ?!!

The money can be spent on establish libraries. They can start a Museum collecting arts of Chinese origin but that have been admired and possessed by non-Chinese. These art are true treasures that have possessed not only their originators but also many other peoples of other race and culture. Wouldn't that be an awesome museum??!!

Why don't the Chinese people take all that debt and rent a county; and on that county why don't they build a university. Build the Chinese University of America. This act not only revitalizes a whole American town, or perhaps a whole state, but also produces jobs, educates new minds, and most of all creates the most perfect nexus of the two cultures and the enlighten minds of the two people. This not only creates jobs in America, it would not only be building American infrastructure, but would also be creating a new believe, a new trust, a new friendship--a new hope for the two people.



Why don't they spend their money that way?

Things of a Clandestine Nature

Back to discussion of the nature of things. Not so recently have I become interested in clandestine activities.




One could define clandestine activities as those that are undertaken with actor, actions, reason and existence concealed or obfuscated. Organized clandestine activity is one where human and other resources are pooled and organized to perform advanced massive and pervasive clandestine activities. Clandestine organizations and clandestine free agents are groups and individuals who perform organized clandestine activities. There could also be unorganized activities such as accidental activity. Clandestine activity by high technology: wire tap, ether/wifi sniff. Data mining records Clandestine activity by process:




Why the formality?
Because I find myself spending far too much time thinking about my coworkers reading my emails at work, my boss reading my personal emails, my friends, my wife, my parents reading my emails, my coworkers changing my code seconds before I check them into SVN...


So, what are all these clandestine activities and what difference does it make? Let us dissect the above paragraph into its constituencies:


Monitoring: secret collection of information: boss hires someone to read my personal email. To me, I am okay with people being aware of my personal activities. As long as it is does not materially detrimental to my quality of life. I think corporation law protecting secrecy is the minimal level of protection we have.


If I have stated that I want something private, then it should be protected as my personal privacy.
If I have taken sufficient measures to conceal it then it should be private.


For example: mail service provider instrumenting a password and my using a password on my email account demonstrates both intent and effort in hiding my personal emails. Please do not read them! It should be protected just as much as a stocker looking through my blinds which also shows desire and effort towards hiding something.


Reaction: acting on the information gathered under fake reason: boss plans to have an important meeting on the day I scheduled an interview at another company before I ask for that day off for a dentist appointment. Information asymmetry here causes employee to be at an disadvantage. Setting up a DUI check point to block bank robber's escape route.


Masquerading: acting under the identity of an actual person or entity: eg coworker changes code in my work directory with out asking me. Stealing and defaming my identity. I feel this should be against rule of law and rule of companies. This can effectively kills a person's identity and his reputation. Doing this is like putting poison in his drink just before he swallows it. This should not be allowed.


Subjects of organized clandestine activities are of two types, some are effectively forced to participate (you cannot buy a house unless you share your information with all our bank networks...), British surveillance system of cameras. Others participate amicably because they do not care or participate in the clandestine activities. And lastly, there are those that accept that they are subjects of clandestine activities without participating in it. I cannot imagine who wants that, but perhaps I can be persuaded that this is indeed an acceptable, and indeed more optimal, society like I accept the police been given the ability to legally (but completely publicly) use force and sometimes deadly force.


There are several issues that needs to be thought through.

• Personal Privacy is a person's property, the loss of privacy has money (among other) value.
• Personal Privacy is a person's right like speech.
• Personal Privacy is a mechanism important to capitalism or other aspects of economy or society like competition is. Or is it a bad thing like prostitution?
• Is complete Personal Privacy effectively impossible in a modern society?
• Is @usps.com an option? snooping my email can be big an offense as stealing my physical snail mail.
• What if I invested $5million of my own money in a company? Would I want the employee's personal emails be read and reread by several trusted parties?

It is nearing July 4th this 12th year into our new millennium, I am reading a blog entry of my own from 2006ish talking about this exact issue with exactly same complaints that my email is being read and my code is being messed with.


I wish I could come to terms with these thoughts! They have consumed far too much of my time...


Happy July 4th!

The 6-2-10 system, part III: The power of 6

It's been more than two years since I discussed the 6-2-10 system. Since then I have become aware of some research regarding productivity in a revenue optimizing society. in 1909 Sidney Chapman apparently researched this and found that very large organizations function best with 8-hr work days.

But to be realistic, the people who service our society the most often work very very long hours. Many of them argue that working longer hours really produces bigger highs and more total results. Brilliance in human brain seem often to be inspired by fatigue, hallucination, and as Steve Jobs would have it, some LSD or other mind-altering drugs; Perhaps some products of brain or mind requires certain amount disability(Beethoven, Hawkins?), requires derangement (perhaps myself?), and perhaps requires amputation(司马迁)


Not having enough knowledge about this whole field of study on worker productivity, nor enough knowledge about the physiology of working, nor any knowledge about the psychology of productivity, I would dare only endeavor further in parameterizing the system for the masses.

Obviously, as alluded before, 6-2-10 can as well be a four shift work day of 6-12-18-24, or six shift work days of 4 hours each: 4-8-12-16-20-24; However, one would have to agree that too many shifts leads to too much organizational efforts to arrange all these shifts. Commuting to work for 4 hours and then commute back seems silly. The changing of guards also require some time, so a good compromise for a tightly integrated urban society is 6-12-18-24 system with a half hour break. Effectively 5.5 hour work each day and half an hour used to switch people in and out of office. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the second system as the p6 system (The boundaries are only at products of 6)

Another advantage of the p6 system is that for the most part, anybody in any shift will have an extended period of time both during day time and during night time free to do other things. the 6-2-10 system will have a shift that sees very small amount of night.

A second advantage of the p6 system is that if some one were to plan to work for 12 hours, it is built into the system. Myself I work 12 hour days regularly, and from an recent articles, it would appear that many Americans do as well. So if the prevailing desire is to do 12 hours a day, the P6 system automatically allows them to do this.

The reality of myself is that I actually prefer quiet time to work, so an effective sub-system is for 12-hour companies to buy room for 1/2 of the company for 12 and room for all of the company only for 6 hours of the day. This way, early shift comes in and works for 6 hours, quietly, without large meetings, then the meetings of the day takes place during the middle 6 hours when all of the company is at work. After the meetings the early shift goes home and the late shifts works its 6 hour of quite work time.

But to be a united company, one would probably want a one-system-company. There seem to be something weird about a 12-hour person speaking to a 6-hour person... At least my current company, people who stick around longer seem to get more say in things and is well liked by higher ups, without respect to the actual quality and benefit of their work.

 
Morale would be much higher, as we get more personal time to take care of our own family, do fun things, smoke weed, farm weed, or what ever.

Hmm, the demands on the general upstanding nature of citizens are higher in this system. Because having more free time doesn't mean we spend it scheming on how to over throw the government or how to take over other countries... The extra time needs to be spent on activities that improve our quality of our own lives, our family, other peoples lives, and quality of society.

While it is not absolutely necessary, nor was it the original motivation of the 6-2-10 system for the productivity per productive resource (person/office/computer/etc) to be higher, my expectation is for it to be higher. That is, I really feel that a focused 5-hour work day can and will be much more effective than a long 12-hour day.

Life is short, we should try to do more in less time to extend the effective longevity.

Superstars and Cheap Labor

ugh! Feel kind of low having attempted to gracefully sent off two co-founders from evening of fairly heated discussion of our startup ideas.

There was a moment of genius though. There are two kinds of people one would want to recruit if one were to startup a company in one's spare time, while working diligently, efficiently, and full time, about  hours a day (sorry, just covering ass in case you are my boss or co-worker, and these are the honest truth).

Once, I had a great boss. great guy, smart, funny, easygoing, and very handsome, impeccably dressed, hair-gelling, hybrid-driving, latte-drinking, Stanford PhD'ing, boss... He has this constant preoccupation with recruiting "superstars". At the time, I didn't really have any appreciation for this concept of what a superstar is and what  he does and why my boss really really wants to recruit them. (I mean, weren't I super enough for you? ;~(....


So now come a time when I consider organizing my own thing. and suddenly it hits me. There was a second type of recruiting that he did, which was that he had a lot of cheap engineers (one of which I was, apparently... not as cheap as most, but still, not superstar pay-grade at the time). There were quite a lot of cheap labors in our group under my boss's organization. And constantly he seeks superstars.


When it come time for me to make these considerations, suddenly I feel that I have bifurcated desire. One the one hand. I really want to have a coupla people who doesn't need a lot of pampering (and salary/options, but let that be said parenthetically). You know, the guys who are experienced enough to just hunker down and type out code, and doesn't demand being praised/bonused/paraded in front of the team for all the accomplishments.


But on the other hand, I find myself unthinkingly wanting. I want a person who takes larger than deserved pride in even one line of code written. I want a guy who types

printf("hello world!");

and stands up and raises his fist and says to the team: "Hello!" as if he has lifted the world and spun it around the sun.

I am uncertain where this desire stems. Perhaps due to my own vanity. Certainly there are times when I write a recursion and feel like I am one of a thousand people in the world who can do that. And be that as it possibly may(perhaps around 50k? Interview question after solving a problem: estimate the number of people who in similar situation can write that code), the swell of pride and happiness and relief and forgetting all else, so overwhelming, so high, better than drugs, and cheaper too... 


I want a person like that. Because we would agree on the same thing and s/he would shine and design things according to principles, efficiency, robustness, maintainability, marketability, big-O's, k-factors, r-naughts, and whatnots. And it would be a superstar who can make things happen when I need it and the way I need it, and most important to me: Make the world spin for us.


Thus, this leaves us with two types of recruitment, forsaking many acceptable social standards and enforcible laws: Cheap labor and Super stars!

• I need Cheap Labor, and
• I need Superstars!

And who amongst you think you don't, must be running a fool's errand.

Anyway, the core issue here is actually not the existence of this bifurcation but what is fair compensation. All men are created equal, and for the most part, on the average, they work as hard as one another. And I expect each to even if they are cheap or super.

And the question remaining frozen in the airspace in my living room: should they be compensated differently??

Ooops, am I Chinese?

The San Francisco Bay Area is a culturally very diverse place. I live here and I feel like a normal person.


Until I saw this video today about this video Ad. The CNN video news is about Pete Hoekstra running a political AD featuring a Chinese women thanking America for allowing her to be rich. Pete, resorting to this racially targeted Ad and name calling by registering a domain name called debbiespendit and petespenditnot.com. And the


Okay, so... I wasn't particularly insulted by this blatantly racist video. I mean, my quality of life is so good that I have become complacent about racial issues surrounding me and my people in the United States. In particular, I find that I don't find it insulting, that it is often said that "The Chinese are stealing American jobs!" President Obama says it, Gingrich says it, Romney says it, everybody who's any body says it.


Let's see now, why is the Chinese "stealing" American jobs? I thought the expression "stealing" is the action of not paying enough $ for product or services?!


As a Chinese I think I should at least object to this racial attack saying Chinese is doing something bad to American when no such action is taken, at least not at the scale that these people suggests.


As an American, I should object to this because the Chinese CANNOT "steal" my job! And if they can, then I can do something about it. I just cannot believe this! This is absolutely the worst thing to be saying as an American! 


Let's become competative! let's beat them! let's work harder, let's make better products and design better things. Let us work better together as one people. Let us not blame the Chinese for doing that, let's blame ourselves for not doing that better!


GOD! I am so fucking insulted!!!!!


I feel so ashamed!!!!


And worst of all, it took a stupid fucking CNN news piece to point out that for so many years, with the president and all those so called "leaders of America" calling me TO MY FACE, through TV and video and all media, that as a Chinese I steal! and that as an American I allow myself to be stolen from and not realizing that I am being spoken to. As myself, I am horrified at my ability to think critically.




UGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Just a Friendly Reminder (?)

Today, a real estate financial agent that I've been working for several weeks emailed me, sent me an email saying that he has no record of my data.

I must have sent him several months of my bank statements, my mortgage statements, insurance papers, etc. All the docs needed to get the refi that I've been trying to get for the past few months. And after all that, he tells me that he has not received any thing from me. I am very upset at this.

I look in my own records and find that I cannot find my own emails to him (gmail, have been very trust worthy in recent years). Records of my phone call to him discussing this case has also vanished. Has my account been hacked? Has white supremacists haked both mine and his emails and removed records so that white people can get in on these exceptionally low rates never seen before in several generations? Is this all a trick to guarantee financial advantage to descendants of Caucasians for generations to come?


Why do these ideas pop in my head when ever an inexplicably disadvantageous thing happen to me?


Could it be a hacker from my current bank? The bank stands to make a lot of money by keeping my high rates in their system? Why do I think there is bigger power at work every time my email gets erased??!!

Let me take pause...

Today, we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day!

Today we are made to share in his dream, a dream of a world in which all men are created equal:
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true....
...will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
...will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last!
Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

And dare I dream of human rights and civil liberties? Dare I dream of privacy and free will? Dare I dream that we will have more interesting things to do than to hack other people's computer accounts and to blog about being hacked by other people?


I have a drea...zzzzzzzZZZ zzzz..z.z..zzzz.... Hmmm, nationalized email service where breaking into email account breaks federal law....all emails are delivered by post office systems... There is such comfort in centralized monolithic guaranteed rule based systems, and yet, I realize that this run opposing to Internet which is free, open, unoptimized, and insecure since it's inception... oh, wait, let's rollbak to MLK's dream, lest this turn into one horrifying nightmare in which we denature Internet as we know it....


:-)

The Marriage Contract

Read an article from slashdot about some predictions for the next 100 years. Notably #17 states that marriage will be come a contract that renews annually. I had thought of a similar idea in a previous post requiring renwal of the marriage license. The importent thing to notice is that this idea's main proponent wants it to become socially aceptable for two people to say "we think we can live happy lives for the next 5 years, but not sure about after that".  The annual contract may be far more practical than a 5-year term that I was envisioning.

The idea breaks with all thoughts of traditional marriage institution. It also makes it insanely difficult to rear children. If one would dare to imagine, socialized child-care. People are free to procede as they like with their marriage life. A part of their taxes goes toward a stable environment where children are cared for professionally. In such a system, one would never fear making a mistake in one's relationship, to impact children, who are the future of society. Such a system also promotes the healthy mixing of genetic material among all races, increasing human rate of evolution.

Additional benefits include accounting. It is far more difficult to enumerate the shared/non-shared properties in a 10-yr marriage that went sour in it's second year than to look at 2 years of income and purchases, and split the properties from only those two years. The renewal process requires an audit of all properties, tedious, I know, but still better than to do it at end of 10 years.

Child rearing is one issue that needs to be addressed more carefully...