Just Thinking

Of course there are loads of pages on the internet about "Life the Universe and Everything" as imortalised by Douglas Adams, but this is the only one (other than some cheap copies) where you will find out what was the question?

Unfortunately this depends on you knowing what go is and a go board (also called goban). Go is an oriental game played on a board using black and white pieces called stones (actually shell for the white and slate for the balck ones).

Originally written by me before the 1988 New Zealand Go Congress and published in NZ Go Journal in October 1988. It is extremely funny to me that I wrote the article with the various answers and when I asked the people at the conference, the answers that I got were exactly the same ones as in the article. The last paragraph is an in joke for NZ go players:

How Many Squares on a Go Board?

Kami Kaze: How many squares are there on a go board? Go away and think about it and write your answer down before reading on!

20 kyu: 361 of course.
"Wrong" says Kami Kaze.

10 kyu: No silly, that's the number of vertices. There are 18x18 or 324 squares.
"Wrong" says Kami Kaze.

(A pause follows, but frantic calculations occur.)

1 dan: Aha, there are also squares 2x2 and 3x3 and so on, which means that the total is 18x18 + 17x17 and so on making a grand total of 2109!
crowd: Aaaahh very clever!
"But wrong" says Kami Kaze.

3 dan: You've forgotten that they aren't squares, they are rectangles. There are no squares on a go board!
crowd: That's a dirty trick.
"And still wrong" says Kami Kaze.

(Another pause, and many puzzled faces.)

crowd: Well how many squares are there on a go board then?

Kami Kaze It is perfectly true that the smaller areas are rectangles, and each of these is one twelth longer than it is wide. Therefore, if we take an area twelve rectangles long and thirteen wide, we have a large square, and this is the only size which works. There are (19-12 ) x (19-13) or 42 such squares. The answer is forty-two.

Douglas Adams We all knew the answer, it's the question that we didn't know. Thank you Kami Kaze, the whole question of the meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything is simply "How many squares are there on a go board?"

Marvin: I tried to tell them, but you know what humans are like, they have the attention span of a dead gnat. Here I am with a brain the size of a planet, and having worked out all the possible games of go, the meaning of life is to have two eyes except in seki when ......

crowd: Which restaurant shall we eat at tonight?

(The crowd departs leaving Marvin talking to himself.)

marvin: I can tell you what the strictly correct komi is if you really want to know? Oh never mind me, just carry on. I haven't got any feelings of course .....

In 1994 I came across a web site where you could make bets on various things ever happening and as a result wrote the following to the owner of the site:

"I enjoyed your little column on the odds of various events happening.

I am prepared to give 1000 to 1 odds against time travel.
My condition is simply that whoever wants to claim from me must turn
up tomorrow to claim the prize. They can do this by demonstrating
their time machine. No excuses accepted, as if they are running late
they can try again the next day."

No one turned up the next day to make a claim, so this is evidence that a time machine will never be invented, or that my offer got lost. So by posting it again, we know that google will store it for ever.

In his column "Welcome to Fascist America!", Gene Callahan writes the following. It expresses my own ideas very well. For some years I have considered that the USA today is following a path similar to Germany in the 1930s. This sums it up very well, especially the bit about a yellow star in the last quoted paragraph.

"My fellow Americans, it’s official now: We live in a fascist nation.

Now, the term "fascist" has been thrown around over the last fifty years in a loose way that has drained it of much of its meaning. If someone wanted to cut 5% off of a leftist professor's favourite welfare programme, the professor would call his opponent a "fascist." I’m not using the word like that. I mean honest-to-goodness, old-fashioned, 1930s style fascism, featuring such old favourites as:

* Secret prisons – they’re back!
* Torture – we’re doing it.
* Spying on all citizens.
* Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
* Rampant militarism.
* Secret detention.
* Enforced disappearance.
* Denial and restriction of habeas corpus.
* Prolonged incommunicado detention.
* Unfair trial procedures.

(This list was compiled partially based on the work of Amnesty International, available here.)

An absolutely mind-numbing response to complaints that our traditional legal system is being torn apart is the question, "So, you want to protect the rights of terrorists?"

Um, no, I want to protect the rights of non-terrorists who might be falsely accused of terrorism! That was sort of, you know, the whole idea of our legal system. I’m sure there was some neo-con around in the 1700s saying to Jefferson or Madison, "So, you want to protect the rights of murderers and robbers?" but luckily they ignored him.

We’ve now gotten to the point where Nazi Germany was, say, in 1934. Remember, at that time, if you had told a typical German what his government would do over the next ten years, he would have looked at you as a madman. After all, his land had been civilized for over a thousand years. His was the nation of Albertus Magnus, Gutenberg, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Bach, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Heisenberg, Reimann, Mann, Lessing, Herder, Handel, Dürer, Leibniz, Gauss, Helmholtz – he could have gone on, but you get the point. His nation could not possibly descend into barbarism! If you tried to tell him he was living in a police state, he would have pointed out that his government had used its vast new powers very judiciously, and only against a few trouble-makers. So far.

It is interesting, in gauging the direction we are heading, to look at the proclamations of "respectable" opinion writers who support this administration. For instance, we have people at a "libertarian" think tank proclaiming that Moslems are not entitled to full civil rights in the US. (Perhaps we need to make them wear something special on their clothing like, say, a yellow star, so we know just who they are, hey?) But "conservatives" provide even more stunning examples of purely fascist reasoning. For example, conservative demagogue Ann Coulter has called for the editor of The NY Times to face the firing squad for his part in publicizing this administration's abuses of power. Let’s look at a recent column by Douglas MacKinnon at TownHall.com."

...

more at http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

It is worth mentioning here the fourth amendment of the US constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Boy is that ever gone with Bush's "Patriot Act".

I wrote this about 4 years ago before the US attacked Iraq. It takes an unbiased look at the US and Iraq to see who should really be the target of the world's concern.

Who is the Biggest Terrorist?

With the ever increasing rhetoric of Bush concerning axis of evil and the behaviour of Iraq it is interesting to compare the actual behaviour of Iraq and the USA to see who actually represents a greater danger to the world.

Has weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq maybe
USA yes more than any other country

Has nuclear weapons
Iraq probably not
USA yes more than any other country

Has used nuclear weapons on other countries
Iraq no
USA yes, the only country to have ever done so

Has attacked other countries in the last 10 years
Iraq no
USA yes, at least 5, see list below

Has attacked other countries in the last 30 years
Iraq yes, 3
USA yes, at least 15, see list below

Is threatening to attack other countries at present
Iraq no
USA yes, 3

If the USA was truly concerned with stopping terrorism they would have spoken out against the French terrorist act of bombing the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland. The fact that they refused to do so shows that USA is not against terrorism as such, only against people with different policies.

USA intends to drop 3000 bombs on Iraq in 1 day, more than the entire war in 1991, "to create Shock and Awe". Isn't that Terrorism Mr Bush?

Thank you New Zealand for being a sensible voice and not bowing to Bush.

George Bush Lies

Let us examine the truth of Bush’s statement on 18th March 2003 that “We are a peaceful people”. Here is a list of wars in the last 30 years with involvements initiated by USA in all but one case (bin Laden).

* Vietnam war (-1973)
* Cambodian War (-1975)
* Laotian War (-1975)
* Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1980)
* Lebanese Intervention (1982-1984)
* Grenada Invasion (1983)
* First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988) The U.S. gave logistical and intelligence information to Iraq in its war against Iran.
* Tanker War (1987-1988)
* Panama Invasion (1989)
* Second Persian Gulf War (1991)
* Conflict with Iraq (1991-)
* Somalia Intervention (1992-1993)
* Occupation of Haiti (1994?-)
* Bosnian War (1995)
* bin Laden's War (1998-) including Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Afghanistan.
* Kosovo War (1999)
*The War in Afghanistan (2001-)

Source of war info: The History Guy http://www.historyguy.com/War_list.html

Actually since writing this Bush has attacked several more countries. Isn't it time that the UN took some action against the US?

I first had this idea in 1996, and wrote it in the present form in 1998. I tried communicating it to several political commentators but got no interest. It explains serious weaknesses in MMP that are open to manipulation and offers an alternative VC.

Voter's Choice

This is a proposal for a modification to the voting system in New Zealand. It comes from our experiences of what is good and bad with the old FPP (First Past the Post) system and the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system chosen to replace it. No doubt everyone will have their own view about the relative advantages of each system. This is my view about the shortcomings of the past and present systems and a proposal for a new system that would overcome these shortcomings.

Over the last few elections, the political parties in New Zealand have gradually learned about how the system can operate in parliament by accepting that they may need different allies on different issues and that they may sometimes have to give up, at least for the time being, on certain issues.

A little has also been learned about how to manipulate MMP in certain situations. In part this is due to the 5% threshhold required for parties to get seats (unless they win an electoral seat). However in part it is due to not quite sensing that MMP can actually be highly manipulated by two parties working together, one as electoral candidates and one as list candidates. This will be expanded on further.

Disadvantages of FPP.

1. The biggest disadvantage of FPP was that it was unfair and did not reflect the wishes of the voters. It was possible and did actually happen that one party got less votes than another and yet still received more seats and became the government. Proportional representation is arguably a fair system and any system that does not properly give the correct proportion of MPs according to popular support is arguably not democratic.

2. FPP also made it very difficult for minor parties to get established and so did not represent a diversity of opinions. Supporters of minority opinions were effectively forced to make a choice between parties that did not include their first choice. MMP has addressed this problem, although with the 5% threshhold limit it also introduces the need for second guessing by voters as to whether a party will achieve this and so whether they need to win an electoral seat. The public collectively have been extremely accurate at achieving this, but have had to do some strange things to achieve the results which certainly have some distortions compared to an ideal system.

Disadvantages of MMP.

1. While MMP is intended to be a fairer system it turns out that it is possible for two or more parties to ask voters to support one candidate and a different party and so obtain a share of seats between them that is not in keeping with their actual popular support. Such a possibility was not recognised when MMP was being chosen and it clearly goes against the intended fairness of the system. In past elections this practise was used by National and United to gain a seat for United while still retaining National's full percentage share of seats. However it is actually possible for two connected parties to ask supporters to vote for one party with their party vote and the local candidate for the other party with their candidate vote. In this way they can get almost double their fair share of seats relative to other parties. Clearly such a practise was not intended and would be a miscarriage of justice. It is important that this possibility be eliminated.

2. It may also be argued that MMP is complex and that many people do not understand fully the significance of their two votes in spite of the fact that advertisements were shown that explained the consequences as well as possible. As elections have gone by the public have gradually become wiser in this regard and statements by the electoral officers and party leaders have lead people to understand that it is the party vote that really counts.

3. The lists are very important to determining who the elected MPs will be and yet most people do not have any say in who are on the lists. It is true that people could join parties and have some input into the lists, but a fact that most people are not motivated to do this.

Proposed Voter's Choice electoral system.

It is proposed that each voter have a single vote which they may give to any candidate of any party. If they do not like a candidate for the electorate they live in they would be allowed to vote for a candidate in another electorate. The votes of all parties would be added up and the number of seats that each party receives would be in strict proportion to the number of votes cast for their candidates in total. The actual seats would then be allocated to the candidates of each party that had the most votes of candidates from that party until the required number of seats were filled.

Advantages of VC.

1. A single vote only is made which keeps things simple so that people are in no doubt about where they are placing their support.

2. It does not allow for any possibility of several parties engineering extra seats by electoral accommodations as has been done in a minor way in the last three elections and which could be done in a much more extreme way.

3. The present and past systems assume that the area in which a person lives is the most important issue in allowing the choice of candidates except that race is also considered important for Maori. The Voter's Choice system allows each person to decide what is more important for them, be it having a local MP, someone of the same race, or someone representing a particular minority issue such as greens or christians. The present system allows occupations such as farmers to have good representation because they tend to be concentrated in rural electorates while retired or unemployed people or occupations other than farmers are generaly spread over many more electorates and so do not have the same clout. Under Voter's Choice these people can vote for a candidate that they consider sympathetic to their views rather than a local candidate if they prefer.

4. There is no need for special elecorates for Maori because even if registered in the general roll Maori could vote for a Maori candidate somewhere else if they wanted to. It would then become a non-issue to retain Maori seats - Maori could achieve an effective vote either on the the general or Maori roll without having to re-register. They simply need to vote for a candidate that they consider sympathetic to their cause in some other electorate if they have no local candidate that they like.

5. The voters would make the choice on which candidates from a party were elected rather than the less representative method of making up lists. This means that unpopular candidates cannot be repeatedly foisted on an electorate. Parties have a slight dislike for this idea, because they sometimes feel that they have important candidates who do not present well publicly. At present these can be put on the list or in a safe seat. In practice, they can still be given a safe seat because many or most voters will prefer a local candidate.

6. If a party had more than one faction then the voters would influence how many seats each faction has by their choice of which candidates they vote for. This means that major parties no longer need to fracture in order to allow a diversity of views to be accommodated and should allow greater stability of the major parties. Both National and Labour could have a spread of candidates with, for example, more or less Market economic policies, and the public could decide which factions were more highly represented. Although other aspects of this proposal (specifically the 5% threshhold removal) could be said to increase fracturing, this aspect would work very much to reduce fracturing of parties, making parties more fluid.

7. Voters are not faced with confusion about what to do if they like a party but do not like the local candidate, they simply vote for a candidate from another electorate for the party that they like.

8. All successful candidates would be electoral MPs and would in effect represent those voters that voted for them from other electorates as well as the local area.

9. The number of MPs could, if desired, be reduced to 99 in line with popular wishes and a larger number of electorates included satisfying the heavy electorate workload simultaneously. Alternatively, the number of MPs could be retained as a higher number than the number of electorates. This possibility would almost ensure that each elecorate had at least one sitting MP as at present.

Practical considerations.

When considering how each candidate would vote, this system allows a greater number of possibilities as any voter can vote for any candidate in any electorate. For practical purposes it seems that the best idea would be to have a voting paper with the local candidates on it and a space for "some other candidate". A numbered list of all candidates for all electorates could be shown on the wall, and anyone wishing to vote for some other candidate would simply record the number, name and party of the candidate from that list on to their voting form.

It is proposed that there be no "minimum party support" hurdle as in the 5% threshhold as required by MMP at present. The main reason is that it seems entirely unfair that a party getting 4.5% should get no seats while a party getting 5.5% should get 6 or 7 seats. This unfairness also spills over into voter uncertainty because they must try to guess whether a party will get over the 5% hurdle or not because if not their vote is wasted. Strictly speaking this condition is quite independent of the choice of voting system as it might equally well be changed in MMP or not changed in VC.

Years (well actually decades) ago I used to work doing statistical analysis, which included political party support surveys and such like. I found that the old political commentators method of doing two-party swing was not very good and came up with a better way that also worked for multiple parties. It actually had a similar form to chemical reactions because just as chemicals can convert between different forms such as H2O --> O- and OH+, people can convert from one party to another and the rate of conversion depends on how many people there are there that might convert.

Another thing that I did a little later was to make a 2D diagram of how the NZ parties fitted into a map showing which parties mainly competed with each other. Now I find that there is a web site called Political Compass (click the title to see this) that has a test that you can do that shows where you fall in a 2D diagram with the old left-right axis and another authoritarian-libertarian axis. The extremes of the axes can also be called communism----neo-liberalism and fascism----anarchism but that would probably upset people if they fall near the edges.

I did the test and you can see where I fall, about a quarter of the way between Gandhi and Friedman, or a third of the way between the Dalai Lama and Angela Merkel. Sounds about right to me.

Important suggestion - do the test before exploring the site.

I just noticed also that I fall about a sixth of the way between the Dalai Lama and George W Bush. This is ironic, because I share a birthday with both of them! I also share the Chinese sign of the Dalai Lama, so it is appropriate that I am nearer him (if you believe in that sort of things which I don't). I now see that I have been being unfair to Bush calling him a fascist, he is actually a neo-liberal fascist and I am an almost anarchist.

It is well established in the medical world that the overuse of antibiotics has been responsible for the development of superbugs. Anyone who understands evolution can work it out for themselves. The very few bugs that survive the antibiotic are a little more resistant to the antibiotics and as the process continues a superbug is developed. Even so, doctors continue to overuse antibiotics, writing prescriptions when there is not even any infection. D'oh!

There is another case where an equally silly action is being taken from an evolutionary point of view that does not appear to have been recognised. It is the culling (a polite word for killing) all birds in the vicinity when any one is detected with bird flu. This prevents the development of birds with resistance to the flu. Because the wild birds cannot be effectively culled they will eventually develop resistance, but birds kept by humans for food will not be able to develop resistance. This is a world wide action and it appears that no-one has considered the consequences. Bird flu will not go away because of this action.

I am reminded of King Canute.

Follow the link to "Five Easy Steps To Making Sense of a Senseless World" to read the full article. This is an intelligent and considered statement of important issues by "The Alerted Eye". The following is snippets only:

1) Climate change - Though this issue is often framed by the media as a scientific debate, I firmly believe that that is untrue. Meteorology is a complicated science, and it is sometimes impossible to reach positive conclusions. Rationally speaking, I think we’ve reached the point where there is at least enough statistical significance in the research to show that there is something going on that is at least worth stopping to think about. Can we not all agree on that much? ...

2) The Continuing Spread of Warfare - Despite a long list of political and/or ideological motivations for going to war, it ought to be maintained that violence in human civilzation has ultimately been an economic endeavour. The struggle for land and resources has persisted throughout much of history as the primary cause of aggression. Land and resources are, of course, entirely geographical factors. Western civilization only increased in size and complexity because of its geographical advantage (See “Guns Germs & Steel”). As the fissure between rich and poor nation-states becomes further wedged by the diminishing availability of vital resources and fluctuating accessibility to productive land, desperation will inevitably contribute to the ever increasing anti-western attitudes among those nations that are at an economic disadvantage. If they decide to express this anger using violence, we call it “terrorism.” ...

3) The American Administration - There are many people who like to blame the administration of the American Empire for all the conflict overseas. This is because America has engaged in a number of militaristic endeavours around the world since the end of the Cold War. The specific reasons for going to war have varied from region to region, and have also varied in success. But there is a common theme between all of them: America has consistently tried to depose autocratic or fascist governments in order to replace them with auspicious ‘business-friendly’ regimes. They call it “democratization.” ...

3) Consumerism - Something funny happens when you combine democracy with a free capitalist market. Over time, your vote becomes less important. More important… is what you buy. ...

(hey he really has 2 no.3 items)

4) The Irresponsible Media - The media does not help us to make sound decisions. Now heavily tied-in to the corporate world (through partnerships, buy-outs, mergers and other synergies), the institutionalized media’s agenda is primarily to perpetuate irresponsible consumption habits. This is done by skillfully using the cultural industries (music, movies, television etc.) as platforms for creating false needs among the population. Advertisers employ powerful methods of persuasion, often targeting younger generations who are vulnerable to various social and sexual pressures. By encoding products with different social meanings, the consumer system effectively weaves the act of consumption into the very tapestry of human courtship and everyday social engagement. The popular media is thus a very big part of the problem… much more than a mere “distraction.” The popular media is a continual reminder that “everything is alright” - the collective delusion of an entire civilization in denial. ...

5) Ourselves - I once read that our generation has a very unique responsibility. Ours is the first generation that has the power to end civilization, if we so choose. Ours is the first generation that must overcome human nature and, for the first time ever, choose to have less. We can hope that changes on our Earth will be gradual enough to allow for adaptation, but we can never be sure. It’s up to us. Ordinary people, naked as the day we were born.

All said and done, let me say that I am optimistic. I know there are people out there that think about these things all the time, and have already begun to prepare themselves mentally for the kinds of drastic social changes that our generation will face. Just exactly how it all goes down, I can’t guess. As I said before, I’m only looking at broad trends here, and I could very well be wrong about a number of things (comments are open if you want to fill me in on your opinions). All I know for sure is that “this” will not be a feasible way of life forever.

And where is there hope?

You know, I make a lot of entries in this blog praising the Internet. I really want to express how ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL I think it is. I don’t just think of it as a handy tool, I truly believe it could be the saving grace of human civilization. If you go back and read the problems that I’ve listed, the Internet has the potential to change many of them. It has the power to bring down empires, re-ignite discussion and re-create communities. It puts a great deal of power back into the hands of everyday people, and it is those same everyday people that will rise up and begin to make more informed and responsible decisions.

By virtue of me writing thus, and the fact that you chose to read it, proves that I’m on to something! Because it shows that we are at least thinking about it, and that we do care.

I sent this to the NZ Listener on 5th December 2005 but it was not published.

The Listener
Dear Editor

The Watergate plus 30 years programme on TV1 last night was extremely interesting and timely. It shows that US government can be filled with people that are quite prepared to make decisions that are total unlawful and to commit perjury about it afterwards. No-one took a moral position and stood up to President Nixon and said that these things must not be done.

Now, we see that President Bush is rather more cunning. He has passed secret legislation that does give him the almost unbridled power that Nixon had wrongly claimed to have. This legislation is the first and second so-called "Patriot Acts" that bypass most of the constitutional rights on freedom in the US and allow imprisonment indefinitely without charges, without trial, without appeal to courts and certainly without justice. All this in the name of fighting terrorism and protecting freedom.

It is some time since the torture and humiliation episodes embarrassed the US and UK. Investigations predictably did not find any higher authorities had any responsibility even though it was very clear that they did, and the little guys took the fall. Now we find that the White House is trying to stop a bill that bans torture and inhumane techniques of interrogation. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney claim that the US does not use torture. Why then are they so strongly motivated to prevent this anti-torture bill including the CIA?

There is no doubt that torture is routinely practiced by the CIA, with the Independent newspaper reporting yesterday that "Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was US Secretary of State, said last week that he knew of more than 70 "questionable deaths" of detainees under US supervision up to the end of 2002, when he left office. That figure, he added, was now around 90."

If the US Government is what we depend on for the freedom and justice in the world then we are all in deep trouble.

Sincerely
Ray Tomes