Today is the Edge of Tomorrow…

Edge of Tomorrow

Recently I had the chance to see the new Tom Cruise movie which is out titled “Edge of Tomorrow” and it got me thinking in a quantum sense. Now in all fairness I am going to warn you up front of a spoiler alert. While it isn’t my intent to go deeply into the overall plot of the movie. To make the analogies to support my point I will have to share several key spoilers of the storyline so be forewarned if you read on.

The premiss which caught my attention was a plot sequence involving the lead character Major William Cage (played by Tom Cruise) where, while killing an alien he is covered in its blood and from that point on , upon his death the day is “reset”. While this might sound a bit like the classic movie Ground Hog Day, the difference is for Bill Murray was that the “day” itself restarted each day and was limited to one day. However for Cruise’s character it only “resets” at his death meaning so long as he lives the arrow of time moves forward be it minutes, hours or days.

With this there were two interesting parts from a thought experiment side. The first being that the Cruise character Cage got to see the “future” and quickly discovered this was the aliens advantage as if there was a negative outcome of a battle (for the aliens) they simply rewound time and did it over again until the outcome resulted in one which was favorable to them (the aliens). The second is that no one was aware of this “reset” so they simply existed within the loop unknowingly repeatedly both living and dying.

Yet, it was this first point which reminded me of Schrödinger’s Cat where the cat in the scenario is said to be both alive and dead until the point the box is opened and the result observed. The thought experiment which ran through my head as a result of the movie, was this was a loop which was playing though for the cat in the box repeatedly much like it was for Major Cage in the movie. As in my original view [of Schrödinger’s Cat] there was a [static] duality in the box where the cat was both alive and dead simultaneously.

However the movies plot concept changed this thinking as it made me realize there is more to it than just is the cat alive or dead (in fairness I thought of it more in the way of the double slit experiment in absolutes). As there are (and not to sound morbid) other factors to consider in the cat scenario. Such as how long did it take for the cat to die, which organs failed first and so on. In other words there is a sequence of events which happen to either which leads to the cat demise or survival.

This is what was happening to Cruise’s character in the movie as keep in mind when there was a “reset” (i.e. Cage would die), time went back to “zero” so in fact while all of these scenario’s happen in a “serial” fashion they were all in the same “space” of time which got me to thinking about Schrödinger’s box itself.

As what if you opened it 10 times, would the cat be alive 5 and dead 5 (as the poison has a 50/50 chance of releasing)? Or would it be asymmetrical as possibly you open the box before the cat expires changing the outcome? Also say the prior scenario where to happen [i.e. the cat live], would this not be luck? As think about it this way, all of these scenarios are happening in the same space of time, or simultaneously (at least in appearance) so the “realized” outcome would only occur at the moment it was observed. In other words, luck (good or bad) would be a result of the time the observance took place.

Moving to the second observation is the people other than Cage were unaware of the loop either existing or that there were various out comes. So in essence Schrödinger’s Box isn’t “limited”, it in fact is “unlimited” and the world we exist in today could be metaphorically viewed as in that “box”. Therefore is a the manifestation of “luck” simply that of the time of observation? If so, what determines the time of observation of that “time” over another?

In other words, lets say we are playing Black Jack and the dealer asks you if you want to be hit. Will the resulting card be different if you wait 3 second for the hit rather than 10 seconds? Now I know this sounds a bit outlandish, however if you think about it, it is really no different from the case of Schrödinger’s Cat as its state is only known at the point of observation and if you change the point of observation you again only know it from that point. In short, I can not think up a practical experiment in the physical world to test such a scenario.

Now I know you purists out there are rolling your eyes and mumbling about entropy, the arrow of time and the idea a “reset” would in fact violate the laws of thermodynamics. Yet before you jump to a quick judgement, keep in mind that are many strange things in the quantum world which are far from explainable. Therefore it would seem possible there some from of conservation which we are unaware of which might in fact allow a reset (actually numerous resets) to happen…

Is The World Fragile?

Is the World Fragile?

During a recent flight to Europe for business, I was provided with the time and opportunity to read Nassim Nicholas Talebs latest book Antifragial. If you aren’t familiar with Taleb’s work, he is best known for his writings titled The “Black Swan” and “Fooled by Randomness“. Having read both of these (as well as his other lesser known titles), I was not surprised when Antifragial fell into line with these prior works which all focus on the concept of randomness and the need to embrace the unknown rather than trying to explain it away. As Taleb attempts to make the point that all the systems we create are in fact “fragile” systems prone to failure yet we act surprised when they do fail as we have convinced ourselves (falsely in his view) that we understand the risk in these systems.

One of the primary examples he makes is Wall Street and the meltdown we saw in 2007/2008. Here he points out we thought we knew it all with our complex mathematical models and back rooms full of quants with their super computers. Yet even with all of this, how is it possible the event could have even occurred?

This is where Taleb points out to the reader that we will never know what we don’t know until we know it (i.e. until it actually happens). So his basic summation is why waste the efforts of attempting analytical reductions of the risks if we will be simply lying to ourselves, or so Taleb attempts to convince us through a constant stream of (implied) facts.

While there is a “truth” to this, it reminds me of the “chicken and the egg” debate as each side can be an equally valid argument logically. The same to me holds true for risk modeling, as yes there is always a “long tail” to risk meaning an extremely small calculated risk can lead to an amazingly large impact. However to not know the “short tail” risks seems irresponsible to me also.

For me the missing piece of the puzzle is the ability for “man” to lie to him/her self and believe the lie as reality. There is something buried in our primordial minds which allows us to believe in false economies provided by statistics as numbers don’t lie right? Well the one thing we forget when we say that is “man” does [lie] and especially to himself.

Yet concept aside, the writing of the book is near poetic in frame and far better than prior works which were cumbersome and jerky. Believe that this is due to a second writer cleaning up Taleb’s thoughts into cleaner pose than in his prior tomes. This makes for a much more enjoyable read as Taleb tosses (his perceived) facts at the reader in what seems to be at jeopardy lighting round speed.

While I don’t buy into all of Taleb’s arguments, the basics of randomness is an interesting study, Taleb places a lot of information in the users hands for consideration. From here the reader can make up their own mind as what to accept and not. In short, if the unknown is of interest and you don’t mind a bit of one sided ranting, than this book is for you…

Its Time To Think About Data Differently?

Time to think about data differently

Man being a creature of habit tends to incorporate “skeumorphic” elements into evolutionary designs to provide that level of “comfort” as we climb the ladder. Think about it, why does your computer need files, and folders? This paradigm was carried forward from the physical world yet lacks a relevance to the digital one which it is applied to.

Now some may argue this is a requirement for acceptability or better put “understand-ability” of the masses as the path of evolution to revolution is in fact sigmodial and we homosapiens tend to be a funny bunch about dragging our baggage with us. However, to make that final leap we do have to leave that “baggage” behind us as it is accumulative in nature and this brings me to the idea of data.

As the computer does two things, ether it is a reductionary device where it is provided massive amounts of data such as in “Big Data” and it is asked to “reduce” it, or “creationary” where its provided something (typically an Algorithm) and it creates something from that. In the later case, large random number sets for Monte Carlo simulations would be an example. Now since “man” (referred to in a phyla sense) created the computer, they also applied the skeumorphic concepts of “data” to the model so both operations creation & reduction depend upon, and these are now the bottle neck.

As we all know data is growing exponentially and I will save you the rehash of the details, yet the explanation above is important to understand as this is why data is growing. The First Law of Thermodynamics proves this out as we can only shift the information in a system, we can not create nor destroy it, so we are left with a bit of a conundrum.

Lets step back for moment and look at data as well as how it is used by a computer today to better understand how our applied skeumorphism is holding us back. As data exists on a hard disk as series of ones and zeros press very tightly together in a small sequential space on a round spinning disk. For moment we will forget about SSD’s as their relevance isn’t important to the concept, as the point is all of your data exists in “whole” for the most. Your Miley Cyrus songs and all exist in a whole state on your hard drive. Now say you want to share this song (legally) with a friend so you tell your computer to “copy” this data to their computer across the country and what happens?

Well first off your computer will waste a substantial amount of bytes (in reference to the data size you wish to move) just to find and establish a connection with your friends computer, next your computer will say “I have a One, please create a One on your side” and so on till the process is complete yet both computers will spend (waste) a significant about bytes exponentially more than the actual file itself. Note, this discussion isn’t about protocols and the like for communication as all forms of communications have a cost (confirmed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) so we accept a measure of this as a given. However what if we didn’t have to do this hand shake for each and every byte of information?

How to get around this you ask, the answer is simple math. The computer is a “math” machine, in fact that is all it knows yet we spend large amounts of time and money forcing it to understand our perceived mental models of “data”. With this said, what if we reduced say a terabyte of data to just one algorithm and instead of sending those billions or trillions of bytes we sent one formula? Now you might say we have started down the sigmodial road of this using zip files and WAN compression, yet this is only circumstantial to the greater idea of everything actually being a formula.

In the past, slow processing abilities of the CPU’s created a limiting factor as most of the data taken in by a computer has analog origins and the reduction to a single “formula” if you will was not reasonably possible, yet today those same chains are quickly falling away and new abilities are being created every day.

Evidence of this can be seen in the growth of Regex (Regular Expressions) where linguistic patterns are distilled to mathematical equations which can be rapidly applied to look at vast amounts of data. This is how your spam filters work, as to attempt to a string for string match across the millions of mails passing though those servers would be impossible. Additionally, this is how the NSA also looks at all the data they do, as what people miss is there is to much to read, so the goal is to mathematically mine for items of interest and algorithms allow for this to happen.

Still not convinced this is possible? Well you have to look no further than yourself as you in fact are nothing more than an extremely large hard-drive. What do I mean, every cell in in your body was built by a single root data model named DNA, yes Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Comprised of only five elements being Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon and Phosphorus, they form only 4 (one half of a byte) building blocks being guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine. These four building blocks recombine to from our complete being including “conscience” from this one seemingly data model.

To extent this back to the digital world for moment, what if we could store that terabyte of information we spoke of earlier in just one formula? The imputed abilities and saving of such a capability would be enormous. Simply look at the energy (typically electrical) to store all this data by spinning hard-disk or refreshing SSD’s for each read cycle.

Keep in mind that while we like to think data is “unique” to us in the pictures we take and music we record, this is really not the case as while the possibly for data to be infinite exists, the probability for it to be finite is statically overwhelming…

When Is A Movie Worth More Than Personal Liberties?

This week I must say it was not with surprise, yet disappointment which I read the story of a Columbus, Ohio man who was pulled out of a movie for wearing Google Glasses.  On top of it, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents “yanked” the glasses from the man’s face.  In my mind this raised the question, where is the line between the value of a “movie” and one’s personal liberties?  Will we have ICE agents now stationed at every movie theater door paid for by our tax dollars?

Also before going further, after lengthy discussions and providing he was not using the glasses for nefarious actions such as copying the movie he was released.   So again, no wrong deed was occurring other than him wearing the glasses and becoming persecuted for such and this is what concerns well in fact scares me the most.  As we are now enter entering age of “Techno-Persecution” as be it Google Glasses, cell phone cameras, etc.  The establishment is taking a hard line on these devices and our liberties to our freedoms with it.

While there can be long arguments on this topic, there appears to be several fundamental flaws.  The first being our tax dollars paying for “movie storm troopers” as really?  The motion picture industry makes billions, yet our tax dollars must fund their “commercial protection”?     I am simply at a loss for words, as ok piracy is stealing no question, however if you steal a DVD from a store it’s a misdemeanor, yet torrent it and its $250,000 fine?  Also did the ICE agents stop the movie from being copied no, as the man was not copying it in the first place and two will bet you dollars to donuts that if you check there are copies of “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit “ all over the cyber-sphere so we as tax payers had our money wasted for nothing and too a man’s liberties were compromised because of only his eyewear.

There is no question change breeds fear and the cusp of technological advancements which we sit upon today, we must fear the “Victorian” systems of beliefs which run the risk of placing us all under house arrest as Galileo Galilei was for committing heresy against the Catholic church

Absolute Zero

Many years ago in high school chemistry, the idea of absolute zero entered my world of understanding. As the teacher (Mr Robinet) shared the fact that while an interesting concept, the reality was not achievable. He explained should you truly achieve this to a level of say even one molecule, than a chain reaction would occur as other matter would attempt to fill the void as the molecule which reached absolute zero would have collapsed on itself (as at 0 Degrees Kelvin all motion stops and the electrons would fall into the nuclei and the nuclei’s would all fall together) .

The first thing in my mind which was conjured up was a new James Bond theme if you would as the villain would hold the world hostage with an absolute zero bomb. Yet in more realistic terms I did wonder where all this energy did come from (to prevent absolute zero at all costs), and while dating myself this was before the popularity of string theory. Which on the other hand (IMHO) this lends credence to string theory, yet that’s for another post.

As what has me waxing today is an article in Scientific America discussing the idea that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics are in fact only in our heads. In other words, we as humans conjure the concept that a paradox exists in our consciousness and not in fact reality. Yet this is where I become troubled with the whole thing.
As with our telescopes we peer back in time, as for those unaware. When peering through a telescope, you are actually looking backwards in time as the light you see is from what has been and not what is today. The plethora of galaxies seen in the Hubble deep sky survey no longer exist, as we only see the light of what was and not what is as the photons which created that image left not much after the big bang took place.

As in Hubble`s new challenge they are attempting to look even further back to the big bang, now this is to my point. We will never get to see the big bang no matter how hard we look as it is much like attaining absolute zero, this is an impossibility, yet why? To me the answer is simple as one cannot observe the origins of a system which they are part of. Thus as we peer into the depth of the atom, or the darkness of space, we face imposed limits of being part of the system we are trying to understand.

This is why it’s hard to buy into the concept that quantum paradoxes are all in our heads as our heads are in fact part of what creates the paradox, as its only in our heads were this paradox becomes a paradox. Much as which came first the chicken or the egg, as the existence of both are mutually and paradoxically joined together, yet today we have both.

As be it the dark recess of the atom, or the coldness of space there comes a point where sciences and spirituality cross paths.

The End Is Near! Maybe…

Free Stuff

While Fact tends to be stranger than Fiction, as a young lad my parents introduced me to the  “concept” of voting.  Yet even then something struck me being a bit “off” as the masses could vote themselves entitlements!    So those who didn’t want contribute simply needed to be the majority and if the “majority” aligned, they could in turn vote themselves wealth!   Well the other day, this happen to come across my e-mail and I have never seen it put better so it has earned a home here as not only is it a reality.  It is in fact become a vial reality because of the combined anthropological & technical age we now live in:

The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop. And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting! Now… the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist. So… the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place. We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff. [Note: the majority of American households today pay no Federal Income tax] Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff.  If you don’t believe this can happen look at Greece and the election that just took place in France .  Now France is a Socialist Country with a 75% tax rate on those that PAY for free stuff .  So the question is why work when all you have to do is vote?  See told yea fact is stranger than fiction…

Long Island Medium Debunked..


As being one of my “by” weeks of working from home rather than a plane, I happen to catch one of the newer reality shows titled “Long Island Medium“.  The base concept of the show is “Theresa” is a medium meaning she speaks with those that have passed and shares messages from the other side with people she meets.  Now, before we go too far I have no clue if Theresa in fact does or doesn’t speak with the other side as I’ve never met her.  However after watching two shows I’ve noticed an interesting pattern form which is worth talking about from an anthropological slash social probability point of view.

The reason for this is we are simply social animals by writing this I mean we do things in “like” (i.e. similar) social patterns, so by understanding this we can game the system.  So let’s look at Theresa’s first “social vector” as she approaches a person and asks “have you recently lost somebody”?  So let’s look at this statistically, is if she approaches someone from 20 something or over the answer will be yes as people unfortunately die every day and what is “recently” anyway?  So the point is the cards are stacked in her favor and even if its a miss, still no loss as her query is not absolute.

Next, it becomes “who” and I noticed there is a strange look is if I watched long enough, I could even pick it out as the look for a mother is different than a father as it is for a non parent.  Yet to load the cards even more, it’s starts as a 50/50 chance anyway which makes more of an 80/20 proposition as the younger the subject the greater likely hood is it’s the father and the older means it’s more likely the mother (as the recent deceased).  Why say this, simple mortality statistics say this as women out live men therefore statistically you will lose a father before a mother.

The next thing she shares is the fact that they weren’t beside the love one when they passed, ok again statistics are on Theresa’s side as I’ve had 6 people close to me pass and I wasn’t beside any one of them when it happened.  While I avoid the implied morbidity of the hospice statistics, as the simple fact is most people who die a natural death do so alone at night.  So again the odds are stacked for this to be the case.  However people again seem to forget odds much as when they buy the lottery ticket and dream whereas they are more likely to be struck by lightning three times over.  Yet here Theresa plays on yet an even stronger weakness and double downs as everyone wants to believe there is another side that the lights just don’t go out.  On top of that we all want that connection with our lost love ones, along with the affirmation we did them right, so this is a built in weakness.

The point of this is we are in fact human animals and as such operate in structured patterns and even within group patterns with great frequency.  While we wish to believe chaos is the norm, meaning we poses (perceived) freedom. Yet in really we are in fact held captive by probability and our animalistic tendencies…

Importance of Free Speech as January 18th Will Live In Infamy…

Free Speech

As this is the second American Revolution and the shot heard around the world as the American people shouted, loudly did they shout to their elected officials. In turn, the volume was so loud they [the elected officials] could not stick their heads in the sand as with health care and the many other things they feel they “know better” then the people who elected them.

With this, both SOPA and PIPA have been tabled, yet what does this mean? As is the war over and won by the people, or is this just a battle while the political overlords lay in wait for us “the people” to settle back into our daily slumber allowing them the ability to sneak these ill deeds in the backdoor.

Well unfortunately it’s the latter as any good negotiator worth their salt knows the term “defend and delay“. The political overlords (i.e. the left leaning big media purchased politicians) tried to “defend” their position yet unsuccessfully, so what’s next? Yes, you guessed it, “delay” as people tend to forget and big bangs as a redux on the same topic is very hard as the “vogue” factor has worn off with the first go around.

As this is the difference between a “battle” and a “war” as you can think of the war as being a “long period of boredom” punctuated with “short bursts of pure insanity”. As the first battle is always memorable (good or bad), yet the second is old hat where the excitement has long left. Thus the way to win a war you ask, the answer is simple out wait your enemy. As the media companies aren’t going anywhere tomorrow so they have nothing but time on their hands with deep pockets to.

As I wain here in a negative light, there is a lot to be learned from a battle like this when 13 million voices speak at once the sound is deafening and is the main reason this fight is so important as it’s not about pirated movies or someone torrenting the latest Lady Gaga songs. It’s about the ability to do what we just did (yes I was one of those 13 million voices) as this is what freedom is about, it is what America was founded upon. Should the media companies find this important to their business model than may I suggest China where this is allowed and as I walk down any street there [in most of Asia] are dozen street vendors wanting to sell me pirated movies so what have they accomplished?

As I’ve waxed here before, pirating is a commercial problem and not a social one, therefore social means such as free speech should not be compromised for commercial gain period. As the “right” to speak and present openly is a basic human right, even if some choose to abuse this “right”, it does not give others the right to take this away from us…

CES Isn’t All Just Fun and Games…

Human Genome

At this yeas CES (Consumer Electronic Show) there were far more than just the standard fare of new TV sets and personal “I” something gadgets to full-fill our never-ending desire to  consume content. Yet there was something far more profound, however it almost went unnoticed which is a sad statement as here was the ability to sequence a human genome for around $1,000 dollars! Folks this is almost akin to the discovery of fire regarding its importance to mankind.

As two companies, Ion Torrent and Illumina will be releasing desktop devices to allow the medical practitioner to do this in their office.  In short, this means no more diagnostic guessing when it comes to figuring out what ails us in a serious sense as well as what drugs will work best an how much.  This is a huge win for humanity and in some ways comes up just short of immortality.  Once we start crunching numbers, the sky’s basically the limit as our knowledge of the interconnections of our molecular biology will grow by leaps and bounds.

Yet with all of goodness there are two issues in the first is our ignorance as when the newest games take center stage while technology such as this lands on page B34, something is wrong.  Now yes I do understand the existence of the game in some fashion has supported the technological ability of these devices to come into being [by making the electronics cheap], yet we still as a society sit with the cart in front of the horse to many things regarding what really matters the most.

The second is more technical in nature, in that as the data grows [from crunching the numbers] so does the need for software to digest and process the output of this data in a constructive way.  This is where I believe crowd sourcing will come to play as in collective computing to solve this problem.  As the more minds which come to bear on a challenge such as this with fingers typing at the keyboard the better.  It’s here however strong social frame works will be required as for all this to work in a constructive manner, there must be order and this might just be the hidden value of the social network. As sharing what game you’re playing is one thing, however just think if we could use the same network to share the cure for cancer.  Yes this as Aldus Huxley would say is a brave new world which no one would argue especially those in need of cure…

Can Everyone be Great…

Can Everyone be great
Can Everyone be great

Popular or Great?

It seems today that in the era of Apple’s mantra of create “great” things and everything is all that plus some, there might be a bit of confusion in our ideology as if everyone is great then in reality isn’t everybody just the same?  As when we go back to our friend Webster we find all roads for “great” in turn cross with the reference of “large” as in “of a kind characterized by relative largeness” or “remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness”.  So if everyone was “large“, would everyone be great well the answer is no as then everyone would just be normal.  In sorts, “great” can only be an exception and never a norm so to say one should only do “great” things is to me misleading.  As do you want your trash man to do great things, the simple answer for most of us is no, you just want him to make your trash go away right?

In short we like the idea of great things such as winning the lottery, yet we still (for the most part) do the “popular” thing and go to work every day to pay the rent.  As this is the important point out of this as we find there is a universal fight between the concepts of being “popular” and those of being “great“.  As for example let’s take the famous Golden Arches, yes the venerable Mickey D’s as in MacDonald’s as are they “great“?  I’m doubting you will find too many (if anyone) which will say they are (who are consumers of the product).  Yet, if you ask these same people if they are “popular” you find a whole different story as yes they are and in turn too people happily hand them their hard-earned money.

As even popular things cannot happen in mass as there must always be a measure of scarcity in the creation of popularity or even greatness as for these two to exist they must “exist” in the minority and not in the majority.  Because once a “minority” reaches a “majority” state, the exception is now the rule and what once was the expectation is now the norm.  So then to say everyone should do great creates false promises as should we not be shooting for just being popular at general best?

To further this example, let’s go to Hollywood for another case study as how many celebrities are “great” versus being  just “popular”  as you may even say “boy that was a great performance” however does one performance make them great or does it simply support their popularity?  Case in point, Madonna and her modern-day clone Lady Gaga, as were/are they popular?  You bet and in being popular their music was/is enjoyable however I can guarantee you if you checked the current replays of Madonna songs will come nowhere near that of the Beetles and when Lady Gaga starts sagging (in more ways than one) the same will be the case as they are popular and not great which means they have a shelf life.

While some say this maybe a mincing of words, I on the other hand claim we as a society are fooling ourselves with dreams of grandeur as we should strive to do our best, however we should not fool ourselves with the rest…

Auld Lang Syne…

Auld Lang Syne
Auld Lang Syne

Every story has a beginning and an end, while every end really is a new a new beginning...

This one might be better known as “Old Angzine” today and is believed to have come from Auld Lang Syne which part of the Old Scot dialect meaning “Old long since”.  As its New Year’s Eve, figured it would only be appropriate to say good-bye to 2011 in the same fashion which created it.  Ok, what do I mean by that, well its simple as last year I made a New Year’s resolution to write a blog post every day as I’m a believer to the fact that if you’re going to commit, then commit you should and that I did.

So basically everyday in 2011 saw a post, save for a couple screw ups in setting the release system back in March when I was still figuring out WordPress, however count wise there has been one for 364 days this year without fail (actually 398 in total). Sick, on vacation or where ever in the world I was, they still when out and it was no easy feat as I work on average 14 hours a day or more.

I also set some general rules of averaging around 500 words and in the beginning I tried to get fancy with italics and links however had to pull it back a little as time is the killer and its limited.  Also at the start I had a lot to say, as maybe first I should explain why did this to which will explain Auld Lang Syne.  As this year I turned 49, which means I’ve been on this earth 49 years and have started my 50th.  Well first I’m happy to be here, however second was while wisdom was setting in, I still felt that too much of the world was passing me by and didn’t want growing old to mean growing dumb or falling behind.

This is where the blog came in as to write 500 cognitive words a day was not an easy task as I had to take in information, digest it and turn it around with meaning.  Folks, I dare you to try it home as it aint easy. So here is the point, until today I had no clue about Old Angzine or Auld Lang Syne, however today I do as every day I learned something new which was the point.  However in the last three months or so I’ve notice that things have started to repeat a little and was the inspiration for the post “All Words Have Been Spoken” as frankly I didn’t have anything to say that day and that fact itself was something to say.

However it takes a lot of time to write this blog, a good hour a day as typically its starts its life on my iPad, in fact when something would hit me, I would write it down.  Then later I would look back and when “it” struck me, then it was off to the races to write the 400 extra words (I use the Chapters App on the iPad).  Then I would mail it off to my PC and in the evening before bed around midnight I would edit using MS word and Text Aloud to read the text to make edits.  This would all take about at least an hour, then there was posting and finding a graphic or creating one (readership doubled when I started adding graphics).

So do this 7 days a week and it works to your spending 1 working day a week on this which is a lot of time for someone who works 14 hours days to start with.  So I share this as it’s a perfect example of the theme behind the name The Viral Loop, as for me it’s nice a way to say Zero Sum  as to do this I have to give something up and what was that?  Well in fact it was several things, however one of the biggest one’s was exercise as in 2011 I’ve put on a good 20 to 30 pounds in 2012 I have to get it off and no I don’t believe in weight loss resolutions.

So does this mean the end to The Viral Loop, no however I’m going to drop back from daily posts more to weekly and no this will not be a resolution and will most likely do a little more and maybe a little shorter at around 200 to 250 for more “comment” pieces.  As I also plan to expand The Viral Loop brand a little to as I plan to move off WordPress.Com to my own hosting site as acquired the name THEVIRALLOOP.COM and will host it myself so look for changes there.

As one of the things I want to finish is a book I started about two years back titled “What’s In Your Pocket” which is a practical guide-book to reading people and using that information in negotiations.  Also as a side bar, I’ve authored a number of books on various things over the past decade (most technical in nature) so its not a whim, yet doing a book is a lot a work, however they are exciting.  In addition, I’ve started a publishing company too that develops iOS Apps for Apple devices as well marketing web sites so yes life is busy and I need more time. (no I don’t sleep much at all)

The other interesting thing is readership is about 80 people a day visit, there is a group about 20 repeats the rest cycle in from Google searches which is one of the reasons I started the internet marketing business as Google is an amazingly powerful machine and will be a post in the future for sure.  My most popular post, the one on Polychromatic Time, it the top read every week!  I have no clue why, however it is and the second for the longest time was the Lindy Effect however that has fallen off a bit in the past 3 months.

All in all it’s one heck of a ride this year and I’m looking forward to 2012 as I always like even-numbered years as maybe it’s because I was born on an even year.  Either way I wish you and yours the best possible 2012 and will see you on the other side…

P.S. If you’re wondering, I’ve written around 238,000 words in 2011 for this blog, and Yahoo Answers says an average entry novel is 80,000 to 120,000 words.  So folks this is basically two novels. 

Dallas Redux…

Dallas Redux
Dallas Redux

We once used film cameras, drove manual transmission cars and read paper books. Ah the old days...

For those old enough to remember the Dallas TV series and the year the writers could not figure out how to end the season so they just made a “dream” sequence washing away the meaning of the entire season and pissing off the entire series viewership because it was if they wasted their time. This alone was interesting as this in the end as, hey Dallas was fictional.  So why where so many people upset when they were hood winked by the writers as isn’t this what fiction is about [make believe]?  However that isn’t what we are here to wax about  as it’s about what happened in 2007 around  Google’s legal dispute with a coalition of authors and publishers over Google Books which was put on the shelf while the parties hashed out a settlement agreement which was later announced in 2008.  However the settlement seemed to be anything but settled as  it attracted  a massive backlash which convinced Judge Denny Chin to reject the settlement earlier this year.

So here we sit after three years of pretending to work together to try and get the settlement approved, all parties are now back in courts and guess what?  Yes you won’t be surprised to know at each others’ throats as that’s why we pay lawyers right? However yet again, we aren’t here today to wax Family Feud style over this basic nonsense which this represents, however to discuss what it means to create “intellectual property” and release it into the wilds of the world if you will.

As at the heart of this is the fact Google scanned books (which they believed where copyright orphaned) and made the contents available on the internet.  As the one thing you will note that I’ve stayed away from is the commercially of this as Google didn’t place a price on this by asking for money, however they are in the advertizing business and need content to drive visitors and one could see how this could be win/win as there is a problem out there that people are refusing to see.

This problem is that the printed book is dead done and over and the generations coming up will not know how to use them.  Laugh will you, feel free to however set your 16 year old behind the wheel of a manual gearshift car [if you live in the US] and bet dollars to donuts you get an interesting stare.  Second is hand them a roll of film and ask them to do something with it.  Least I also need to point you to the viral you-tube video of the young girl frustrated with the printed magazine as she tried to swipe its page to no avail.

It’s here in a world of unlimited search now powered by things such as Siri which knows better than me, that my two-year old grandson will never know what that funny section [index] in the back of what was those wasteful single use devices which cost the life of many life-giving trees just to end up in a landfill.  So the question begets us as do we allow many lifetimes of information to simply lay waste because of our jurisprudence, or is information really free…