Sports makes people fat.

Ok so playing sports doesn't really make people fat, but watching them sure does, and from what this article says people are more inclined to watch sports if they have an HDTV. I will admit at times I have been a couch potato, and I do spend a lot of time at the computer programming, surfing, and reading books online but atleast I dont blow 2 hrs a day watching sports. Sports are a lot of fun, but the majority of the fun comes from the commroderie that happens when friends are over and you just have it on to catch the good stuff while you talk about random stuff.

The Iron Dice

At the end of The Great War the German high command met and evaluated their position. They came to the conclusion that they were almost out of ammunition, the treasury was almost empty, and they couldn't hold on for very long. The meeting of course was heavily documented and one of the quotes that came out was "Its time to roll the Iron Dice." By rolling the iron dice they had to ask for peace and see what the allies would let them have.

Throughout life there are time when knowing when to quit is very important. If the Germans had asked for peace earlier then they probably could have gotten more out of the peace treaty and perhaps Hitler wouldn't have been able to rise to power. There are countless places in the world today where people are asking if its time to roll the iron dice or not granted their iron dice don't weigh as much as the ones the Germans had to roll. Some of these areas are Iraq, Darfur, Cuba, North Korea, and other countries that are either growing or shrinking. For places like North Korea the question is how hard can N. Korea push before there is a retarding action taken. While in other places like Iraq the question is if we pull out will the system right itself?

Given the nature of systems it is a guarantee that Iraq will right itself eventually. However, the question remains as to whether or not the system that emerges is going to be one that the U.S. can work with. Since Iraq does have large amounts of oil and we need that oil. What ever happens Iraq must be willing to conduct business with us.

If the Iraqi people actually voted for a democratic government and want that then I think the U.S. should work to provide that. However, if the people want a regime like the old one then fine lets leave. The biggest question that I had going into Iraq was whether or not the people actually wanted the U.S. to liberate them. Now that we have control and can enforce a fair election we might want to think about asking the people if they want us there, and if they say no then we take control of oil production and leave them to fight it out amongst themselves. I don't want the U.S. to control the oil output of Iraq since no good will come of stealing those peoples natural resources. But if the oil and a few other national treasures/resources are placed into a trust that is controlled by the U.N. then Iraq can fight it out and when they need the money from the oil to rebuild they can have it.

This plan would do a few things, it would show the world that we support Iraq and the U.N. by doing what is best for both organizations. It would also make it so the problem isn't the U.S. versus the people of Iraq it would mean that the world takes on a lot more involvement. The biggest problem is then controlling who gets the oil out of Iraq, which will drive up costs for oil in America.

Regardless of the outcome of Iraq it has been proven that allowing such a volatile nation control something that is so important to the world economy is a bad idea. Countries are like a tribe of people with loose affiliations, and reliance on one another for various reasons. If it is proven that a single entitie is not working for the betterment of the group then members of the group will reduce that individuals ability to effect changes in the group.

An interesting article by Wired talks about the future of super computing and how the GPU's developed for all those Quake nerds could actually lead the way to the next jump in computing potential. This seems almost painful for me because I have commonly stated that playing games is a total waste of time and used that statement to quit an addictive game on more then one occasion. Now suddenly by playing games you can help change the course of humanity!

The article can be found on Wired magazine's site discussing the future of supercomputing.

One point that is brought up in the article and I'm not sure if its for better or worse is that companies like ATi and Nvidia have grown and advanced at a rate that leads most tech companies because of the fierce competition in the graphics card market. The down side to this competition is that people trying to bring the GPU into the scientific computing environment are forced to reverse engineer how the GPU's work by trial and error since the inner working of the hardware is not public domain. This could possibly add years to researchers work to get the GPU's to do something that is not graphically oriented. The second problem and I'm not sure about this is the legal side of their work. I worry that Nvidia and ATi might be able to sue this group of researchers for their work since it could violate the DMCA. Luckily I think that both of these companies and their owners are human enough to not sue legitimate researchers.

The two ideas that they could be sued, and their research delayed because of intellectual property laws makes me wonder if the current copyright laws need to be revamped. The idea that the DMCA is draconian and overbearing has been around since Clinton signed it into existence. However, people usually just deal with it and either don't release research or release their findings under corporate censorship. This lack of release of research against a security threat is a double sided sword. It is true that certain things should be held back until the problem can be fixed, however that research should be released to the general public so humanity doesn't make the same mistake twice. The censorship of research may or may not harm education since usually the research that is being held back is very specific and requires an incredibly high level of understanding about the topic.

Then the question is should something as powerful and essential as Voting machines, common hardware, and scientific breakthroughs have their inner workings kept secret? I think people should get money from their ideas, and hard work. Because of this I disagree with legislation on this issue since it seems like almost all legislation as of late gives one group or another the short end of the stick. However what I would like to see is people who own the copyrights or trademarks on certain things be more accommodating to research and people that are trying to help out humanity. Take the GPU example if the group that wanted the specs was going to use the technology to build a better GPU and then compete with Nvidia or ATi then they should have been told to take a hike, but since the technology is increasing the market for both companies while helping humanity, the companies should have been more then willing to release the info to the researchers.

Maybe I'm not seeing something here, and maybe the research group never asked for the specs to the hardware. The best solution that I can see to remedy this problem is for major companies that hold pantents/copyrights on technology to be more open to outside research, and start programs to help out the little guys that don't compete with them.

This may sound like a scientific version of socialist utopianism, and it is partly since I'm asking companies to take a risk with their bread and butter to help out humanity. What incentive do companies really have to be more open about their technology? As of now companies are largely self regulated on this issue a lot of responsibility has been put in their hands, and if they abuse that responsibility then legislation may swing back to the consumer. By companies taking the high ground and taking responsibility for what they have been entrusted with it might be possible to increase the speed of scientific advancement.

Many people including me have wondered why someone feels the need to blog and have their little digital soap box. I have realised that the reason people need to blog and publish their opinions is that it raises public awareness and helps elected officials know what some of us are thinking. Ever since the printing press people who had their own newpapers had the opertunity to enact change and convince people that change was needed and possible.

There is a list of topics that I see as a personal worry and they range from broad liberty and rights to obscure consumer rights. However, they are all tied in with honoring the United States Constitution, and the rights of U.S. citizens.

Some topics that I have noticed that keep reacurring in news and discussions are things like

• Sony's actions against consumers
  
• Senator Ted Stevens
  
• Net Neutrality(not quite an explicit right)
  

I will generally try to stick to obscure and new debates that seem to be misunderstood. I am a little cynical so I hope no one gets too offended or depressed.