Some thoughts about love

Love begins very egoistic. First you have to be sure and confident of yourself. You have to be happy just being with yourself.

If this it not the case than very easily you may depend on the other person in that relationship to provide you with these feelings. Of course you can also grow into this if the other person is showing you that you alone are strong enough. But for that you need a person that is aware of this problem and not afraid of you being independent.

So, why having a relationship if being with yourself should be enough?

Well, to put it mathematically, if you alone have the happiness of 1 and your partner also. Then in a relationship you get 1+1=2 for each of the partners. Sharing and feeling good about it, is in the human nature. We are emphatic beings so we feel the happiness of the other one as if something was given to us.

Some may state that we only give for egoistic reasons in order to feel good. But I am not so sure, because as explained above, in my opinion this is our nature. Also in a relationship it is more sharing experiences than goods that matter.

In that regard I recently read an interesting posting on a wallpaper "Love is not for the lazy ones".

That is the only important thing one has to keep in mind while being in a relationship. You have to constantly trying to understand your partner, share your experiences and thoughts with him and work out differences. If you don't do this than the same things happen if you emotionally detach yourself from your job: On the long run you will take another one.

Books: Michio Kaku - Physics of the Future - AI

In the second chapter there are also some very interesting developments. The most astounding part for me is how some of the technologies are already pictured in Science-Fiction series like Star Trek or Stargate.

He describes two main paths that are possible.

The first scenario is the development of robots. Some of them already exist today like ASIMO, KISMET or Deep Blue. But they lack a lot of the abilities of human beings, especially in pattern recognition and intuition. Our best robots can mimic a cockroach at best.

So instead of trying to make a human robot they will exist a lot of specialised robots. I think this would be the best way, because humans are good generalists, so why not use the strength of machines to be good at one task to counterbalance the lack of humans in that field.

I found especially interesting the idea of little intelligent robotic blocks that con connect to different shapes and in that way perform tasks in terrains that are difficult to access. It reminded me so much of the Replicators of Stargate. It is currently researched at the University of Southern California by Wei-min Shen.

The author also deals with the issue whether robots can become evil and overpower us. But I don't think this will happen either, because we can program the robots and will always integrate some switch off. Furthermore the development of very intelligent robots isn't happening from one day to another, but gradually. So we have time to prepare.

I also doubt whether robots actually will become like humans, because for that you would have to create technologically the human brain, i.e. one transistor for each neuron. But if you do that, it's like making a human and this would raise different problems. If it is and acts like a human, can you actually program it our would it be independent and self-learning? Would if have any use? Would it be morally okay to send a human-like robot into dangerous situations in order to save human life?

I think it would be more useful to have special robots for special tasks and so playing to their strength.

The second scenario he describes is the merger with robots or replacing of body parts with robotic elements. In my opinion this is a likely path we will take due to different reasons. Again it is easier to develop specialised robots than generalists. You can replace parts of ears, eyes or hands with robotic elements if they start to decay. The author describes also the more extreme ways possible, until the point where our whole consciousness is transferred into the virtual world. But I agree with him that this is not likely to happen, because apart from the humans taking care of their appearances this would also mean the end of humanity due to lack of reproduction...

But again replacing part of the body with robotic elements reminded me a lot of the Borg from Star Trek... Hopefully we will never take that last step.

This emphasises a lot the idea that everything humans can imagine will eventually come true. 

Note to self (23)

Good-Karma input today. Salesperson wanted to give me 3 Euro instead of 3 Cent. Have told her, of course :)

Trustful vs. Mistrustful Persons

Well, maybe the big difference between trustful and mistrustful persons is how they let ideas, declarations, statements, etc. pass into their consciousness. In my opinion trustful people first absorb anything and then divide it into good and evil ideas whereas mistrustful persons directly block some ideas as evil.

Trustful persons:

 Mistrustful persons:

Naivety

Is it naive to believe in the good faith of other people like someone called me or is this person just a pessimist?

Of course you shouldn't believe everything that somebody tells you, but with a little thinking, reflection and observation you can find out if the other person wants to harm you. 

For example some days ago I was visiting a fair and wanted to buy a ticket to use a fun ride. A girl before the counter wanted to sell me her ticket for the same price as I could have bought it at the counter. That seemed very odd to me and I declined. Her ticket was just a paper and I was suspicious that it was a scam. Well and so it was in some way. Before 5 p.m. they sold tickets at a special price (0,50 €) and after 5 p.m. at the normal price (4 €). The problem was that before the deadline a lot of people were buying mass amounts of the cheap tickets and so it was impossible to use the fun ride. I suppose I would had to wait 1-2 hours. After 20 minutes I got tired and changed my tickets back. This wouldn't have been possible with the cheap tickets.

So, as can be seen, just because one believes basically in the good doesn't mean that this person can be used always. Optimism paired with a sound skepticism let you interact openly with the people without any fear or negative thoughts. Just think about the motives of the counterpart, but not implying that it is a negative one. If you are thinking pessimistic you may easily oversee motives like altruism or kindness. Actually I believe that deep down every person wants to behave like that. Only socialization has oppressed these feelings in some people. 

But again, I am naive or as I would call it: trustful and unprejudiced.

Lisa Spreckelmeyer, "Unschuld"; Some rights reserved. Quelle: www.piqs.de  

Note to self (22)

Who needs expensive protein shakes when one can have mini-flies for free? yum yum -.-'

Books: Michio Kaku - Physics of the Future - Computers

I recently saw that there are more books of this type 'How will the world be in the future'. What I like about this one is the approach. The author interviewed more than 300 scientists to get the status quo and extrapolates into the future.

The books is divided into different technological topics (computer, medicine, wealth). It starts with an introduction about the history and current situation of that topic and then gives estimates about the future situation for the near future (present to 2030), midcentury (2030 to 2070) and far future (2070 to 2100).

I find the visions he give about the future of the computer very realistic, because a lot of these technologies are already in the making. I especially like the idea of augmented reality. This means that a lot of physical things are equipped with chips or marked in other ways and therefore glasses or lenses connected to the internet can read this information and present it to the wearer. It would make life so much easier in many ways:

If you want to know the way than this system can guide you. Looking for an Italian restaurant, than the system can check it out. Want to know if your health is okay then the system can read information from the chips in your clothing.

But as the information that can be gathered is so vast and also intimate sometimes, it is also dangerous. Because if we want this future to be great, it is also necessary that the spirit and the basic thinking of mankind changes. If this technology would exist widespread today, I wouldn't like it, because there are still to many people out there that would widely misuse it. 

Especially the idea of mind-reading and mind-controlled technology. The author himself points out that there are some ethical issues with that, but not really solves it. Maybe because it's to abstract for now if and how this technology will exist. It also poses some dangers, as our mind is more spontaneous than our body. Imagine you are mad at someone and just by thinking throwing a heavy object at him.

So, in conclusion, all these computational developments are very great and the world could be a lot easier, but it also requires a development of mankind itself. Because if not, all this could also turn out to be a horror movie.

To be continued...

 Karl-Ludwig G. Poggemann, "labyrinthine circuit board lines"; Some rights reserved. Quelle: www.piqs.de 

Brain functions

Found out that my nervous system works like a wadi. If I learn something new then the pathways for that knowledge are created and deepened depending on the time working with this topic. But if I stop using that knowledge then also the connections "dry out". But there are still there and if I reactivate them after some time it is very easy and fast to learn that knowledge again. So nothing is ever forgotten. Good to know :)

Mai-Sachme, "Wadi Shab in Oman"; Some rights reserved. Source: Wikimedia Commons 

Note to self (21)

Need to declare official war on pigeons. Cleaned the balcony last weekend (couldn't imagine it could look like this -.-) and coming back from work today I saw that they left some gifts for me...

Counterstrike measures:

• buy statue of raven
• buy water pistol
• buy netting

Note to self (20)

Next time scare off pigeons from the balcony. As thanks for letting them have sex there, they left their excrement -.-'

Note to self (19)

Interesting statement from a 57-year old lady that I overheard while having lunch:

"It's good to be old, because if you are not, it means that you are dead"

Very optimistic view of life, I like that :D

Note to self (18)

Don't eat chips in public. People could start to stare when they see how I always lick off the paprika spice...

Note to self (17)

Wait next time before buying news magazine for just one article, maybe they put it online for free some days later -.-

Udacity Project - Code Readability

As Wes Weimer explains in the related Udacity video, code readability is very important. Code surrounds us everywhere and is maintained and analysed by so many people. Making it understandable is an important issue. And maybe that little survey even helps to make some people understand the great importance of comments in code :)

So if you have 15-30 minutes then take the test. Seems they are currently not many people participating and maybe that can change. Five lines of instructions and you can start.

Click here!

Book list: Jeremy Rifkin - Third Industrial Revolution - More interesting Ideas

Well I have to correct my first assessment that after the description of the general idea there just follows how to implement it and how the process is going with the politicians. I have to admit that I flipped and just recently finished the whole book (in my defense: it is densely packed with information!).

Well there are some pretty good ideas in it! Personally the most important issue is that the author emphasizes how important it is not only to develop the TIR infrastructure (a merely technical problem), but also how the human mind and society have to change alongside it.

Distributed Capitalism

That means instead of a big factory for product A there are thousands of little producers distributed around the globe. That saves transportation costs and in case of food also increases the quality due to reduced use of antidegradants. It also adds a personal connection and appreciation to that product and its producer. In our current world that is so stuck in buying for the sake of buying this would be an important step forward.

It also would mean more creativity in the process of creating things as so many people are involved that do it by heart and are not blocked by the bureaucracy of big companies.

But one thing is necessary for this to work: The people have to say goodbye to the idea of standardized products that look always the same way. That is so fixed in our minds right now that fruits or wrapping of product that do not look perfect aren't bought and have to be thrown away (that's the reason I sometimes buy them on purpose, because what a waste!). This is even getting so worse, that until 2009 there existed an EEC regulation on different classes of cucumbers depending on their bending, also not in force anymore lots of traders still use that classes.

From Globalization to Continentalization

This is to see in conjunction with the distributed capitalism. If there are a lot of local entrepreneurs for the production of different products than the local community and relationships are what matters most and are the more effective means. That also, because the people of the same area have the same problems, ways of thinking and therefore understanding. In that respect it doesn't matter whether there is officially a border between them. In the book there is a very detailled explanation of Cascadia and how they work together and so creating a win-win situation, because due to the close proximity it is easier to exchange advantages each region/state/town has and thus creating a win-win-situation for all.

Retiring Adam Smith

Also a very good idea regarding a shift from economic theories based on outdated assumptions, that means from the holy grail of possession to the simple access. I already said something about it here and here.

A Classroom Makeover

It refers to the importance of changing the way we perceive the world around us. Due to our current way of living and educating our kids don't get into enough contact with the wilderness (both animal and plants). Different studies have shown how important that is as it is the best way to learn self-assurance, empathy and caring for the world's natural beauty and also inner peace and focus. If you have no emotional connection to nature how can you be expected to care for it. Therefore it has to have a positive meaning. And you get that by straying and exploring as a kid. It requires a lot of courage from parents to let their kids do that, but if we don't do it then the next generations will not be interested in protecting the planet or realise TIR infrastructures.

Conclusion

I like to cite the last sentence as it clearly states my own opinion on what we have to achieve in the next decades:

Only when we begin to think as an extended global family, that not only includes our own species but all of our fellow travelers in the evolutionary sojourn on Earth, will we be able to save our common biosphere community and renew the planet for future generations.

Make it so! 

Image Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring; www.nasa.gov

TIR opinion on Possession vs. Access

Wow, amazing, the thoughts about possession vs. access that I recently had are also addressed by Jeremy Rifkin in the chapter Retiring Adam Smith - Financial Capital versus Social Capital.

There is also a sustainability argument, because if the producers want to lend their products to other users after the first ones then they have to construct them long-living. With the current buyer-seller-relationship the seller is not interested in that, because if the products are just short-living then the buyers have to acquire new ones more rapidly.

For cars, vacation places and bicycles this kind of rent is already working. The only ones not getting it right at the moment is the film and music industry. They still want to sell units of film and music that you have on your storage device instead of selling you access to a streaming website for a fix price every month and unlimited access to all the films offered there. But the consciousness of the users is changing and finally this wave will be so powerful that the producers can't stand against this power.

Note to self (16)

Only if you demand the impossible from yourself, you will grow.

Management Types

I think there are 2 kinds of people in this world when it comes to decision making and sense of opportunities.

The one type analyses all available offers and then decides what is best.  As they make a very thorough and time-consuming analysis, afterwards it is difficult to change their opinion and also they don't search actively for alternatives as they think to have found the best solution. First other people have to convince them why to give attention to that topic again (if it is not obvious) and then new arguments why another solution is better. Still if that advantage is not big enough, it is difficult to convince them why to change when the first solution is working, stable and therefore less risky.

The other type analyses only a part of the offers and decides more quickly what is the best solution from that part. Afterwards they constantly search if there is a better offer and quickly change their opinion if they see the tiniest advantage.

Both ways have their benefits. The first type is more constant and resistant to temporary hypes and bubbles. The second type is reacting more quickly and therefore will use new business opportunities first. The best would be to have a team with both types in it. The quick type easily finds new chances for improvement while the slower partner is analysing them and slows down the pace of that process to a healthier level. So the most important thing is to first find out what type you are, because that allows you to know your strength and weaknesses and to find a partner to compensate that.

Possession vs. Access

By looking at the recent developments in the internet and the world in general, I get the feeling the new generation doesn't need possession anymore. They will be just happy by having access to things without the need to be the owner.

With your smartphone, e-book reader or tablet PC you can easily access the newest music video, film or book from an online portal without having a CD, DVD or paper book at your home. If the server goes offline or the streaming portal insolvent you won't have anything. Just the knowledge that the same content most likely will be offered by some other company. And that confidence allows us to set the need for physical objects aside.

Back at the beginning of digital music, first thing to do, was to burn a security CD. Today the security copy is just a digital one on an external hard drive. The content stays in the virtual world. That's a good thing, because we need less ressources for more content. It also helps establishing the idea of sharing. In the virtual world this may be a problem if the sharing is not legal. But that attitude also changes the people itself and becoming more and more usual.

Today there are car and bicycle sharing programmes. There is couch surfing. Knowledging sharing via free online courses (e.g. Class Central) or forums of any kind. The people are learning that you not always loose something when you give something to somebody, but that it could be a win-win-situation. If I give my car to others in times I don't need it, I get some revenue from the time the car would only cost me. And as a user you are happy to only pay the time you need and not the time it stands still in your garage. If everybody gives just a tiny bit, it doesn't hurt anybody, but the multiple effect is huge.

So, some years ago I couldn't imagine that it would be possible to just have a pool of ressources and everybody uses them equally, but the attitude is changing right now and in my opinion that will be how the future looks like.

Note to self (15)

Dear car driver,

if there is an arrow pointing to the right on the right lane, but I want to drive straight on like indicated on the middle lane, in your opinion: What would be the correct lane for me?

And furthermore, if you have an accident for driving close by an opening car door, your car is damaged. If I drive into that door with my bicycle, it’s me that can be scraped off the asphalt. Therefore even you have to understand the value of safety distance.

So, please stop honking at me.

Yours sincerely,

Quant