20 valuable tidbits of advice from a person who is bitter and upset. (Take this as a warning that this is very bitter and might be upsetting to those wearing rose-coloured glasses.)

**
Do you know what I figured out this year, if nothing else. I learned actually a few things this year...

Here's my valuable tidbits of advice.
1. It doesn't matter whether you are correct or not, people won't listen if they don't agree.
2. Girls/Men who let you know they love you, don't. Girls/Men who do, won't let you know.
3. The human race is not intelligent... some humans are intelligent, but the human race on average is as smart as a rat.
4. Speaking of rats, you cannot trust most people in the human race. Good rule of thumb, don't trust anyone.
5. Money is a sad thing that we base our lives around and worship... but unfortunately, when you get rid of it, there ain't much else.
6. God... well.. We won't go there.
7. Life Sucks... realize that and get over it while you are young, and you'll enjoy life more when you get older.
8. People won't tell you how they feel about you. They'll tell absolutely everyone else who'll listen, but not you.
9. The people we vote in, no matter what we do, are just listening to the people with money. They don't care about you, and likely never will.
10. The girl you are interested in is taken...
or if not taken, not interested in you...
or if not taken and interested in you...
is dead or imaginary or lost.
11. You'll always make some stupid mistake you'll regret for the rest of your life, and there is absolutely nothing you'll be able to do to rectify it... So just accept it.
12. Money isn't the root of all evil.
Power is the root of all evil.
Money just leads to power.
13. If nothing happens when we die, it'll be an incredibly humourous thing. Considering how few people live for now.
14. I hate Starbucks and all they represent, I believe workers deserve fair wages and so on... but they just make such darn good Iced Tazo Chais.
15. The USA just scares me... That's it. The third world war will be likely started by them.
16. You'll never supress the people who disagree with your opinions and views.
17. A computer is machine. Not a robot, not a person, not an animal, nothing more. It is just an assembly line of electrons that performs mathematics.
18. In general, the popular belief is wrong. Natural medicine _does not work_; There are no UFOs; Psychics are just good con artists; And no one is talking to your dead grandmother about the letter K.
19. The nude female body is the most beautiful thing in the world right now. No piece of art has surpassed that yet.
20. If you have a girlfriend or boyfriend who you love and loves you, go and show them you care. You are luckier than you could possibly believe right now.

**

There you go, my 20 tidbits from a bitter man. Hopefully they'll make your life more livable, and help you understand what's really going on around you.

Rank | Real name | Occupation | /. nickname | # fans
1) Rob Malda - Slashdot founder - "CmdrTaco" - 975
2) Wil Wheaton - Actor/Activist - "CleverNickName" - 784
3) John Carmack - Programmer, id Software - "John Carmack" - 606
4) Eric Krout - Bucknell engineering major - "ekrout" - 538
5) Bruce Perens - Writer - "Bruce Perens" - 516
6) Josh Marotti - J2EE consultant - "FortKnox" - 381
7) Jeff Bates - Slashdot co-founder - "hemos" - 318

Please notify me of any corrections. Updates: Added Wil Wheaton per AC comment; Added Bruce Perens; Added John Carmack; Moved Eric Krout up one spot to #4 after overtaking Bruce Perens

As it stands, I'm more than halfway there toward gaining more fans than Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. That would be a neat accomplishment and one that I'd be very proud of.

If I can come through (I was on sabatical for a week), I think it would only be proper for Rob to give me some leadership position here at Slashdot. Perhaps I could serve as a liaison between the members and the editors/coders to ensure that Slashdot continues to develop and "scale" with its increasing membership and database size.

Thanks for reading. I truly love you all and enjoy the time I spend here at Slashdot. If I can help any of you with anything (even non-Slashdot related), please let me know. I'm always there for friends (and fans ;-D).

It is humourous what happened today. I was at the local store looking at some products that I was interested in purchasing (Actually it was a used CD store with CDs for sale, anywaiz).

It was actually the first time I have ever purchased used CDs. I commonly am the guy who downloads the few songs that he likes by an artist, and when I pass a certain number of songs, I go out to the HMV or go to amazon.ca or chapters.ca and purchase the CD. (I feel that when I have the entire album on MP3, then it is unfair to the artist... Plus, obviously I love the entire album, so it becomes worth the money. But this is an argument for another time.) Well, a friend of mine brought me to this used CD shop, and overall a lot of the products were priced only a few bucks under a normal CD ($11-18). So, I didn't think I saw any really good deals... Then I noticed some CDs that were less then $10, and they were by artists I really like, so I was quite excited...

Unfortunately though, I realized that I have also been trained not to trust "cheap" products... I looked at these products, CDs that I know I've wanted for a while, and stopped... thinking with some trepidation... "Why are these CDs so cheap? Is the music worse than I thought? Should I really buy this?"

Then I realized how often I really do that in real life. I have a set price range for almost all the products I purchase... a max price which I would never consider (for CDs it is usually around $25-30 depending on the quality of the CD), and apparently I have a minimum price as well.

Anything above the max price I look at warily thinking that its someone trying to mess me out of my money...

And, ironically, I look at anything below the min price as well with that same point of view. I think to myself "obviously, this person wants to get some money for this, but cannot get rid of it, so he's lowered the price... Thus the product must be bad."

It's kind of a reverse supply and demand. (Unfortunately, I haven't taken economics, so I don't know if this is actually included in the theory or not.) But it is interesting to note that if you sell a product, don't offer it for _too low_ a price... People won't buy it, and think you are trying to scam them as much as the people who overcharge for the same product.

Just some interesting insights...

On the + side, I did buy the CDs of the artists I like, and they are amazing. So I was wrong. :-)

Settting up another 4 node Sunc Cluster 3.0 with RAQ 9i... oh boy! If it weren't for the sketchy SCI setups around here, I could just script this and go to sleep.

Modern advertising has hit an impasse...

After more then 50 years of consumers using advertising for information and purchase decisions. Many occurances have made modern advertising a difficult task, especially for small businesses.

One occurance which we are all familiar with is the internet. Now that a large portion of consumers have access to the internet. The population can get reliable/unreliable information on products(less reliance on commericials for product info), can acquire copies of products for free(MP3s, anyone?), and they are bombarded with so much spam, advertising, banner ads, etc. that they have developed an ability to just ignore advertisements, and skip straight to the content of the website.(Most if not all pop-ups are commonly closed before an advertisement even shows up. Some people even have special programs that prevent pop-ups and banner ads from showing).

It is notable though that this glut of advertising has left a really 'sour' taste in the mouths of the consumer. There is a growing movement towards anti-consumerism (and thus anti-advertising) in the world with magazines like Ad-Busters, and many anti-consumerism groups.

Now, this unfortunately doesn't have any effect on the number one thing advertisers want to happen. Most advertisers don't care if you like or dislike their ads. They want most that when you need the product they are advertising, you will think of their product first. Generally, from a psychological viewpoint, this will lead to the consumer purchasing their product. Advertisers don't want to force you to buy their product, they just want you to know that when you need it, they have exactly what you need.

So, the simple question is, then why is the general populous purchasing so much crap. If advertising is only supposed to get you to buy their product when you 'need' it. People don't need any of this stuff (Coke, Gap clothes, etc.) Yet, they still buy it... where's the problem.

Well, in fact, the second most important thing that advertisers want to do is to make you either want this stuff (if you have disposable income), or make you feel a need to own this stuff. Why do people buy clothes that make them look like billboards? Well, because it's expensive, because the people that they want to imitate wear it (and thus advertise those products), because they feel that everyone is doing it, therefore they _NEED_ to own it. This method works particularily well with teenagers and young adults, as they are just trying to find a niche into which they can fit.

So, now we have a simple advertising model that will work to sell our product. Make our product obviously different from the rest (with a brand logo on the front, or something similar), then have people who are "role models" for youth to wear our product. As well, make sure that your logo or brand name is shown as many times as possible to the target market.

As long as the cards are played right, you will have a bunch of teenagers with disposable income spending all they can on your stuff. This is the business/advertising model for companies like FUBU, GAP, etc. Even cell phones, music, posters, jewelery, cars (Jame Bond?), stationery (Five Star Gear), etc. can all sell with this model.

Well... this model is the problem. It has worked too well. A common method of promoting this model is to include the rebellious edge. Most teens want to rebel right, well then lets make our product rebellious...

oops... Wrong card to play.

The rebelliousness that has been encouraged is leading to a revolt against the very brands that absorbed the rebellious nature. People are sick and tired of seeing advertisements. TiVos skip them from TV, people don't view them on their computer, and most people don't read mags anymore, just web sites. {{I read a lot of magazines, but generally the less advertising, the more likely I am to read it.}} It's reached the point that the more advertising some people see, the less likely they are to purchase the product.

So, how do you get around this...

Easy, very simple solution. Get rid of advertisements. People don't want them, and are sick of them. Instead, product placements. Have the most popular sitcom star drink your pop. Have the coolest movie star use your cell phone and drive your cars. Don't make a fuss about it, and don't let them make a fuss about it. Just let them use it, and subtly everyone will know.

Doesn't work well in a school environment? Okay, give the popular kids free clothing with your brand on it.

Doesn't work well in a work environment? Okay, offer free software for the managers to use. (not the rest though.)

How about the ordinary person driving down the street, not watching TV, just listening to the radio, and driving? Simple, offer "sales" over the radio for your burgers. (Sales nowadays has lost all meaning, but they still get people to buy. Even though it makes no sense to save that one dollar on a $50 product that you wouldn't have bought in the first place.)

Keep your stores looking like they are busy, and people will come just to check them out.

Keep your fast food restaurants smelling tasty, and offering cheap quick food (not necessarily good food, though). People will eat there.

Don't kill your product with adverts. Sell your product with social engineering. Advertisements are dead, or dying. Socially engineered sales techniques is what is going to sell your product.

It's amazing the things I have given up just to get my degree. First, it's the insane amounts of money I give to this university (1/3 of which goes to a bunch of organizations that I don't respect or don't use.)

Then there's the ever prevalent fact that I have given up a real Univ students social life. it's like welcome to Waterloo, now you know how you heard that people actually have time to hang out with their friends... hell meet new friends... Well, that's all inaccurate here. Instead we are going to stick you in a class and give you so much to do that you may as well tie yourself to a seat and enjoy the ride.

Oh yeah, and then there's the number one thing you give up when you go into math at waterloo. Unless you are gay, incredibly attractive (I mean movie start attractive), have a g/f before hand, or just have incredible luck. You are guaranteed to be single. There is no surer contraceptive at Waterloo then just telling a girl which dept. you are in (if you are in math).

Common conversation:

Me: Hey, I'm [name omitted]
Her: Hey. I'm [name] nice to meet you ... Conversation lasts about 5 minutes discussing music, life, etc ...

Me or Her: so what faculty are you in
(if me)
Her: Oh, I go to WLU, (or) or I am in Arts. (or) Oh, I don't go to University. What are you in?
Me: Math
Her: oh... well... umm.... I have to go over... there... um... now....
(Conversation ends)

(if her askiing me) Me: Math.
Her: oh.. math... well.. that's... hmm.. great... yeah... hmm... Well, I should go see my friends now... bye.. it was nice meeting you.

It's amazing how just telling the truth and saying that you are a math student is like spraying them with Mace or saying you have an STD. How can a math student have an STD, they can't even have sex. {Laugh}.

Well.. I guess these are the sacrifices you give to have "higher education". Sometimes though I wonder if it is really worth it... Well, I won't know until I am finished I guess.

So, here's to being a mathie at Waterloo... :-P

I was thinking about Open Source projects and while I love them so much, and I realized that all of the projects I use follow one very simple paradigm - Modular based coding.

You may ask, what is modular based coding? Well, it's a program where every part is an independent entity. Ie. there is a part that handles POP communications, and a part the handles the gui, and a part that... well, you get the point. Yet, I am not saying that these programs are just libraries and OOP style code. No, they have the neat feature that (almost like lego blocks) you can pick and choose which style you want and then they all just naturally piece together into one beautiful whole.

Now, this is a neat trick, because anyone can now use the same general components and easily customize their system to work perfectly. For example, I like minimalism, so I use Enligtenment as my windows manager, and make my Term window in the background. Another example, a friend of mine likes a Windows like environment, so he uses KDE 3.0 (I think) and has it customized to look exactly like windows.

You see, each person has an option that allows them to make their computer exactly the way they want. Since I am from the old days of DOS and all I don't mind having a terminal, and actually I find myself having a higher productivity. My friends who have always been using Windows, they prefer the more "windows-like" environments of KDE and Gnome. And since the Windows Manager is just another module to the whole of the OS, they can do that and our programs will still function together easily.

Now, I call this style of modularity, pseudo-evolutionary code. I got the idea from when I was watching a field of flowers one day. I realized that each one of the different type of flowers looks completely different, and yet the bees that take the nectar from the flowers have no problem (With most of them), and then again, one more level up, I noticed that there were many types of bees, each one suited to a different purpose, and they all functioned smoothly together because evolution "discovered" that the best way of having a system that works well through many different situations is to make it very diverse and yet still have every part interchangable with the rest.

The OS projects I use commonly follow this paradigm. There are multiple different "flowers" that each do their own job and are applicable, yet they all generally work well together. There are multiple different "bees" that work with these "flowers" and again they all generally work well together. You can keep on going, and discover that the reason OS is working is because OS follows the paradigm of diversity with interactivity, while commercial software follows the paradigm of diversity without interactivity for the benefit of profit.

Perhaps its time for companies to start programming modular systems like the OS does, and then having "distributions" that take these modules and release them as a useful whole, distributing the profits to the module makers.

This has some major benefits over the current system.

First, a company only has to work on a small part of the larger whole, and thus they can make sure that their part functions to its optimal point so it will be preferred over other similar modules.

Second, the consumer gets the benefit of having exactly the system they want, instead of the system forced on them.

Third, since there is lower costs (modules are easier to program and debug then entire systems), and the possibility of higher production (you can make lots of different modules. For example, Microsoft could release probably about 1000+ modules and make a killing because then even if people didn't want their "entire" OS, they would still like to have some of the modules (like interfacing modules that work with MS Protocols. :-) )

In the end, it's just a good idea. Modular based coding, if properly done, could provide a very happy and good future for tech companies and the consumer.

I apologize to everyone for not realizing that Enlightenment meant this wonderful windows manager. :-)

I just switched from standard KDE to Enlightenment, and I am blown away. IT is the most intuitive windows manager I have ever used.

Just had to say that.

Okay... this will be my first non-technical rant.. I hope I don't lose any good fans for this.

So... here's life...

Single, like always... Suffering through school when I want to be writing valuable papers, but I am just barely not smart enough to write anything of significance to get published...

There are three women who I find attractive (yeah, they are the exceptions to my previous laws). Yet, All three are not interested in me, and even if they were... All but one are way to far away to even matter.

One of them is so intelligent and beautiful she blows my mind, but I don't think she would ever even consider being interested in me... and even if she was, she's on the other side of the planet basically. Moving there just recently from where I am at. I miss her hugs to be honest.

Another is an old friend I used to have a crush on that I have discovered is very intelligent, but unfortunately she's far away, and taken.

The Last is close by, but I am certain she's the type that prefers Jocks (Read... neanderthals, not to knock jocks, but you know the type. They only play sports and couldn't figure out anything really useful to do in the real world. Commonly just work as bodyguards and door stops.)... Oh well.

I guess that's a good solid rant...

Sorry fans. I promise a more intelligent one in the future, okay? :-)

I just know I am going receive a lot of feminist comments about this journal entry. But what the hell. I guess it's just a good time and place for me to vent.

Theorem:

Okay. Well, I defined attractiveness of woman has having three different variables.

p = physical attractiveness of a woman
f = femininity of a woman
i = intelligence of a woman

Now, there is an interesting relation between these properties... They are all inversely related. Thus

p = 10 - 1/(k(t)/(f*i))^2 k is the equation of beauty with respect to time. In general, it appears that this equation is very similar to a skewed probability distribution. Thereby having a low beauty at a young age, and slowly reaching it's peak at an individual time for each woman, and then slowly declining towards zero with age.

f = 10 - 1/(l(t,c,f)/(p*i))^2 l is the equation of feminity with respect to time, children and family. In general the higher the number of children and stronger the family ties, commonly leads to a more feminine woman. As time progresses as well, It seems that a woman becomes more feminine until they reach a peak (like the beauty one) and slowly decline with age. Note: Some woman die before reaching this peak.

i = 10 - 1/(m(t,w,s)/p*f)^2 m in this equation is the equation of intelligence wrt time, wisdom and schooling. Wisdom generally is a constant, but can increase slowly with age. generally, as time progresses m increases. Yet, sometimes a disease or injury can cause a non-linear change in this equation. Finally, s is schooling, this includes all teaching a woman receives from other people.

Now...

If we look at these equations, we discover quickly that the perfect attractive woman (intelligent, feminine, and physically attractive), becomes progressively hard to reach as each variable is inversely related to the others. (This was deduced from experiment with a random sample of approximately 100 women I was oglin.. ahem... studying at my university. ;-)

Now, we look at probabilities to see if it is possible for me to find someone who fits a level of attractiveness that every man wants.

Well, using a non-biased sample (me), I would say that men probably would like a woman who is even among the three attributes, approximately 7.5. If the equations are examined, it can be noted that all three attributes will exist within the range [0,10), where 10 requires an infinite amount of the three to exist.

Well, to accomplish this, we see easily that
solving for physical attractiveness function k.

k >= sqrt(f^2*i^2/10-p)
let p = i = f = 7.5

k >= 35.58

(It is easy to see that all of the functions will have to be >= 35.58)

Now, from testing the mean is approximately 11.18 (because most people are p=i=f=5). With a standard deviation of approximately 6. (This of course includes some standardized methods to adjust for skewing, etc.)

Now, it becomes painfully obvious how difficult it would be for all three of the functions to have a value of 35.58. (Albeit, one function can have an incredibly high value, all three cannot.)

Corollary:

Now some males differ in their weighing of the three factors of feminine attractiveness. So they may be able to find their ideal woman. Unfortunately, I just think I have proved that my ideal woman... one that is attractive, intelligent and feminine... is unacheivable.. or at least highly improbable mathematically. :-)

I call this MM's Theorem of Mathematical Feminine Attractiveness, and the last paragragh, I call MM's corollary that his perfect woman does not exist.

I was thinking and working on some Quantum Physical problems as well as some Mathematical Chaos Theory problems, and I noticed something that caught me startling off guard. (I also read an interesting book by a neuroscientist on quantum physics and the brain.)

Everything in the world is affected in someway by quantum mechanics. By Chaos theory, the smallest change will not be cancelled out in the end, but instead leads to a similar, but completely different final state when used in cellular automata (CAs). Now, I am not going to start going all CA on you, but I have verified what I read in the book by the neuroscientist, and apparently a good part of the stuff that happens in our bodies is very similar to cellular automata actions. (And how could it be not, since they are literally just cells acting on their interactions with the cells around them.)

So, anywaiz. You think about this, and you realize that perhaps Quantum Chance has a larger influence on things in the world than previously thought.

Okay, i hear the jeers and boos from the mechanists out there. The ones who believe that quantum is basically smeared out by the time it reaches our level.

Well, here's a cute little thought experiment that can show quantum isn't as smeared out as you think at out level.

Set, up a diffraction grating. At exactly the halfway point, divide a screen and hook it up to a computer. Now, Let's be mean and wire this computer to someone we don't like, or ourselves if you like that. Now, if one photon that passes through the grating hits the left side of the screen, the person hooked up will be fine and nothing happens. But if a photon hits the right side of the screen, they die a horrible death in some way. (you can decide on the method yourself).

Now, with this a major decision has been made purely by quantum mechanical means. Even if our building the device was mechanistical up to the point of wiring the person to it. The final act was done completely by the quantum interactions of the photon.

Thus, you can see that Quantum Chance does have an influence on our lives. Since protein folding and a majority of other biological phenomena have quantum properties, and these quantum chances are carried up through the levels by simple chaotic progression, that something neat happens. Our decisions may be at least partially influenced by quantum mechanical chance.

--

Now, here's the interesting question that has got me stumped, but I finally came to the conclusion that this will remain an axiom that has no exact influence on the final product of what happens in the universe.

Is Quantum chance, only that, just pure probability, or a roll of the dice?

Or is Quantum chance, the will of something greater, referred to by theologians as a the uncaused cause?

I toyed with both of these and I discovered that it doesn't matter which one is true. There is no way of proving either. Therefore, you end up with either no faith or faith.

Simple as that. It's actually kinda strange how that happens when you reduce it all the way.

I just had to post this quote from a book I read just recently. I think it explains exactly why Canada is right about not spending insane amounts on a defence budget: (This is paraphrased as to avoid copyright problems, hopefully)

"Nations fear their 'enemies', so they spend large amounts of energy and money into weapons they believe will protect them. Yet, the more they focus on these defences, the more they frea being attacked; thus leading to more money and energy being thrown into defence. Even though we are in an age where the weaponery makes war absurd, these nations will disregard models for cooperative planning toward developing third-world countries that show great promise, and instead fight with their militarys for control of developing nations.

These countries ignore peace gestures. They disregard evidence that a budget directed towards education, health, social programs, and small businesses would provide more employment and provide for more people's needs then a budget directed towards war.

All they as a nation know is that they are terrified of their 'enemy' and because of this must continue to expand the defence."

Like the story of the man who poured gold dust and salt on his lawn every day to protect against man-eating tigers. He sacrificed food, family, and destroyed his own garden, making it impossible for plants to grow. He even destroys his own house so he could get the gold dust and salt to pour on his lawn.

But as far as he could tell, he mustn't stop because well... it worked. No tigers showed up at his house.

The one time that a tiger did show up, he easily excused on the fact that he mustn't have been using enough gold dust and salt. So, he doubled his recipe, and in the end destroyed everything he was trying to protect.

Does this sound vaguely familiar? Well, it's an old folk tale from a long time ago, and still applies to this day.

Thank god, I am Canadian, and I hope we remember not to destroy our land pouring gold and salt to protect against the 'tigers', no matter what any of our friends or neighbours tell us.

I have been noticing a disturbing trend over the last little while, and I feel it might be important to write a note to the intelligent young ladies and men out there.

This trend I have noticed is the fact that the truly intelligent young ladies and young men have not been having children, and some are not ever planning to have children. Now, I am not saying that they don't have the right to decide whether or not. What I am saying that since these people don't have children, the average intelligence level of the parents is inherently lower.

I am not saying for all intelligent people to go out there and have wild crazy orgies every night (Albeit, that is an interesting idea... hmm... :-P) Instead I am saying, perhaps it is time for us to relax a bit, not be obsessessed with the "Almighty buck," programming and getting ourselves up the corporate ladder, and instead give back a bit of our genes (which assuming that genetics are responsible somewhat for intelligence) to the world. Thus, letting a new generation of intelligent youth upon the world.

Now, there is always the inherent problem (especially for the men who are good on comps) of finding a woman who wants to be with them. My letter to the wo/men who are leary of dating/marrying/having children with a computer literate person. You need to realize that not only are most of these people intelligent, youthful, and full of potential. But also, they will be able to provide when push comes to shove. These are the managers, entrepreneurs, systems developers, programmers, innovators, etc. of the world. Wouldn't you want to have someone like that as the mother or father of your children?

Another complaint I hear is that they don't want to introduce their children into such a mean world. Well, here's an interesting thought. If only the mean people introduce their children to the world, what do you have left? The world needs, pardon my expressions, the geeks, the nerds, the non-atheletics, the hackers, etc... not just the jocks, the followers, the jerks, etc. We need these intelligent youth who may not be great at sports, but can program circles around anyone. Or these youth who may not understand the finer points of social engineering, but can develop physics to unimaginable heights. We need people who won't grow up to be workers, and instead will be the thinkers. These people are the potential children of the young ladies and men that this letter is written towards.

So... My final note to anyone on slashdot who reads this. If you have a b/f or a g/f, go and let them know how much you truly care about them. If you don't have a b/f or a g/f, get off the computer, and go and find your lover/soulmate, because no matter how hard s/he is to find, they are somewhere out there... waiting for you. ;-)

Hug your intelligent friends today, they always need to know someone cares. (and most of them like hugs.) :-)

I just feel like talking about some discussions I have been having with physicists, mathematicians, and logicians lately.

It seems that the ancient search for ultimate truth has been sidetracked and replaced with the search for the most statistically significant truth. :-) Yet all of this just confuses everything. I keep hearing that we are nearing the end of physics, we almost have all of the main theories united, and understand everything.

The physicists usually point towards the superstring theory. I will admit, I am amazed by its apparent simplicity from a distance. The universe is made up of small strings that each vibrate at a certain frequency. Easy, eh?

Wrong...

As the theory evolved, the universe began to be made up of membranes of all sorts of dimensions(m-branes), different topological strings, dimensions up to and beyond 9 dimensions, interesting toplogies for all of these spaces, and just a huge mess of muck. Now officially known as M-theory.

And the funniest thing about all of this will be when they are done, there will be one more question remaining. What are the membranes made of. Can we predict their properties, why do they have these properties, etc.

Hmm... Sounds familiar... Does anyone know about Godel's incompleteness theorem? A vital theorem in mathematics that basically shattered all of our dreams of math being the ultimate truth, or even the way to find the ultimate truth easily. The theorem states (in somewhat technical terms) that "any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent. (Wolfram)" Which sounds really funny. But what happens is that. No matter how much we know, no matter how much we can prove about a system, it must be inconsistent (if we can prove it is consistent.)

It's quite hard to explain, but basically, this means that no matter how much we know about a system and how many axioms and proofs we have. There will always be an problem that can never be solved. (Sound familiar?)

Now, we go back to M-theory. I think this is a great theory, and will be useful if it can be completely proven, and will lead to some good new discoveries. But, it won't be the end of physics, there will always be questions that remain, and new axioms will need to be created to explain those questions. Interestingly enough, this is a refreshing note for the theoretical physicists out there, and as a mathematician, all I have to say to them is welcome to the world of mathematics. :-)

Now moving on to the next big thing that is popping up; Cellular Automata.

I don't even know where I should start on this one. First, unless it provides a way to predict future events that is more accurate, or more easier then modern science, it becomes another mathematical curiousity again.

Albeit the random number generator(Rule 30) looks fascinating. I hate to point out that it is still just a Pseudo-Random number generator (just to the people who may have missed that). If I run that through the same rules, we get the same numbers. Therefore, all we are seeing is a chaotic system based on recursion. I wouldn't be surprised if this system could be reduced to a similar problem in Chaos theory by converting the rules into a function and the points into a binary number. I may take a look at that myself and see where it leads.

Now, we go, "But, what about all of the other things he talks about, like the similarities to nature?" Well, these are bound to happen. Math, computation are always very similar to nature, for one very good reason. Math is based on nature, whether we wish to admit it or not. Math may be an "innatural science (Feynman)," but that doesn't mean Math doesn't have its roots in nature, and therefore you are bound to find patterns in it (Look up Ramsey Theory) that are meaningless, they just have to exist.

All I say is that people need to serious think about these huge, godlike statements people make before they accept them at face value. It's very rare that one person can change everything, and commonly that person is too busy changing everything to realize what s/he is doing.

I am finding it strange while I am metamodding discussions lately how many honest factual comments are being modding down as flamebait, trolling, or other various reasons.

For example, one comment posted in a definite Microsoft article pointed out some very detailed factual problems in MS Windows XP. It for some odd reason was modded down as flamebait. Now, this totally confused me, because the write-up was qutie articulate, and clear. Obviously not for the sole purpose of raising a fight, but just to discuss actual interesting problems in MS.

Another example included a comment about Linux. Making a statement that Linux doesn't have the same capabilities as windows in a certain area. A very short honest, clear comment with no obvious mean intent. This one was modded down as a Troll.

I could go on with the endless supply of mod downs that have shocked and surprised me. (And if I was a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder about who is really modding).

Now the funniest mod downs are some that are modded down using more then just Troll or Flamebait, ie. OffTopic and Redundant. Such as a legit comment on microsft in a microsoft article discussion being modded down with offtopic, or even better the redundant ones that tell interesting facts, or cute jokes being modded down as Redundant, when at the very least they should be just left alone (most people don't see 1 ratings).

This is quite sad actually that some people feel they have to drop to the low of knocking others down who post legitimate posts at the expense of quality posts not being modded up (using their 5 mod point.) Unfortunately, an easy solution to this problem doesn't make itself easily apparent. The only suggestion I can have is to make it so a post needs 2 mod downs (Mod downs would then be worth 1/2 a mod point) to officially be modded down. At the very least this would prevent overzealous modding down of quality posts that just oppose the opinion of the moderator.

Personally, I try my hardest to mod up everything that is good when I am moderator, and avoid personal opinions when I mod comments down. I hope that other people who get the priviledge to moderate will do the same.