One of the main driving forces in Star Trek is an idea of tolerance of religious beliefs. This often comes in the form stating very blandly, "I respect your religious beliefs". Yet, one major complaint about Star Trek is its heavy view of secular humanism as a utopian-like future of most of human society. With strong atheists vehemently opposed to religion and secularist often unwilling to follow or deeply consider the religious beliefs of another, one has to wonder what it really means to "respect your religious beliefs".

With enough consideration, the answer seems more clear. One tenant that most people follow is an understanding that certain beliefs are rather axiomatic. That is, the foundation of one's belief structure is based more on one has learned than what is deduced. A firm rigidity to those axioms can, at time, lead to willful ignorance of reality. Yet, as open as many people claim to be, without some underlying basis to understand things, it is difficult if not impossible to organize or believe anything.

People, however, generally aren't so rigid as to be beyond change. As time progresses, generations of people come in contact with more people and more ideas and have to further evaluate the teachings of their ancestors. So, the axioms of one's fore bearers or even one's youth are at times called into question and generally evaluated not only with one's own other axioms but also with the axioms of others. It is through this that people can grow and change and tolerate others.

In the end, however, people have different axioms. The set of axioms may be better shared today than in the past, but people need a firmness in their own axioms to make decisions for themselves. To that end, a respect in another's religious beliefs is not a direct acceptance of another's beliefs. It is a respect that one must have some sort of underlying beliefs to exist and that it is unreasonable to expect or demand another to give them all up to tryout another belief system.

In short, it is not "I respect your religious beliefs". It is "I respect that you respect your religious beliefs". So long as the former is merely meant as a shorthand of the latter, they're equivalent. But, otherwise, the distinction is of significant importance.

There once was a little robot boy. He lived in a world of monochromatic grays. Well, his world was supposed to be of monochromatic grays. Every Sunday, he would hear a fiery sermon about the five evil colored cubes, the cubes of sin.

The five evil colored cubes--red, blue, green, yellow, and orange--would attach to your soul, in your chest. Only through repentance to God could the cubes go away. The little robot boy had seen those colors before. Sometimes, a few in the communion would even flaunt their cubes, and for that they would be shunned.

But most parishioners tried to cover up their cubes. Try as they might, the colors shone through the holes and seems in their chest. Yet, people acted oblivious to the array of colors that shone in the Church every Sunday. The little boy vowed to not become like these people.

One day, when the little robot boy was twelve, he found a surprise. Upon his soul was a little red cube. It was tiny and it was dim, but it was definitely red and it was definitely there.

The little robot boy responded quickly. He tried to physically remove the cube. That didn't work. He prayed to God for help. Still, there was no help. He thought to ask his mother and father for help, but as he began to ask, he thought better to shut up.

He remembered quite clearly the many times his mothered had rallied against those robots with red cubes. Would the little robot boy still be loved if his mother found out? The little robot boy decided to not tell his parents or anyone but to work to remove the red cube; if that meant pulling back from people so they'd never be close enough to see the faint red glow, so be it.

So, it began. Every day, the little robot boy prayed to God. At first, he prayed simply for the red cube to go away or be destroyed. Over time, his prayers changed. He asked God for help in removing or destroying the red cube. Eventually, his prayers turned to pleas for guidance to remove or destroy the red cube.

Six years passed. The little robot boy was now a robot man. Yet, he still continued to pray. He had prayed over two thousand times to God to in one way or another get rid of the little red cube. Still, the little red cube remained. Sure, it might be a tiny bit smaller now and the edges were charred--trying to use a blow torch to remove it didn't succeed.

The robot man was at a loss. He knew he was no closer to a solution. He also knew that for six years, he basked in the undeserving glow of his mother's love. He felt no better now than before to reveal his red cube to his parents or anyone. He was also puzzled why no one had yet seen the cube or, if they did, why they didn't react to it: as much as he had tried on principle to stay away from people, he had not always been successful.

The robot man was saddened but still had resolve. The red cube in him must be destroyed and he was undeserving to exist until it was gone. But after six years, he was no closer to an answer. Where did his answers lie?

PS - Yes, obviously, the red cube is a metaphor for a human sin. But, of the many listed in the Bible, it is not one of those listed. It is a sin against God, a sin against man, a sin against nature, and the answer to the destiny of the robot man and his sin is unclear.

God is All-Mighty. To be All-Mighty, God must be infinite.

An infinite being is irreducibly complex in so far that an infinite being could not be made finite. Hence, any substantive representation of an infinite being would be infinite.

The Bible is a representation of God. The Bible is finite.

Hence, the Bible cannot be a substantive representation of an All-Mighty God.

This either leaves God as less than All-Mighty (and specifically finite) or leaves all holy texts as inrepresentative of their respective infinite deities.

Let's engage in a little thought experiment. Presume there exists a person with the capability of making a time machine. This person performs the following experiment.

1. On day one of his experiment, he calibrates a watch to a know time device.
2. One year later, he measures this watch against the same time device to establish the amount of drift on the watch.
3. One week later, he measures again this watch.

If the difference between the one year and one year and one week measurement is greater than the possible drift incurred over one week, the experimenter knows that he creates a time machine that successfully shifts the watch by an amount greater than the possible error. Hence, he decides to not work on the time machine.

If the difference between the one year and one year and one week measure is less than or equal the possible drift incurred over one week, the experimenter knows that he doesn't create a time machine that successfully shifts the watch by an amount greater than the possible error. Hence, he decides to work on the time machine.

Now, that's just a silly time paradox, just like the halting problem paradox.

What disturbes you?

Is it the fear of death? Or do you respect your mortality?

Is it a childhood trauma or a instinctive bias? Or do you recognize your phobias for what they are and step beyond them?

Perhaps it's the nude human form, generally or of the excessively young or old? Or do you recognize it as an unhealthy fear from society/religion?

Perhaps you fear sex? Or do you see the futility of fearing the only means to grant you some level of immortality?

Maybe it's the fear of violence? Or do you understand that violence is at the very heart of life?

It'd have to be the future, the great unknown? Or do you see time as a current of unimaginable length which you have little part in?

Do you search out for your confusion and disturbance? Do you work to desensitize yourself to them? Or do you accept the wisdom of letting sleeping dogs lie?

What do you do?

Before I begin, I should give some credit where credit is due. Some time ago, Raymond Chen's OldNewThing blog had a post about the dangers of using locked pages to try to keep a secret key from leaking onto the HD. In short, something like hibernation would allow even locked pages to be written out, thereby allowing those with enough intent to potentially override the intended protection. And while the offered suggestion provided by a friend, to use a key to encrypt the information and hopefully obfuscate the information, was dubious at best, it did eventually lead me to thinking about how to properly address the situation and many *other* situations like it.

Having said all that, I very much doubt I'm the first person to suggest the following ideas. But, I'm throwing them out here as I've yet to see anyone suggest them publically enough to have run across them.

Idea one is rather simple, and it relates to the hibernation problem. In general, the problem with hibernation is a public/private problem. That is to say, there is a fear that the hibernated information might be made available to the public, yet there is a strong desire to keep the information private. And while there is the obvious suggestion, to have a user provide a key each time hibernation occurs, it is a very impractical solution. Instead, a more practical solution is offered.

Pre-Hibernation Steps
1. Create a public/private-key pair
2. Encrypt the private key with a strong symmetric cipher (aes-256, for example) using a user provided password
3. Write the public key and encrypted private key to the HD

Hibernation Steps
1. Randomly generate a one-use key for a strong symmetric cipher (aes-256, for example)
2. Use the one-use key to encrypt memory as is written out to the HD
3. Encrypt the one-use key with the public key and write the encrypted key to the HD

Unhibernation Steps
1. Read in the encrypted private key
2. Read in the encrypted one-use key
3. Read in the password for the encrypted private key
4. Decrypt the one-use key with the private key
4. Use the decrypted one-use key to read in memory

The real thing of note is, this idea can be extended into many other fields. Let's consider the example of automated backups. While the cost and hassle of automated backups is one major reason that people resist having a rigorous backup system, another major reason is privacy concerns. Medical records and financial data need protected, although the reasonably paranoid would likely prefer that backups are encrypted by default instead of relying upon the user to do so manually. Things like EFS have the right idea in principle, but EFS's implementation seems focused on the short-term usability of a HD without enough consideration on long-term backup; there have been efforts by backup-programs to support use of EFS, however. In short, something like EFS could be tweaked slightly to be a great automated backup solution.

Generally, in any situation where the question comes up "but how do we keep this information private while allowing people access to the (possibly encrypted) data", the answer is a public/private key with the use of symmetric encryption of the private key. The only major limitations is whatever weaknesses exist in the encryption algorithms. But, that's another can of worms.

I am no fan of copyright. There are many reasons for this. Some of the more notable reasons include how copyright is the primary basis for Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer world (and all the adverse effects of one organization having such vast control over so many systems), the disconnect between the application of copyright to other mediums (like books) and software that arises from the compilation step of source code, the way the US (and other countries) have begun to rely so heavily on a purely governmental construct to economically exist, and the way copyright law has become so horribly twisted into more of a grotesque beast than any attempt to promote the arts or sciences (this coupling with the former point, and being forced down the throats of other nations in trade agreements). It's not clear to me that any form of copyright could successfully solve all these problems. Much like the roaring 20s, the boom of copyrighted works may lead into an extended depression as what seems like a means to print one's own money, with every computer user with their own printing press, becomes a nightmare when no one will accept it.

So, while many long term answers elude me, I humbly propose some aspects of a "New Deal" of copyright law. At the very forefront of this is the consideration of what everyone involved gets out of this new social contract. To the copyright holder comes the privilege to exclude others from selling unauthorized copies for a very limited time (on the order of half to a whole decade). To the copyright holder also comes the advantage of said limited time allowing much more extensive use of derivative forms. And to further bolster this comes an aspect of the advantage given to consumers, eventually access to the source of a copyrighted work.

Without copyright, the author of a work could obfuscate their work as much as they please. Even reverse engineering a work completely would still leave one with an approximation of the original (especially true when refactoring and macros can radically simplify an author's work and whose form is often lost in compilation). Yet when a copyright ends, one only gains access to what's available to the public. Source code could be lost, yet it holds under the same copyright as the binary (as compilers commit non-creative translation). Similarly, when a CD is created, the many channels that make up the final song are condensed into one through a mix-board, removing the ability to obtain the pure vocals or the pure guitars. Such greatly goes against the ability of reuse the many parts of the whole in a way unlike most other copyright forms (although rough drafts and incompletely painted layers serve under similar quandaries).

This is especially important given the very nature of copyright. Copyright covers not ideas but embodied ideas. This further means that the point of expiring copyright is to allow others to use those embodiments. All the various ways in which modern copyright law and those who use it work against this, by not sharing sources with anyone, leaving technological rot to lose those private copies, and employing encryption schemes to hinder legal (or otherwise) copying of public copies. Most importantly, all such schemes cast a lack of faith in the legal system (that enforcement will take place) and copyright itself (that copyright actually means anything). Would 1930s US society have accepted the idea that because prohibition wasn't be enforced by the states that citizens should have the legal right to create alcohol-proof glasses and forbid any attempt to circumvent them? Why should we today accept DRM formats and devices or laws that make it illegal to circumvent them? Why is there more faith in the law stepping in to stop DRM violations when it can't seem to be bothered to stop the copyright violations the DRM is designed to stop?

Source for copyrighted works has to be available. And the only way to insure that is to require copyright holders to provide that to the Library of Congress [or an equally apt repository]. And at that point, copyright intrinsically reverts back to requiring a registration for a copyright to exist. This is actually a good thing, given that it is the glut of copyrighted works that drives down the worth of such works (supply and demand). Further, all those works that aren't copyright suddenly become a huge repository of public domain knowledge to be used as one pleases. And much shorter terms removes the fears of many that their project might contain 10+ year old random snippets of questionable code from interns who copied from others instead of doing the work themselves (admittedly a bad thing to happen if it's true, but tracking 10+ year old code to prove copyright is very difficult).

The intent of copyright is for authors to have faith in the law to protect them so that they might widely distribute their creative works and for the people to benefit very directly from access to the authors' works without an author inducing arbitrary restrictions. A new deal is necessary for copyright because copyright today fails on both parts of this intent. I don't have faith that a new deal is coming. That is a strong reason I call for the next best thing, an end to copyright.

If you're interested in forces and space/time, you might have found some interest in the way certain particles have been dubbed force-carriers. Some believe that the those forces we all known and love (gravity, electro-magnetic, weak, and strong) are conveyed by particles in a process only weekly understood by most (me included). One of the interesting parts of this comes into play when one considers that photons are considered the force carrier of electro-magnetism.

Why this is interesting should become apparently as one considers gravitational lensing. For those unaware (which I assume are few), gravitational lensing is based upon the idea that space/time is bent/curved as the result of gravity. As a result, a ray of light will "bend" around gravitationally large objects, resulting in various lensing effects. In truth, the light continues on a "straight" path in space, but because the path is bent, the light effectively bends as well.

The reason this should be of interest is because photons don't have mass. On the other hand, W and Z bosons (responsible for the weak force) *do* have mass. Why is this important? Because as force carriers, W and Z bosons themselves warp space/time while photons do not. Mass is, after all, the measure of space/time warpage. Now this leads into a hypothetical, and yet unobserved, particle known as the graviton.

As you might guess from the name, gravitons are the hypothetical force carriers of gravity. Gravitons, like photons, are thought to be massless and travel at the speed of light. However, gravitons aren't exactly like photons because they don't follow the curvature of space/time. How can this be known? Accretion disks.

Accretion disks, if you're not aware, are spinning clouds of gas rotating at high velocity on their path to enter a black hole. Such high velocity actually causes such immense friction that large quantities of the gas's mass (estimates range upwards of 50%) is converted to energy. But what causes such high velocities? Why, the warpage of space/time that's caused by the black hole.

Now, what is one of the fundamental trademarks of a black hole? Why, an event horizon. And an event horizon is defined as a boundary point at which space/time is so curved that not even light can escape. But, it's not so much that light isn't fast enough as it is that, as discussed earlier, light travels along a "straight" path of space/time; but because in a black hole space/time is so curved, space is bent back on itself, preventing any "straight" path to leave the black hole.

Why is this of interest? Because gravitons are supposed to behave nearly identical to light (ie, photons). But, if gravitons were to travel along "straight" paths within a black hole, they themselves would never leave. The result? While objects could still "fall into" a black hole, there would be no gravitons emitted from a black hole to create accretion disks. Ergo, gravitons themselves must not travel along the curvature of space/time.

But what exactly does that mean? How do they travel if not along the straight paths of space/time? Well, the truth is, curved space/time isn't exactly space/time. Instead, a field corresponding to graviton warpage exists. Similarly, a field corresponding to gluon warpage, w and z boson, and photon warpage exists. And while some particles (photons) are effected by the graviton warpage field, others (gravitons, at least) are not.

Meanwhile, the strong force exists, in part, as a graviton warpage field (the sheer fact that one measures the strong force as a mass increase (ie, a gravity increase) attests to that). So, it's not entirely true that mass = energy. For if it did, photons would have mass (ie, graviational warpage). Instead, the measurement of gravitational warpage is merely a good indicator for measuring the energy of many particles.

I walked along the southern end of the sprawling complex. It, like several other buildings of the era, extended so far that opposite ends reached into different climate zones. While the south side of this building edged into a mediterranean climate, the northern end rested in a temperate forest zone.

Because of its massive size, there existed multiple HIDs (in this case, two) to service the many people who would use the complex. HIDs, more often than not pronounced heads (for the way they screwed with your head), are, if you didn't know, human-interface directories. They manage the complex task of instantaneous transport to one of the many sub-complexes, businesses, residencies, and other facilities provided. As I walked along the southern area, the image of a younger woman projected outward from a node above a doorway; or, more appropriately, the illusion of an image appeared--as I said, they screw with your head. It was cheaper, more personal, and more direct to directly communicate with the many customers that would pass by than to actually project flickers of light.

I mentally asked to be sent to the northern side of the complex, where I had business. Just before I was transported, I noticed something peculiar. I seemed able to see the many projects of other people who also were interfaced to the HID. While a few were engaged in activity, something rather noticeable in their body language, others were trying their best to ignore the flicker of light in their mind. At least one of the projections seemed to be nearly begging for the person to come inside.

But before I could gather more of what was going on, I was on the north side. The northern HID, also a younger woman--though this one with black hair--asked how she might be of service. I thought for a second, and asked to be returned to the southern doorway, where I had just came from. She dutifully sent me back, and I returned a short distance from where I had left. I looked out again, and I again saw the many projections of the southern HID for other people. I knew that wasn't right; perhaps there was a leak in the system, somewhere?

But as I walked forward and looked around, I noticed something else. This HID's AI seemed to have an unusual personality. While almost all HIDs were designed to be courteous and prompt, to near a fault, this one seemed to have a personality of longing well beyond the fake sincerity used to draw people in. And as I looked around, I truly wondered if an AI could be alive.

It was the 12th age of the Elves. Many ages had come and past, as technology progressed and eras of peace existed. But each time, the technology of progress became the technology of death and destruction. But this, the 12th age, was a true and lasting era of peace. For the Elves had evolved their technology into the world of magitechnology, fueled by what the Elves understood as the very essence of life itself: mana.

Eons of prosperity existed in the 12th age, but over this vast period of time, a crisis began to arise. A clear decay was evident in the world of the Elves. The greatest scientific minds could not explain what was happening. Many philosophized that such decay was the natural result of an extended peace, but the decay was not of society or of art: it was decay of the very world itself. Their mana trees continued to produce the copious quantities of mana their magitechnology demanded. The mana ran pure and clean, as it had for centuries. Everything seemed as it should be, yet still their world decayed. Eventually the Elves realized, there must be something beyond mana--something essential to their world that was decaying or gone.

And so the Elves set out to colonize other worlds, for which they hoped they would find the stability their eons of peace desired. They created a project known as "Mana Seed". To prepare and plant upon the many lifeless worlds they would colonize, the Elves shut down much of their magitechnology and diverted it into a pure ball of mana. Such would be the home of many elves as they travelled across the vast void of space. Even with their vast life span, on the order of a thousand years, it would be a multi-generational journey upon which they would need to make the ball of mana their temporary new home.

And so the Elves set out on their quest, urging those who remained to produce yet another "Mana Seed" and journey forth in other directions, to spread the lineage of the Elves as far as possible. In the great time the Elves travelled on their Mana Seed, much of the philosophy and technology of the Elves disappeared. No longer did the Elves remember the great diversity of ideas of what mana truly was, in the existence of life, or the varied technology that had progressed to their use of mana. To them, mana was the one and only true life.

Upon finally arriving upon a world of sufficient stability around a star, they were surprised to discover a race of sentient beings already there. They called themselves humans and seemed to exist on the power of their muscles alone. The Elves were very disturbed by this and set to change the world, fearing it would collapse. They planted a single mana tree and nurtured it from what the humans called the Elven comet. The Elves taught the humans of magitechnology, and the humans seemed to prosper under the tutelage of the Elves.

But then the greed and ambitions of the humans seemed to overpower them. They began long and bloody wars, using the magitechnology the Elves brought. Each era of peace with the humans never seemed to last so long that the Elf who forged the peace treaty could be assured that he wouldn't be called again to form a new pact. Eventually, many of the Elves who remained on their new world became secluded from the humans, feeling disgraced at the way the humans perverted their technology; any idea to stop the spread of their technology was quelled as going against their ideals of peace. Some still hoped that the humans might eventually evolve away from war as the Elves must have.

It was at this time that a young boy and his comrades together fought to end the senseless fighting that had been going on continuously for a thousand years. The mana tree that the Elves had planted was beginning to wither and the Elves on the Elven comet were unwilling to plant a new tree to be abused as it was now. The young boy was able to form a truce, but the timing of it was too late. The mana tree withered away and died, leaving behind only a mana seed.

He, along with the elves, agreed that the only way to truly end the current crisis was to split the world in two, allowing each side their own world to rule. But the young boy had his own plans, and set out to make sure neither side would ever again develop sufficient magitechnology to wage war again. He held the mana seed enshrined so that it would not germinate but merely slowly leak away its store of mana. He took control of the Elven comet and hid it from the two worlds, just as he had hid the worlds from each other. The Elves upon the Elven comet were outraged but powerless to stop the determined lad. Many chose to join the Elves would lived in seclusion upon the world they lived on.

And so four thousand years of peace persisted, but they existed under the cruel hand of the ageless boy. The continued suffering of humans was put to use in what would become known as ex-spheres, a technology which in the past fed on mana from the mana tree instead. It was only after another boy and his own party of comrades fought against the system that was created that the worlds were reunited and the evil production of ex-spheres was halted. Knowing full well that humans would again use the magitechnology to wage war, the Elves still blessed this occasion, for there comes a time where continued peace through the suffering and oppression of some is worse than the bloody skirmishes of war. Only time would tell when the greed of the humans for power would truly end.