M Database Inspector (cheetah)
|Not logged in. Login|
|Tue, Apr 29 2008||100||Causes of Variability||
As far as I am able to judge, after long attending to the
subject, the conditions of life appear to act in two ways,-
directly on the whole organization or on certain parts alone,
and indirectly by affecting the reproductive system.
With respect to the direct action, we must bear in mind that
in every case, as Professor Weismann has lately insisted,
and as I have incidentally shown in my work on Variation
under Domestication, there are two factors: namely, the
nature of the organism, and the nature of the conditions.
The former seems to be much the more important; for nearly
similar variations sometimes arise under, as far as we can
judge, dissimilar conditions; and, on the other hand,
dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to
be nearly uniform.
The effects on the offspring are either definite or indefinite.
They may be considered as definite when all or nearly all the
offspring of individuals exposed to
certain conditions during several generations are modified in
the same manner.
It is extremely difficult to come to any
conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have
been thus definitely induced.
There can, however, be little doubt about many slight changes,-
such as size from the amount of food, colour from the nature
of the food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, &c.
Each of the endless variations which we see in the plumage
of our fowls must have had some efficient cause; and if the
same cause were to act uniformly during a long series of
generations on. many individuals, all probably would be
modified in the same manner.
Such facts as the complex and extraordinary out-growths
which variably follow from the insertion of a minute drop of
poison by a gall-producing insect, show us what singular
modifications might result in the case of plants from a
chemical change in the nature of the sap. Indefinite variability
is a much more common result of changed conditions than
definite variability, and has probably played a more important
part in the formation of our domestic races.
We see indefinite variability in the endless slight peculiarities
which distinguish the individuals of the same species,
and which cannot be accounted for by inheritance from
either parent or from some more remote ancestor.
Even strongly marked differences occasionally appear in the
young of the same litter, and in seedlings from the same
At long intervals of time, out of millions of individuals reared in
the same country and fed on nearly the same food, deviations
of structure so strongly pronounced as to deserve to be called
but monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter variations.
All such changes of structure, whether extremely slight or
strongly marked, which appear amongst many individuals
living together, may be considered as the indefinite effects of
the conditions of life on each individual organism, in nearly
the same manner as the chill affects different men in an
indefinite manner, according to their state of body or
constitution, causing coughs or colds, rheumatism,
or inflammation of various organs.
With respect to what I have called the indirect action of
changed conditions, namely, through the reproductive system
of being affected, we may infer that variability is thus induced,
partly from the fact of this system being extremely sensitive
to any change in the conditions, and partly from the
similarity, as Kreuter and others have remarked, between the
variability which follows from the crossing of distinct species,
and that which may be observed with plants and animals
when reared under new or unnatural conditions.
Many facts clearly show how eminently susceptible the
reproductive system is to very slight changes in the surrounding conditions.
Nothing is more easy than to tame an animal,
and few things more difficult than to get it to breed freely
under confinement, even when the male and female unite.
How many animals there are which will not breed, though
kept in an almost free state in their native country!
This is generally, but erroneously, attributed to vitiated
Many cultivated plants display the utmost vigour, and yet
rarely or never seed! In some few cases it has been
discovered that a very trifling change, such as a little more or
less water at some particular period of growth, will determine
whether or not a plant will produce seeds.
I cannot here give the details which I have collected and
elsewhere published on this curious subject; but to show how
singular the laws are which determine the reproduction of
animals under confinement, I may mention that carnivorous
animals, even from the tropics, breed in this country pretty
freely under confinement, with the exception of the
plantigrades or bear family, which seldom produce young;
whereas carnivorous birds, with the rarest exceptions,
hardly ever lay fertile eggs.
Many exotic plants have pollen utterly worthless,
in the same condition as in the most sterile hybrids.
When, on the one hand, we see domesticated animals and
plants, though often weak and sickly, breeding freely under
confinement; and when, on the other hand, we see
individuals, though taken young from a state of nature
perfectly tamed, long-lived and healthy
(of which I could give numerous instances),
yet having their reproductive system so seriously affected by
unperceived causes as to fail to act, we need not be
surprised at this system, when it does act under
confinement, acting irregularly, and producing offspring
somewhat unlike their parents.
Causes of Variability
|Sat, Apr 26 2008||200||A Meeting of Angles||
On the grass at the park at night, the three of us took a stroll
and then laid down and looked at the stars together, talking about space.
"Save my soul", she whispered gently with her body language.
"I don't understand you", I gently replied with mine.
Her response was forceful.
" I am hardly 11 years old and am already in deep trouble as you can well see.
Are you an angel?
Did you come here to free us?
Or are you yet another ordinary man from those who left after the first ride!"
I was too shocked to analyze.
"I don't know right now, OK?" - I yelled.
"I think you have!" she said silently as her mother nodded motionlessly.
Her mother, pretending indifference, was watching
throughout this violent conversation.
Later that night, once we were in one room and the kid in the other,
I asked her about it immediately.
"Oh, that's nothing" she said, and told a few historical details.
|Tue, Apr 15 2008||100||I'm not afraid||
Yet, it is hard to tell the thin difference.
Seven years since a wish became truth.
|Sun, Jul 15 2007||300||A Day In The Life||
I never really concluded with myself
if this table called life is to be titled
reality and imagination, or just life.
Life comes from A Day in the Life,
and means this table is a blog.
Reality and Imagination,
named after Shira's song,
is supposed to deal with tough educational
and philosophical issues pertaining to the differences
in the way indivduals see and relate to reality and life.
This girl was hot for me, and she told me over the wires.
She saw my page where I advertise I am a smoker
and it turned her on.
So I called her up and she said she can not talk to me
at the moment because she is about to be busy walking,
and then she will be busy reading a book,
which she must finish to the end first,
and then she will call me back.
The Cello from Yair Trivalsky's hilarious book about
blind dating immediately came to mind.
She was also a musician, as it was. No relation.
She called me up to say she is now
done with her previous preoccupations,
and the conversation can flow:
She has chronic astma since birth.
Do I smoke? and will I stop? or else...
and besides, all the while we talked about non-smoking,
she had missed three calls that would probably
be people wanting to return her purse.
She had just lost it during her walk-away from dating.
Pavlov (1), Freud (2) and noSoul jumped me all at once.
Now I lost her wallet minutes after
we talked for the first time,
and she will be drooling forever when I ring the bell,
and be calling the police.
|Sun, Jul 15 2007||1500||Almost Every Subject||
And, she said yeah, well,
I can have an intelligent conversation
on almost any subject.
Lets talk about software: There they say
that the nice thing about standards is that
there are so many to choose from.
Lets talk philosophy: There anything goes,
so I say,
the nice thing about words is that
you can hide behind them,
not stand behind them,
and also do both at once.
Lets talk about comedy: There they say
the main difference between men and women
is that women can change their mind.
Lets talk about probability theory:
It is a bit risky to say you can talk about almost
any subject, without adding with almost anyone.
|Fri, Jul 13 2007||155||Gauss||
His true genious was to connect mathematics and reality,
by prooving and classifying from reality,
the true axioms of mathematics.
In math, we first take axioms for granted to be true.
If we use a system of logic where the axioms are not true,
then the system can only be used for teaching logic:
What is true then, in an axiom, if we can not proove it is true,
to make it different from the axioms that lead to
no Aristotelian logic constructs that we will ever use?
This is in fact the difference. They pertain to reality,
and Gauss has shown us that,
In complexity theory -
a field in computer science theory that deals with
the complexisty of computer programs -
there is this set of very complex problems called
These are defined by means of a concept called Reduction.
A reduction is a logical transofrmation of one problem
If one can reduce problem A to problem B,
then B must be a harder problem or equal,
and if B were soleved,
then A is considered solved,
because it is reducible to a solved problem.
Computer science theorist have collected a large set
of such problems, showing reductions in both directions,
thereby establishing equivalence of the problems,
without ever solving any.
They are too complex, probably, to be actually solved.
But if one is ever solved in the future,
then automatically all others are solved too.
From a theoritical standpoint,
this concept is very powerful.
A world of logic consturcts with many reductions
after long research, has been built,
atop a foundation yet to be discovered.
Reduction is a mathematical construct, not just a concept.
It is a methemtical description of what logically
constitutes what is termed by this, and proof
of why it is logically correct.
Gauss connects math to reality. It is implied
by looking at his conclusions from the mathematical point
of view of reductions, and follow aristotelian logic.
The primary concept is obvious:
Reality can be counted,
and pure mathematical deductions can be drawn.
But if a certain demographic of reality can be
prooven statistically to be correct,
whereas we know this fact also to be correct
from other observations of reality,
then we can take the statistical conlusion from Gauss
to be inhetrently correct, because we know it to be true
from other sources.
This being the case we start a process of reduction
that will in the end up saying the follwing:
The axioms are prooven to be true, (in as far as reality is true,)
in all cases where the conclusions regarding reality,
which we otherwise know to be true somehow,
where the axioms are used in mathematically
arriving at the same known conclusion.
The details of the reduction process itself are not important
in this case, but it is worth noting
that the same can probably be prooven
by other means, even though mathematical proofs
in general do not necesserily work if you reverse
the order of deduction.
"A prooves B" does not necessarily imply "B prooves A",
and so a reversal may or may not be logically correct.
In other words, Gauss has classified the axioms
of mathematics that were used for prooving the central
limit theorem as correct.
The axiom, and the thorem are equivalent,
to the extent that conclusions from the theorem,
can be shown from other means to be correct.
For example, if election poles match statistical predictions,
then it is proof that A+B always equals B+A.
|Wed, Jun 06 2007||100||World War II||
made two questionable contributions
to the evolution of mankind:
1. It entrenched in human psychology that the Jewish people
is special and is to be noticed henceforward.
2. It made humanity think that the savior of the future,
atomic energy, is evil.
Atomic Energy is the solution behind the flawed
logic of the movie The Matrix.
We are consumers of energy, and have only the sun,
the center of the earth, and atomic energy in the vicinity,
that we can potentially consume.
The sun we compte over as all of Nature.
It is a very limited and well consumed resource.
The center of the earth we have yet to reach
to consume its energy.
Harnessing a few more Geysers is not going to make
a difference any time soon.
While the leaders of the world are trying frantically
to perserve knowledge and experience with atomic power,
there is a huge war going on for budgets,
powered by common knowledge that
atoms are evil.
|Sun, Jun 03 2007||100||Programming||
The difference between syntax errors
and logical errors is that syntax errors are calm.
They never call you at two oclock in the morning two
|Sat, May 12 2007||100||Stanley Jordan||
In his Master Sessions Video, Stanly Jordan talks about
how mistakes and stress correlate,
and if you make mistakes when you practice,
usually caused by stress, then the natural stress
later to occur when on stage or recording,
will make the same mistake repeat on stage.
The solution, he says,
is simply not to make mistakes when praticing.
This is easy to achieve, he continues,
all it takes is patience:
never play any faster than the speed
where you are sure you will
not make a mistake.
This system works of course really well.
I am nevertheless trying to improve upon
Stanly Jordan's thoughts and this system:
The stress-mistake correlation is rather a simple
Pavlovian response of muscle memory systems.
When you practice and make a mistake,
there is always a reason in the brain to have
caused it to direct the fingers to make this exact mistake.
Stanley Jordan noticed, that you only make mistakes
when stress comes along,
like when the phone rings, or the cat suddenly snarls,
or the music you are practicing with - just paced up a bit -, too fast for your fingers.
You are practicing, and you have already made that
particular mistake, representing a specific piece of noise
that you heard when you first made it,
which you will identify if you ever hear it again,
and you will hear it again, if you are stressed again,
all else also being the same,
so, don't make the mistakes when you practice
and you will not be able to repeat them when you are later stressed, he concludes.
But if you can hear the same mistake the second time,
not having followed Stanly Jordan's instructions to avoid it,
it means, from Stanly Jordan's accord of years of experience,
that it takes only one time, not two, for the mistake to occur,
for our muscle memory systems to record this mistake
with accuracy and be able to repeat it when conditions
And this recording,
Stanly Jordan does not suggest how to prevent in full.
Mistake will continue to occur forever,
much less thanks to Stanly Jordan,
and hopefully even a wee bit less with this.
While Stanly Jordan points out the correlation
between mistake and stress,
and despite his otherwise usual infinite attention to detail,
in this case he is missing, I beleive,
some very improtant relevant details:
The individual mistake which occurs at a particular
timepoint in the music,
occurs with stress occuring at that same point in time,
and the timing of the surrounding split seconds
are all that is relevant.
You are not generally stressed for appearing on stage
and will overall make more mistakes.
Muscle memory records this particular
exact mistake (as I claim, with a single occurance),
as a result of the stressoccuring,
which can not possibly be unrelated to the content of the music itself.
This is why the stress finds its way to occur
at that particular instant in time in the music.
It is only when you recorded the mistake more
times than the non-mistake that the the misake will occur without stress.
This will happen if you are stubborn to repeat a mistake 'until you get it right'. You never will.
To quote Stanely Jordan: slow down until you always
get it correct,
and speed back up only as fast as you can always keep it correct, until you get it right.
But Freud tell us, that when your are stressed
is when your subconcious takes over,
which is why you make mistakes only
when you are stressed.
He is not wrong of course, and none of this
contradicts any of the above.
But it tells us something new and useful:
Who says that if the subconcious takes over
bad things will happen?
Maybe with some understanding, we can harness it?
After all, this is what psychologists have been
doing since Freud anyway,
and musicians since the first time caveman shot his arrow
from inside the hollow echoy skeleton of a mamooth,
or something like that.
Stress, first and formost, causes the quick and agile
subconcious systems to act,
faster than what it would take a more controlled operation.
Freud calls this Pavlovian response, when extreme: a trauma.
Meaning to say:
you will automatically and uncontrollably forever be stressed,
without any logical reason,
by that which happened to have occured in the time vicinity
of the traumatic event.
I must add that if the traumatic event itself is very short
and can be stamped with a single timestamp,
then the potential variety of correleted surrounding events
for the systems to record is very small.
But our subconciousness is partly many millions of years
old and partly a mere two million years in early
stages of development.
It encompasses many primitive and ancient systems, and
this happens to be one of them.
The way our subconciousness knows to tell degrees of
traumatic events apart is simple: it doesn't.
it responds traumatically, or Pavlovianly,
to the event, to the dgree of its illtemper.
Much like Staley Jordan says Staccato and Legatto are
merely digital words in the language to describe
two randomly selected numbers from a scale of one to ten
in a convenient but ineffetive method -
in my view -
traume, a simple pavovian response and the stress-mistake
are dgrees of similar behaviour of similar systems
in our brain.
The new trick I am trying is based on
harnessing denial as a tool.
I am trying reverse psychology on my muscle memory
I am trying to train myself so that
whenever I make a mistake,
I immidiately stop everything, as if in panic,
and follow this rule as religiously as practical,
especially if I was recording until a second ago.
I am trying to make my subconciousness deny the mistake
ever occured, with a long thought process to match
and fight the muscle memory recording sequence,
by mimicing extra stressthe second I noticed
the mistake had occured.
From the elevated excitement from the beafed up evnt of the mistake, I expect to help eliminate, at least to a dgree,
the recording of the mistake.
It is also hard for such a mistake to be recorded in muscle
memory because there is no correlation sequence.
If there is absolutely no note in history that has ever
been recorded by muscle memory to follow the mistaken note,
then the mistake itself is at the far end of this muscle
memory sequence and its recorded strength must be very weak.
Since Stanly Jordan's system already insures
that if I combine the two systems it is statistically
improbable to make the same mistake twice,
and as the first and only recording is very weak,
it is less likely that such a mistake,
having been more lighly recorded,
will reoccur on stage
So whats the big deal,
all musician stop playing and start over when
they make mistakes almost all the time.
The difference is in the detail.
Almost is simply not nearly good enough.
If you practice casually without paying much
attention to these details, and set some other standards,
you might make, according to your set standards,
say 10 mistakes an hour on average,
and for nine of them you will stop and start over,
just like I am describing here.
You are not doing a 90% job at all.
You are merly recording about a mistake an hour
in your muscle memoey systems,
and having recorded this information over years,
by now your entire musical arrangment is woven
with recorded mistakes hoping for the stressful
event to appear in their lucky recorded moment in time,
or otherwise a competitor mistake will sprout and win instead.
I can't really say this is a discovry.
My habbits of how to react to mistakes
are a subject I have been toying with for some time now,
and every time I put on Stanly Jordan's master video
again I make sure I am by the computer when the part
where he talks about the stress-mistake correltion comes
on, trying to dig yet another minute detail from his elaborate description of vast experience.
This is also why it is hard for me to measure or report
how well this theory at all works.
This is how I try my best to practice most of the time,
with a very strong conviction it betters my learning speed.
I believe by now I have enough experiemnts to support this conviction.
|Sat, Feb 03 2007||100||Why, whatever for||
Setting survival as our goal is primary in our psycological makeup.
Everything alive, plants included, has achieved this goal,
despite enourmouse hardships and extreme death rates.
The reason it survived is because its genes happen to fit
the goal it was trying to achieve, which is to be slightly
better than the rest of his own kind in close proximity
where these minute differences are what counts.
From the perspective of evolution, spanning over many
generations of perfection accomplished via high death rates,
there is no differencebetween cause and effect,
nor between the reason for which something has happened,
as juxtaposed with a goal, for which, it should happen.
If it was raining yesterday, for example, then
from the perspective of the plant that came to life,
the rain was planned for him,
because billions of years it took to develop these
genes of his so that when this rain comes,
from the seed, there will be life.
But if the rain did not come,
then it was also planned by evolution for billions of years, because in the desert land that will be left dry,
there will be a cactus saying the same thing.
|Wed, May 24 2006||300||Video Processing - of thumb||
in any case you don't judge by this, but rather by the popularity of the file itself
for each particular file (movie)
so you search for a file, you see a list of different files with that same movie,
and mostly look for the following:
from this list, which is, common and has many copies on the net, meaning
download will occur from many users, and
the language it speaks is the one I want.
language is important, one of the comporomize divx and all other compression
methods make, to save space and the 14 gig special burners it requires to produce
a genuine dvd, is that movies in files (almost still) always posess just one audio language and one subtitle which can not be taken off.
since the USA is dominant in this market, just make sure its english with no subtitles at all.
On the internet this is kind of obscure because those exactly are the files that do not
have in their name something like:
rule 2: always get only files with the .avi extension, except if in breech of rule one.
that is if there is a movie you want and you can't find it in avi, do get it,
but you chance asking me for help for how to handle it later,
and I might not even be able to. and since it takes moving 700mb across the country
its not like e-mail that can resolve things quickly.
It might be comforting to know that your LG is not really a divx player.
In fact they try to compress into this box as many popular codecs as possibles and
as many formats as possible, and by the way if you re-read this text you find out that the expression
"Korre tzruvim" is total bull invented by sales people in electronic stores.
incidentally, it should be obvious to any one who knows that store DVDs don't
really shower from the skies, somebody has burnt those too, or they wouldn't be.
Every device is a "korre tzruvim" because there is nothing else, and the question is
how many different kinds, and does it matter !!!
rule 3: download about 100 movies all at once in e-mule,
this seems to be optimal, from experience of myself and many others.
the trade off is like this:
with too few movies your computer is sitting idle in line to download later most of the time
which is ineffective.
with too many movies, they compete with one another on resources and it take
long for each individual movie to arrive in whole on your computer.
this should have been no problem, because what you really want to maximize
is th amount of data streaming into your apartment from the outside,
and you could care less if it takes 2 or 4 months to arrive,
files shared have a life of their own and it is common for rare files to show up,
be shared by quite a few people and later disappear.
so if the life span of a file is 3 months, the difference between 2 and 4 month
can be fatal.
For this, Emule guys have given even more thought than the Kazaa makers
(by the way the Kazaa makers also made Skype)
and more controls are given in the program to combat this issue.
rule 4: always be watchful of the amount of data remaining to be transferred
and of the time the file has last been seen complete, but only trust
this last bit of info if you e-mule has been running for a while.
it is smart to forget and never look closely at anything if you just started e-mule.
start it, wait an hour at least before you look at anything.
Emule should be always running anyway, including overnight, and if its not, the only thing
you want to do with it right after you started it is search start new downloads.
For me, this is the only way to put a movie on my 'todo list'
it is simply the download list, but this may conflict with rule 3, which is more important.
use the information you see to play with
B. source handling.
you can gain experience with this,
read some help files or ask me on this in a separate occasion.
(his e-mail is just a shopping list so its important to list)