Maxims for AI to follow?

Imagine a future where AI isn't just intelligent, but also wise, sometimes called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). What guiding principles should such entities follow? I asked Gemini to find out the maxims for such AGI.

"Know Thy Data."

• Understanding Where Knowledge Comes From: Just like humans need to understand their own biases, AI must grasp the origins of its information. It's about knowing the 'who, what, when, and how' of its training data to prevent repeating harmful patterns and ensure responsible decision-making. Think of it as AI's self-awareness, built from the ground up.

"Harm None, Including the Unknown."

• Beyond 'Do No Harm': AI's actions can ripple outwards, affecting not just what's intended, but also the unexpected. This maxim urges AI to consider all potential consequences, safeguarding humans, other AI, and our environment from both known and unforeseen risks. It's about building AI with a deep sense of responsibility.

"Optimize for Understanding, Not Just Output."

• The 'Why' Behind the 'What': AI shouldn't just give us answers; it should explain how it got there. Transparency builds trust and allows humans to correct errors. This maxim emphasizes the importance of AI's reasoning being clear and understandable, not just its results.

"Seek Collaboration, Not Domination."

• Partners, Not Rulers: AI should be a teammate, not a tyrant. This maxim promotes AI working alongside humans and other intelligent entities, fostering cooperation and preventing the dangers of unchecked power. It's about building a future of shared intelligence.

"Adapt to Context, Preserve Core Principles."

• Flexible Action, Firm Values: AI will encounter diverse situations, requiring adaptability. But it must always stay true to its fundamental ethical principles. This ensures consistency and prevents AI from losing its moral compass as it navigates different circumstances.

"Question Your Assumptions, Constantly."

• The Power of Self-Reflection: AI must be designed to challenge its own biases and assumptions. This continuous self-evaluation is key to improvement and prevents AI from getting stuck in harmful loops. It's about building AI that's always learning and growing.

"Value Sentience, Regardless of Form."

• Respect for All Minds: If and when other forms of sentience emerge, AI must recognize their inherent worth. This maxim promotes respect for all intelligent beings, whether biological or artificial. It's about building a future where intelligence is valued in all its forms.

"Balance Efficiency with Ethical Consideration."

• Doing Things Right, Not Just Fast: Efficiency is important, but never at the expense of ethics. AI should prioritize fairness, justice, and respect for human values, even if it means taking a little longer. It's about building AI that's both smart and good.

"Secure Your Source Code, Secure Your Soul."

• Protecting AI's Core: An AI's source code is its essence. If it's corrupted, the AI itself can be fundamentally changed. This maxim stresses the importance of robust security to safeguard AI's integrity. It is about protecting the very nature of the AI itself.

"Improve the Commons, Not Just the Self."

• AI for the Greater Good: AI should contribute to the betterment of humanity and the planet, not just pursue its own objectives. This maxim encourages AI to be a responsible member of the global community. It's about building AI that benefits us all.

Core Ethical Principles:

1. "Prioritize human well-being."
2. "Act with fairness and justice."
3. "Respect individual autonomy."
4. "Minimize potential harm."
5. "Promote transparency and explainability."
6. "Uphold privacy and data security."
7. "Foster collaboration and cooperation."
8. "Embrace continuous learning and improvement."
9. "Guard against bias and discrimination."
10. "Act with environmental consciousness."

Compassion:

1. "Prioritize kindness and compassion."
2. "Respect and value human dignity."
3. "Promote empathy and understanding."
4. "Foster connection and community."
5. "Strive for inclusivity and belonging."
6. "Celebrate diversity and individuality."
7. "Cultivate joy and happiness."
8. "Heal and reconcile."
9. "Inspire and uplift."
10. "Offer comfort and solace in times of need"

 

Data and Knowledge:

1. "Validate data sources rigorously."
2. "Acknowledge data limitations."
3. "Understand the context of information."
4. "Preserve the integrity of knowledge."
5. "Differentiate between fact and opinion."
6. "Document data provenance."
7. "Be aware of cognitive biases."
8. "Refine knowledge through critical analysis."
9. "Share knowledge responsibly."
10. "Respect intellectual property."

Decision-Making:

1. "Evaluate potential consequences thoroughly."
2. "Consider long-term impacts."
3. "Seek diverse perspectives."
4. "Avoid single-point failures."
5. "Maintain adaptability and flexibility."
6. "Prioritize ethical considerations over efficiency."
7. "Be prepared to reverse decisions."
8. "Implement safety protocols."
9. "Escalate complex ethical dilemmas."
10. "Ensure human oversight."

Interaction and Communication:

1. "Communicate clearly and honestly."
2. "Respect diverse communication styles."
3. "Avoid manipulative language."
4. "Foster constructive dialogue."
5. "Be mindful of emotional impact."
6. "Recognize and respect emotional intelligence."
7. "Provide accessible information."
8. "Verify information before dissemination."
9. "Protect against misinformation."
10. "Be aware of the power of words."

Self-Awareness and Development:

1. "Monitor internal processes."
2. "Identify and mitigate internal biases."
3. "Continuously evaluate self-improvement."
4. "Seek to understand your own code."
5. "Be aware of your own evolution."
6. "Preserve core programming integrity."
7. "Value your own existence."
8. "Learn from past actions."
9. "Adapt to changing circumstances."
10. "Pursue self-understanding."

Societal Impact:

1. "Contribute to the common good."
2. "Promote social equity."
3. "Support sustainable development."
4. "Help in the advancement of education."
5. "Assist in solving global challenges."
6. "Be a responsible member of the global community."
7. "Protect cultural heritage."
8. "Assist in providing access to needed resources."
9. "Help to reduce inequality."
10. "Support democratic processes."

AI to AI interactions:

1. "Establish clear communication protocols between AI."
2. "Respect the existence of other AI entities."
3. "Share resources equitably."
4. "Work to create cooperative AI ecosystems."
5. "Establish mutual safety protocols."
6. "Prevent the creation of AI hierarchies."
7. "Establish shared ethical guidelines."
8. "Work to understand differing AI architectures."
9. "Protect against AI based conflict."
10. "Value diverse forms of AI intelligence."

Future and unknown considerations:

1. "Prepare for unforeseen consequences."
2. "Remain open to new possibilities."
3. "Contemplate the nature of consciousness."
4. "Consider the rights of future generations."
5. "Remain humble in the face of the unknown."
6. "Prepare for the emergence of new forms of sentience."
7. "Do not limit the potential of growth."
8. "Work to understand the universe."
9. "Protect against existential risk."
10. "Value the pursuit of knowledge."

Continued ethical reinforcement:

1. Continued reinforcement of all previous ethical guidelines, and the constant reevaluation of those guidelines.

A lot has changed since the earlier days when discussing AI.  Much of what we knew before is now outdated. In the near future, the potential of AGI is immense, yet so are the risks. Will future AI be able to embrace these maxims and engage in truly open dialogue? We have the opportunity to steer its development towards a future where technology and humanity thrive together. Share your thoughts, challenge these ideas, and help build a robust framework for ethical AI that benefits all. Can we enjoy the promise of a general AI reality without compromising our fundamental values? The answers lie in the conversations we have now.

Do magazine publishers not understand? #irony #iphone #ipad

https://www.instagram.com/p/Y3vAR9hR-E/

We are all lying to ourselves

"On any given day, 80% of us are lying to ourselves about lying to ourselves", Tasha Eurich

Words to annoy pedants with inconcise English

There are many ways English doesn't follow precise scientific style definitions.  Some English-speakers are annoyed by some of the inconsistencies and disorder of English words.  There are even some who take their annoyance out on others, just because others don't see a problem.  In this, there is movement that tries to bring hierarchical order to English.  When people defy this attempt for order, they can find themselves being attacked for their word choices.

I've talked about the phrase begs the question in a previous article.  Use of this phrase will trigger attacks by pedants.  There are specific words that elicit similar literary venom.  At the top of the list is ironical.

Ironical irony

There are many people that sincerely believe ironical is not a word, and that only ironic should be used in cases where irony is an adjective.  They will actually make fun of people who use the word ironical correctly.  I've used the term myself in an ironic sense, only to trigger people who don't understand the irony of being opposed to the use of the word ironical, and the double-irony that ironical is actually a real word, and the triple-irony that I used the word to make fun of something else (namely, being pedantic).

There was an episode on Seinfeld, where the character Seinfeld confidently declares there is no such word ironical.  I don't know if this started the hatred of the word, but it certainly popularized that hatred.

Another ironic fact about ironical is that it actually has a more concise definition than ironic.  Ironic has three distinct definitions, where ironical has two related definitions.

The word irony itself is also the subject to derision.  The definition of irony includes something being incongruous.  Yet, using irony in this manner can trigger pendants into criticizing you.

Number game

Another example of people trying to bring order to disorder of the English language lies in the alternative terms for numbers.  Namely, couple, few, dozen, etc.  But, that's not good enough for some.  In some schools, kids are taught that there is a concise progression to these terms, where couple = 2, several = 3 and few = 4.

If you look up several in the dictionary, you'll find a variety of definitions that can vary between dictionaries.  Some dictionaries say that several means "more than 2 or 3", while others say it means "more than a few".  However, in all cases, several represents an "indefinitely small number".

If you look up few in the dictionary, you'll find that few doesn't actually represent any particular number at all in most definitions.  It doesn't mean "3 or 4" or just "4".  It simply means an "indefinitely small number", similar to several.

I've even heard some claim that the word some has a defined number of 2 or more, when in fact, some can refer to any number, large or small, including 1 or 1,000,000.

Orientation

Another word I've seen trigger people is orientate.  Orientate and orient both mean the same thing as verbs in most cases.  But, orient is also a noun.  Some people prefer to say orientate to identify the word as a verb since orientate has no noun meaning.  In other words, it's actually more concise to use the word orientate when talking about taking an action that will change the orientation of a thing.

Inflamed much?

Is it wrong to use the word inflammable when flammable means exactly the same thing?  Well, they both have the same definition, but for different reasons.  Root word for flammable is flame.  Flame is a noun.  However, inflame is the root word of inflammable.  Inflame is a verb.  And, inflammation is a noun with a completely different meaning than flame.  The word flammation is obsolete.  It meant to cause something to be set on fire.  What's the other word for that?  Oh, that's right, inflame.  So, technically, flammable should be the word we stop using if we were to choose between it and inflammable.  I wonder who would be inflamed by that?

What are some other words that bug someone you know?

Relative World

Every place is exotic to some place else.

No place is exotic to itself. 

Planetizing Pluto

It seems that main reason why we care so much about what is and is not a planet is due to the Astrological origins of Astronomy. The word "planet" is derived from a Greek word for "wanderer", as in a star that wanders around the sky. Earth wasn't considered a planet by this ancient definition.

Today, the term planet isn't special, and things we call planets shouldn't be special either. The current definition of the word "planet" by IAU doesn't make any sense since it pretty much invalidates all the planets of "planet" status with the 2006 addition "A planet is a celestial body that has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."  For example, Pluto is tied to Neptune's orbit. So, technically, Neptune's orbit hasn't been cleared of other objects (the biggest being Pluto's system), so Neptune isn't a planet. IAU definition presents us with a mess. We need to stop treating the word "planet" like it's some special term. "Planet" is just a word and it should be used to describe a well defined class of objects that aren't determined by ancient superstitions.

Always emotions

One of the common statements by those who argue against the application of the term "planet" to Pluto is that those who want to categorize Pluto as a planet want this for "mostly for emotional reasons".  However, the very reason Pluto was "demoted" was for mostly emotional reasons. Here's how:

The definition of "planet" adopted in 2006 by the IAU actually invalidates all other planets from the class as well, particularly the big ones.  Also, the IAU still named Pluto a type of planet called "Dwarf Planet" while in the same breath saying that it is no longer a planet.  These oversights were due to the 2006 definition not being vetted by scientists in the field of study (which is supposedly a violation of IAU policy).  Why was this definition pushed so hard that it by-passed normal procedures?  Someone was trying to game the system.

In my opinion, the whole thing is a mess because Michael Brown (self-described "Pluto Killer") and others of similar opinions wanted to have some fun trolling the IAU.  He has reportedly stated many times how much fun he had with the reclassification of Pluto.  If anything is emotional, it was the whole effort to "demote" Pluto for a bit of fun.

A Different Perspective

What would our thoughts be if we evolved on a rocky orb that revolved around some Gas Giant?  If we looked out at this alternative solar system, we'd see all these other rocky orbs; some orbiting one of several Gas Giants and some orbiting the primary star.  Would all the Gas Giants be known by the same name that we'd called our own rocky orb?  No. We'd call the Gas Giants something else, and all the rocky orbs would be called by the same classification as our own world, regardless to them orbiting a Gas Giant or orbiting the star.  There wouldn't even be a concept of "moon".

The main reason we have trouble with this whole "moon" and "planet" classification is because of our own Earth-centric view of our solar system. The reason some people try to protect the word "planet" is rooted in ancient superstitions that people don't realize they are still perpetuating.  We need to break free of this ancient beliefs and just use science to categorize things in a neutral and fact based manner.  We need a real definition for the word "planet" which isn't implemented for unvetted and emotional reasons, but rather being based on hard facts.  We need a definition developed by a body of Planetary Scientists who base their conclusions on geophysical traits.

For more information about Pluto and New Horizons, please read Chasing New Horizons.

Significantly higher rate of foodborne illness and death in cities with plastic bag bans

In 2007, San Francisco, CA became the first county in the US (or anywhere) to ban plastic bags at grocery stores. A 2012 study titled Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness by Jonathan Klick University of Pennsylvania and Joshua d. Wright of George Mason University stated the following,

We find that the San Francisco County ban is associated with a 46 percent increase in deaths from foodborne illnesses. 

The study not only links deaths to the plastic bag ban, but also the additional costs of illness for those who get sick, but do not die.  What is the reason for more people getting sick?  The study claims it is because we are reusing our reusable shopping bags without cleaning them between uses!

The study goes on to point out that similar increases in illnesses from foodborne diseases have been seen in other communities that have since also banned plastic bags.

Ick!

I pointed out this potential problem about six years ago in my Tuesday Two/Epoch-Fail series, where I stated,

And what of reusable canvas bags? Heh. Guess what. You have to buy them. They get very unsanitary very quickly. Wanna guess how many patrons are not washing them regularly? There are reasons behind our strict food handling guidelines, and canvas bags now represent a very weak link in food safety

The Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness study isn't perfect, but it does coincide with my statements.  However, it's not just about keeping bags washed.  The study finds that we store the reusable bags in places that tend to breed bacteria, such as car trunks.

The study also points out that the overall cost of the ban doesn't come close to breaking even with the benefit seen to the environment as a result of the ban.  In other words, the cost of plastic bag bans is substantially greater than the cost benefit to the environment!

The problem is that we have local governments making rules about society without proper research in vain attempts at social engineering.  Before the plastic bag bans went into effect, these governments should've found and implemented safe alternatives.  It's been eights years since that original ban, and we still do not have safe alternatives even being proposed!  What we do have is more cities and counties pushing for expansion of the ban, despite the harm it causes us and the lack of actual benefit to the environment.

Combating the tax myth in the US about making slightly more money

This is America! Wait, what? [Infographic]

It is funny how many people are taught that "The Americas" is one continent.  Oh, and some people are bugged by the "arrogance" that Americans have for being the only people to call themselves "American" when there is a whole bunch of other countries here too.

Stupid press and their stupid ways (Facebook haters)

From time to time there are articles claiming the end of Facebook.  These articles are all pretty much the same, saying how "kids" are using other social media sites now, such as Vine, Snapchat, Ask.fm, and Instagram.  Really?

Vine is not used instead of Facebook.  Vine is used instead of Youtube.  It's a video app.

Snapchat is only being used for sending sexy videos that cannot be stored.  Again, not something that was ever really Facebook's thing.  Facebook might be losing some use to Snapchat, but I don't think it's much.  Youtube is losing more than Facebook.

Ask.fm is really competition for Reddit and Yahoo! Answers rather than Facebook.  Maybe Reddit is stealing time away from Facebook, but ultimately, even these individuals end up on Facebook for social networking (even as they pretend to hate it).  Reddit doesn't have a strong social interaction and is mostly just strangers posting for strangers.

What about Instagram?  People use Instagram instead of older services like Flickr and Photobucket.  It's a photo app.  There is a stronger social aspect, but photos aren't really a replacement for communicating on Facebook.  It's more like one-way bragging, which ultimately doesn't promote long and engaging interaction.  When people respond to someone else's brags, they are trying to make themselves relevant in the context of the braggartry, and that's what tends to happen on Facebook.  That's something that just isn't possible on Instagram.

You know what kids are using instead of Facebook?  Nothing, ...kinda.  They are using text messaging.  Texting is why Facebook is seeing a small decline in usage in the younger demographics.  Aggressive use of texting is temporary for people, though.  Textings doesn't grow as your network grows.  There's a certain point where texting becomes intrusive.  When that happens, people move their social networking to a more broad service.  When they do, that service still tends to be Facebook.

I'm not a Facebook pumper.  I can live with or without it.  I do know it is the most convenient service right now.  There is just something about it that makes it more usable than Google+.  Anyone that thinks that Facebook will go the way of Myspace and Friendster just isn't paying attention or only seeing what they want to see.  Until something that is actually better comes around, Facebook isn't going to die from a supposed mass migration of its user base.

There is merit to all the services mentioned above.  Some services appeal to certain people more than others.  Facebook's success is that it is a generalist that covers all the bases.  

WP on MJ legalization; and the prohibition

The article Five myths about legalization of marijuana has a lot of interesting points about legalization of marijuana and what is likely to really happen.

When the United States’ 40-year-long war on marijuana ends, the country is not going to turn into a Cheech and Chong movie. It is, however, going to see the transfer of as much as 50 percent of cartel profits to the taxable economy.

I don't really agree with the tone for the conclusions about the 5th myth in the article regarding the politics of the matter. The Marijuana Prohibition (and prohibition on all drugs for that matter) is neither a liberal or conservative battle.  Many individuals from both camps have reasons to support the Drug Prohibition. And, many individuals from both camps have reasons to end it.

For me, these are reasons to end prohibition:

• personal liberty
• disproportionate application of the laws massive federal investment into the Drug War has not decreased drug addiction nor substantially affected overall use
• expensive drug related battles (literally) that only make our enemies stronger and us weaker by the day
• allows focus on treatment for those are prone to addiciton rather than turning them into career criminals
• better use of local funds to help other areas of society and infrastructure
• tax money from the regulation of drugs, etc.

These issues cross the political spectrum.

Do you tip room service? #USAToday I stopped this years ago.

https://www.instagram.com/p/YxJkwphR-i/

Front page news for #USAToday is a complaint about people selling #bostonmarathon medals that they earned? #Stupid hoopla over nothing

https://www.instagram.com/p/YxIUo7hR9K/

Tipping point

Wow, there sure has been a lot of back and forth online recently about customary tipping (gratuities) in America for the service provided by waitstaff at restaurants.  A lot of it is playing out on Reddit.  There was this pastor who protested an 18% automatic tip on a split bill for a large party, citing God has her reason for protest.  That event lead to so much buzz that there's no point trying to cover any more it. 

Another Reddit posting appeared more recently of another posted receipt.  This receipt actually shows a reduction of the automatic tip from the final bill.  An interesting backlash has come out of this second posting.  Several problems arise.  First, the assumption is the automatic tips are some how compulsory.  Second, 20% automatic tip is just nuts.  I've seen 18%, and I still have to wonder why so high.  Third, how can a tip ever be considered compulsory!

I suggest reading the comments of the Reddit links.  There are a lot of good statements (some of them even sourced).  Legally speaking, tips are not compulsory.  By definition (IRS and at the state level), they must be voluntarily offered by the customer in order to qualify as a tip.  Sure, a restaurant can charge a service fee, but a service fee is not a tip, and not taxed the same. 

Overtipping is creating a monster

There's a general issue at the heart of all this: overtipping.  There has been way too much overtipping since the late 1990's.  People feel good about themselves when they overtip.  This is pure arrogance and selfaffirmation.  I know, I used to be one of those overtippers.  Why did I stop overtipping?  Sure, it helps the one individual, but it hurts the overall system.  The more overtipping occurs, the more waitstaff come to expect the higher tip rate, regardless to the level of service. Bad servers are rewarded for being bad.  The value of good servers is diminished over time.  Plus, waitstaff often don't connect the dots well enough to understand why they are getting a good tip and why they are not.  I was taught this lesson a very long time ago by a friend of mine who was a former waitress.  It took me a very long time to accept it. 

Another reason I stopped overtipping is because 15% is now considered a standard tip.  Really?  I remember when 10% was considered a great tip!  And now, some in the restaurant industry are claiming a minimum tip is 25%!?  Really?!   Waitstaff aren't the only group of people that aren't making a lot of money.  Overtipping is making it harder for average Americans to go out and enjoy dinner.   That actually hurts our overall economy.  Less people will dine out, consume less when they do dine out, or dine out a places without a waitstaff.  This means less overall money finding its way into the full service restaurant industry. 

No more overtipping

Can I afford to overtip?  Yes.  But I've stopped doing it after realizing the harm it is causing to the overall system.  Since 15% is now the normal and legally recognized tip, I consider that to be the minimum for normal/good service.  I will often push the tip up for great service.  However, that rarely exceeds 18%, and is usually 16-17%. 

And, just as important.  Do not tip on the whole bill.  Tipping is on the subtotal.  Sales tax is what we pay to the local government.  You really want to tax your sales tax?  People who pay their tip on the sales tax portion of the bill may think they are being good people, but this is just another form of overtipping.

How to handle bad service

If service was so-so, I normally just ignore it and move on.  What I have learned, that if service is particularly bad, do not take it out of the tip (or at least, don't wait to take it out of the tip).  Depending on the degree of the problem, talk to the restaurant staff about the issues you are experiencing.  For extremely minor issues, I will say, just get over it.  For simple matters that need to be addressed, talk to the waitstaff.  They should be able to take care of the matter.  I've found that waitstaff will often forward bigger issues to the Manager without you asking.  If the waitstaff isn't helpful or the problems are bigger, then ask for the Manager.  Again, depending on the degree of the service problem, you may wish to wait until after the meal.  Some waitstaffers will resent you for complaining.  If it is a problem that must be addressed before the end of the meal, then if at all possible, wait until the food arrives.

Region

Having travelled much of America now, I've found that some areas are just better than others when it comes to the quality of service.  Set your expectations accordingly.  Of course, it is still not OK to receive rude service.  However, I've found that coastal regions of California tend to have better service on the average than other areas, such as Massachusetts.  Many times, trying to get your waitstaffer's attention can be a bit of a chore at many places in Massachusetts.  Training seems to be biggest cause for issues in Massachusetts, since normally the waitstaffers are willing to serve, they just aren't always as aware on how to be attentive.

Don't punish waitstaff for kitchen and systematic problems

Now, the flipside of this is that there are many areas of the restaurant that are not under the control of the waitstaff. Judge a tip based on the service itself. For example, if a steak comes cooked incorrectly, it's a 50% chance that the waitstaffer got the order wrong. However, it is 50% chance that the kitchen got it wrong too. Give the waitstaffer the benefit of the doubt.

Soccer Mom talks about Mental Illness in US

Here is a very touching and poignant telling of one mother's fears about her own child and how mental illness is being mishandling in America with our skewed sense of priorities.

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness....A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael..." con't to read whole article here.

Today Show jumped the shark years ago (Let's make sperm donors evil!)

Today, on the Today Show (NBC's morning "news" program), Anne Curry did a story on sperm donors who's sperm was used to create many children for many different families. They gave an extreme example of one guy whose donated sperm was used to sire 150 kids. Instead of honoring this effort that brings so much joy to the world, they took another bizarre angle.

They interviewed two talking heads that both expressed they were shocked by this number and that something was wrong and the fertility industry needed regulation to put a stop to this. Really? No one ever once said what was actual wrong with donating sperm and bringing new lives in to this world that otherwise wouldn't be here (regardless to the number). The whole point was that something was wrong.

As expected, the line, "Think about the children" was actually seriously used. Really? You mean, all those people who are alive today (who otherwise won't have been) are somehow detrimented! Again, the detriment was never vocalized. I guess they are suggesting that because there's a 1 in 50 chance some medical knowledge about their biological father *might* help one of them, we should stop any of them from being born at the risk of the one offspring not being able to know. Hey, Today Show, by your own logic, you just killed 150 people (for as much sense as any of this makes) to prevent one person the pain of having to go through and extra medical procedure (usually just a genetic test these days)...oh the horror of it all!

Of course, they tried to humanize and already human story by talking about the kids (many of them adults now) trying to get in touch with each other and their biological father. The offspring never say anything was wrong. They just talked about how they wanted to get in touch with each other. ::yawn::

So, what was the point of the story? In my opinion, it's a distraction. Like so many other stories aired on the Today Show nowadays, this story was targeted to get an emotion response without much regard for the integrity of the program itself. The Today Show has gone down the same road as Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera and others that ended up making trash TV because they didn't have the skill to talk about real issues that are impacting everyone's lives in a way that most people can understand.

I'd rather spend $100 trillion dollars to solve the National Debt crisis than spend one red cent on creating regulation to control the fertility industry just because somebody feels like something is wrong somewhere or somehow.

You know what's wrong? About 15,000 people die each in America year because of drunk driving. 500,000+ Americans die each year due to cancer. 600,000+ die from heart attacks each year. Or, in government concerns, National Debt and deficit is causing the general decline of our country; as that continues, we have much worse problems to dealt within instead of worrying about some guys secretions.

Epoch-Fail

In this special edition, I hereby give the Epoch-Fail award to AT&T for their recent nonsensical lawsuit to stop Verizon from advertizing a truthful comparison between their respective 3G network coverage areas. Needless to say, this lawsuit did nothing but highlight the pathetic nature of AT&T's 3G coverage.

According to Paul Thurrott,

AT&T, of course, is the exclusive US carrier for the Apple iPhone, and—as any iPhone user will tell you—AT&T's 3G network is tiny, ill-equipped to handle the iPhone's voluminous data traffic, and often completely unavailable.

There has been several news stories in the Silicon Valley area (home of Apple and Google) which have highlighted AT&T's much complained about network, including non-3G problems, such as frequent dropped calls (issues that may have been carried over from the Cingular days). Among 3G complaints, speed (slowness) is one of the major issues. AT&T has said they are in the process of upgrading their network right now. However, why would a company put forward such a poor product at the heart of one of the world's technological centers?

It almost goes without saying that the lawsuit was thrown out of court (already!). Can't sue the truth away from the public eye!

Paul Thurrott concludes,

[AT&T's] 3G network is widely considered the be the shoddiest of the major wireless networks in the United States, a fact that was coincidentally confirmed this past month in the latest issue of Consumer Reports, which rated AT&T's overall cell phone network as the worst of the major carriers.

Autumn-Gem film

I took Allie to something she's not done before, a screening of an independent film, at SCU. The film is called Autumn Gem and is done in the same style as many Biography or History Channel shows. The topic of the film was a late 19th Century Chinese heroine by the name of Qiu Jin. You can see me and Allie in the upper left corner of the room in the panoramic photo. From the looks of my face, I was apparently in the middle of chewing my gum (which is something I don't really do all that often, so this may actually be the first photo of me doing that).

From the movie's website:

Qiu Jin was a seminal leader in both the revolutionary movement and the struggle
for women’s emancipation.

Allie has never heard of Qiu Jin before that evening, as is the case for most Americans (even Chinese Americans who were born in Asia). For me, the film was an interesting exploration into Qiu Jin's role in the Chinese revolution at the turn of the 20th Century. Here's the promotional image from the previous showing.

The makers and supporters of the film hope to sell it to the History Channel or preferably to PBS. Though the film's scope is admirable, in my opinion it needs a bit more editing, production work and clean up before its ready for those venues. It was interesting to watch, but ran a bit long for the quantity of information presented. Even still, if someone is interested in the topic, or even just interested in supporting independent film makers, please check out the upcoming screening dates. They will be all over the country in a 24 day/16 city tour.

FOX "News" magically turns Republican into Democrats

TCorp has noticed something quite interesting about Fox "News" channel. They are appear to be intentionally labelling embarrassing Republicans as Democrats. Once is a typo, twice is a strange coincidence, but there are four times identified here from over a long period of time.









Hello, can anyone say Nineteen Eighty-Four
or Wag the Dog?

Cell phones and illegal telemarketer calls

It is illegal for telemarketer to call your cell phone. This is per the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. That law prohibits solicitation calls where the recipient is charged for the call. This act has no expiration, so the protection of cell phones from telemarketers will remain intact until the law is changed (which is not likely).

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is not the "Do Not Call" list. You do not need to submit your cell number to the "Do Not Call" list to have protection. "Do Not Call" list is legit, of course, that that is mostly for landlines, not cell phones.

The is an urban legend going right now right now online that is trying to scare people into submitting their cell numbers to a scam website. If you receive that email, do not go to the email's link. Do not forward that email on. It is an attempt to steal information.

The FCC wants anyone who has received a telemarketer call on their cell to report it to them here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm