Thoughts after a Tweet

Recently, a friend of mine re-tweeted an aphorism from the Dalai Lama.  I followed with a comment on how I feel the "average" human views such action / advice.
In the USA, it seems, unless we are constantly "promoting" ourselves, and defending such "promotion", we are a failure.  Humble is a handicap, hubris a strength.  Along with the seeming world wide view that the only true "success" is monetary, these views seem to me to be truly the downfall of modern man.

Now I, on the other hand, have a set of beliefs that contain the following:

1) Always try to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated.  It seems to me to be simple respect for a fellow human being.  Being human, you will often fail at perfectly implementing this rule.  But as you keep trying, you will get better and better at it.  Patience and determination will win out.
[Obviously, people with severe mental handicaps are not included in this "aphorism".]

2) When possible, always think before you act.  It seems the "primeval brain" (hippocampus, thalamus, amygdala, et. al) will react in "fight, flight, or freeze" (highly emotional or threatening) situations Before the "thinking brain" has time to act.  (To the best of my knowledge, that is.)  IF you can develop a habit of thinking first, you can avoid all types of problems in situations that are not really "fight, flight, or freeze" situations.  Since perceived "verbal attacks" fall into this category, (evoking immediate response), thinking first allows a lot of potential interpersonal crises to be avoided, or even a true understanding to be reached.  It is a hard habit to truly learn, but once you do, it can be immensely rewarding in your relationships with other humans.

3) Remember always, that you cannot give something you do not possess.  This pertains to time, also.  Do not start something that may take years to complete unless you are willing to devote years to it.  Also, of course, are the "ordinary" things.  Money, emotional support, compassion, understanding, love, et. al..  If you do not "have" these things (possess and understand them), you cannot give them to others.  Not in any way that will help or assist them.  Remembering this will limit the amount, and number of times, you disappoint someone and "let them down".  [Disappointing someone, or letting them down, will usually have a more profound and longer lasting effect than any help you might have given.]

4) If you take an action, or a course of behavior, expecting some personal gain (or reward), do not bother.  You are doing it for entirely the wrong reason, and it's outcome will not be what it should be.
Take the action because you wish to, because you feel it is right, and/or because nobody else is.  In other words, if you are expecting to gain from this action / course, or a reward, your heart will not be "in" your actions.  This will cause you to fail, or worse, to leave things in a state worse than they were initially.
Obviously, I am not writing about investing money (which you do specifically for future gain), or investment in yourself (learning, physical and/or mental training, etc.), which you do for the same reason.

These four "rules", that I try to live by, are by no means all inclusive.  There are others.  Many derived from a set of Main Rules that I try to live by.
All this was prompted by a re-tweet from the Dalai Lama, that a friend of mine made this morning.  I only created this blog entry as an attempt to explain, partially, how I think.
[And to give some insight as to why I think the way I do.]

Cheers, and, of course, comments are always welcome.

Musings on the Money Crisis.

I do not know banking that well.  It seems to me that when you borrow money, you put your life into the hands of the lender.  Not your whole life, but a good portion of it.  The lender gets to "guide" you (by a set of rules) into behaving in ways that benefit them.  These rules are designed in a way that makes you want (or need) to follow those rules.  To be able to borrow, or once you have borrowed money, you have to follow these rules or risk your "lifestyle" (or business).

When I look at the banking industry (sic), I see that the behavior of companies, as well as individuals, is controlled through that set of rules.  The rules force the borrower into behavior that is beneficial to the lender.  Keeping a good credit rating (to keep interest rates down).  Working to keep your cash flow as high as possible (to pay your current debts).  [Whether you are increasing your income, or cutting expenses (or cutting your workforce).] 
The rules guide you into behavior that result in the loans made getting repaid, and more loans being arranged.  It keeps the money (and profits), flowing.  These behaviors are very beneficial to the lender.  They afford the lender an incontrovertible influence over the borrower (whoever they may be).  The rules keep a steady cash flow coming into the lending institution.

I notice, since the "World Wide Recession", that access to money has gotten extremely restricted.  "Money is tight", as they say.  I find this odd, because the worldwide money supply has not gotten smaller.  The money supply has grown, if anything, in the years since 2008.  It makes me wonder how all that money is really getting used.

I find the "news" might be a source of information.  The global news, (BBC, RT, Al Jazeera, France24),  have been reporting, in depth, on the world economy.  Greece, Portugal, Spain, even France, have been having monetary problems.  Most of these countries have been required to secure "bail-outs", to keep their national economies "afloat".  Where are they ultimately getting their funding ?  The countries are ultimately getting their financing from the banks. 

"Bailing out" national economies is big business.  It also requires huge amounts of funds.  Enough funds are required to severely limit the amount of monies available to lend for "normal" business (corporate and individual lending).  [Hence the highly restrictive lending environment that currently exists.]  It also affords the lending institutions a whole new level of control over the world.  If lending institutions can now guide countries, the way they have been guiding corporations and individuals, the world now becomes a very friendly place for these institutions.  A world where the most important thing in that world becomes the health and well being of the lending institutions.

These are the musings of an outsider.  Someone who knows very little about "high finance".  There are many places where I might be getting something wrong, because of a general lack of understanding.  The implications, however, are staggering.  It also makes me wonder, possibly in a fit of paranoia, why the market crash ever even happened (since the crash did setup the current need for bail-outs).

Think about it.

My two cents on Climate change.

O.K., I have to say something.  When I scientist I respect, Neil deGrasse Tyson, takes pot shots on Twitter:  "Climate Change Deniers are often politically conservative", I feel compelled to say something.

If Neils Bohr had started calling Einstein incompetent, and had tried to discredit Einstein instead of (correctly) attacking the "science" behind Einstein's thought experiments, we probably would not have the Quantum theories we have today (if at all).

Bohr did the correct things, the ONLY things he could do when Einstein proposed his thought experiments on how Quantum Mechanics "failed".  This is the type of science, "Bohr's science" that is required to disprove a proposed scientific theory.  No other method can be used to invalidate, or disprove, a scientific theory.

If the scientists at the IPCC had simply shown where the science, or the data, used by the "nay-sayers" was wrong, I would have felt much better, and avidly joined the "team" warning about the dangers of anthropogenic Global Warming.  But when the IPCC actually CHANGED the data in Lamb's original climate report (the same report issued by the IPCC in 1990) to reflect their beliefs, and had any scientist who questioned the data, the models used, or the results  made into scapegoats and PERSONALLY attacked, I called bullshit.

When Michael Crichton denounces "consensus" science and calls for facts, transparency, and peer reviews (and immediately gets castigated by the scientists of the "consensus"), I call bullshit.

I'm sorry.  I believe in the scientific method.  The "consensus" was against Jenner when he suggested infecting someone with cowpox could immunize them against smallpox.  His scientific proof finally won out (with rabid support from the general population).  When Einstein invented thought experiments that poked holes in Quantum Mechanics, Bohr stayed up nights finding the holes in his experiments and presented them, directly, to rebut Einstein's conclusions.  Both are good examples of the ideal way science should be practiced.   Not "Consensus science".  Not hiding the data, or the models, or calling the scientists who don't "believe" dirty names, or banning them.  Not, in fact, by "believing" at all.  But by looking at the data, at the test methods (models in this case), and slowly walking through all the steps used to arrive at the "anthropogenic" result.  If you take the IPCC data, and their models, and accurately follow all the steps taken by the IPCC, you will wind up at the conclusion that there is significant anthropogenic cause for Global Warming.

If you do not.  Then they are wrong.  Period.

The only thing.

Thinking about modern technology, I realize that we have been severely limited in our advancement by the folks who MARKET the technology.  I would go so far as to say an entire industry, and the country as a whole, has been stultified by the "research data" produced by our marketing collectives across the US.  They are all ignorant of what is good for the consumer, and therefore good for the economy & the US.  With the obvious exception of Apple, who regularly defies conventional marketing strategies to create what the people REALLY want (even if Apple has to "manufacture" the perceived need).  [Odd that nobody, since Steve came back, can figure that out.  Maybe they all are listening to their internal marketing staff.  (DUH!)]

Today's case in point.  Telephony.  The basic technology has been in existence for well over one hundred years.  A diaphragm is placed in a way that it will vibrate in response to changes in air pressure (sound).  It is coupled to a transducer, which creates a varying electrical signal in response to the fluctuations in that pressure.  This signal is amplified and transmitted (via wire, radio waves, or both) to a terminal device (another transducer) that has the opposite function of the input transducer (input: microphone; output: speaker).  This is all (now) well known.

Telephone designers have, for most of the past century, been driven by the needs of the consumers who use their devices.  When businesses needed the ability to answer incoming client calls, and have any one in a group of "customer service representatives" answer these incoming calls, the multi-line phone was born.  We've all seen them, a desk phone with a bank of buttons on it, each button being a different phone line.  When the realization came that running a huge number of wires across the country, one pair of wires for each "conversation" taking place, was logistically impossible, "carrier" was created.  Carrier is the multiplexing of up to 24 separate conversations onto a single pair of wires [by means of "piggy-backing" the relatively low and narrow frequency range of the human voice, multiple times, onto a much higher frequency signal (the "carrier") and transmitting that composite signal on two wires to their destination.  Much like how the relatively small (low bandwidth) containers carried by trucks are loaded onto a MUCH bigger ship (high bandwidth) to be delivered to their destination.].

Telephone designers also incorporated this notion (multiple lines/conversations) when designing the last decade's cellular phones.  To wit, the Motorola RAZR, (Motorola has designed the most utile cell phones over the past decades), has the ability to connect the user to up to four separate phone lines.  A business person could use that phone easily to (almost) duplicate the utility they had at their desk.  Wonderful design.

Enter the modern Marketing collective.  What they see is the need to optimize the revenue streams in modern business.  What marketing strategy can provide the needed increases in revenue streams?  In the modern telephony market (cell), it is creating as many contracts as possible from the existing customer base.  After all, profits "need" to grow at around 10% per year.   Since the market is almost saturated, that growth must come from population growth.  OOPS.   THAT is highly unlikely to happen.  Another space to increase contracts must be created (even by artifice).   If every middle income or higher working person can be convinced that they need two cell phones, the required profit increase could be maintained for a number of years.  By only allowing a single "phone line" per cell phone, you (artificially) create the need for separate business and personal phones, which require their own contract to operate in the US telephony system.  TA-DA!!  Problem (temporarily) solved!!

Thus we have arrived at the telephony market as it exists today.  Good for profits (and profits are GOOD for EVERYONE), bad for innovation,  and HORRIBLE for the consumer (business & individual alike).
Do not forget that this telephony "structure", as it exists in the US, limits the profits that can be made by the creators of the devices we use to make calls.  For in the US, (except for Apple), cell phone manufacturers sell their phones to the telephone companies at a much smaller markup than they would if selling directly to the consumer.  This hurts their bottom line, the revenue they have available for Research and Development, and, by extension, the utility, performance, and functionality of the phones they offer for sale.  This "structure" also (almost arbitrarily) increases the price paid by consumers for the basic "cell phone service" they buy, because the price of the phone is hidden in the service cost structure.  The ROI for the telephone company is VERY high (on the initial price of the "phone"), because it is not only recouped before the initial contract expires, but the contract price is not reduced by that amount after the price of the phone has been recovered by the phone company.  Consumers who do not get  a new phone upon the expiration of their contract are being bilked out of that "allotment" money until they do upgrade to a new phone.  This is a good source of revenue for the phone companies.  It is a bad deal for consumers.

What I propose is that the current model for the US telephony market ("Profit:  the only thing") be changed to a model more in line with the European model.  Where the consumer pays for the phone (once, and not continually), and then acquires a service contract for that phone from the telephone company of their choice.  This would accomplish several (IMHO good) things.  First, it would place more profit into the hands of the companies creating the devices.  Leading to more research and development, plus phone features and functions more attuned to the desires/needs of the consumer (and not those merely tolerated by the phone companies).  Since most of the "device manufacturers" also make the equipment that creates and supports the telephony infrastructure, it would most likely lead to a technologically advanced infrastructure (which would benefit everyone involved).   Second, it would lead to the phone companies having to actually charge for the services rendered (and the cost thereof), not "pad" their contracts with some pseudo-calculated amount of money called "device cost recovery".  This could well lead to the phone companies adopting and deploying newer technologies into their infrastructure in an effort to reduce, as much as possible, their outlay for the service they are selling.  If that happened, it would benefit all the consumers.  It might also lead to a more transparent cost structure for the "service" they are providing to consumers.  Third, it would also mean, much to the chagrin of the phone companies, that they would, over time, once again become one of the "utilities" that they were before the creation of the "un-regulated market" (created during and after the Reagan era, with the promise, unfulfilled, of decreasing costs and benefitting the consumer).  This would allow (if only Congress would avail themselves of the opportunity) for regulating the industry with an eye towards a high level of R&D, stability in the basic costs, and long term stability of the phone companies as a segment of the market (all of which would positively impact the US economy as a whole).

Finally, my own personal (greedy) reason for these proposals.  The phone system, and the devices using that system, would be able to function efficiently with multiple (individual) phone "lines" incorporated into each end device (the phone itself).  This could  easily lead to individuals having multiple phone lines as a matter of course.  I can see where it might be desirable to have (off the top of my head), four phone lines (or instances of "service" the phone companies can charge for) per individual.  As follows:  One would be the "family and close friends" line.  The line that rings when someone emotionally important to you calls.  Another would be the "business" line.  Work and work associates would use that line to reach you when they needed.  The third would be the "second class" line.  The phone number used by acquaintances and other people you have met in person (but who have not yet reached the "critically important" level of family and close friends) to contact you.  The fourth line would be your "public" line.  Published in the "phone book" (and/or the online equivalent) and for use by all others.  With the real cost of phone service regulated, transparent, and at a relatively low level, these "vanity" phone lines might just become popular to those who could afford a little more money on "phones".  It would also mean that "basic' (connectivity) service would be quite inexpensive (which would benefit lower income households).  With the proper "marketing", the vanity phone lines would be a stable, additional source of revenue for the phone companies (and probably taxes).  That would stabilize the phone company's  existence in the overall marketplace and make their stock worth buying (assuming they increased their dividends, which would be possible with the additional revenue from these multiple phone lines).

This, to the best of my ability, is how I think the "phone system" could be reconstructed to benefit all the parties involved (including the overall US economy).  I'm sure I have missed some salient points.  I am also sure it is not an "ideal" reconstruction.  But it might just get some people thinking that "the only thing" that really matters is the consumer.

Relatively Speaking.

They say that even if you send a single photon through a diffraction grating at a time, over time, an interference pattern will build up on the "screen" behind the grating.  As if there are more than one photon traveling through the grating at a time.

Scientists theorize an answer to this problem by saying the interference comes from all the "nearby" alternate universes (alternate realities) that are doing the same experiment at the same time.   All these photons are "reacting" with each other and forming the interference pattern as if they were all in this universe.
[Presumably a form of quantum entanglement.]

Star Trek touched upon this with the kid, Wesley Crusher, who found a way, WITHIN himself, to bridge these universes and instantly travel between them, at will.

Fringe (current TV show on FOX) is also basing its long range plot line on a version of this "alternate reality" (alternate universe) theory & making some decent story lines dealing with it.

Since I'm so busy lately <snicker>, I'm wondering if this whole concept isn't a matter of perception.  Even, maybe, quantum mechanics only describes perception.  Because it  seems that in most of these experiments, (Schrödinger's Cat, for instance), we don't come across this "quantum goofiness" until we decide to do something.  Measure something, watch something, even putting the cat & equipment into the box is "deciding something".

Time, also, according to modern physics, is relative and might not even exist at all in the 'absolute' (as Newton thought it did).

What I'm wondering here, is if "all this" is not a result of us observing, deciding,  and trying to "measure" the universe around us.  And if, somehow, we could truly "be" (in the purest Buddhist sense of the term), all these "problems" would be resolved.

And we might "see" the universe (and all around us) with fresh eyes and much clearer understanding.

The New Millennium.

I was just telling some friends that, from my point of view, this new decade seems to really represent the completion of "installing a whole new set of rules" (when it comes to how the world seems to operate).

In the decades after WW II things may have changed, but (with a few exceptions) most of the change was in "amount" (smaller, faster, bigger, more powerful) or in the rate of change, not actually in some totally new direction (IMHO). It seems to me that things just got "MORE", since the end of that war. Whatever trend was begun back then, it seems to me that it just accelerated, not changed direction.

Even with technology, where we laud the changes and the speed of change, the fundamentals are really quite stagnant. Things have not fundamentally changed since the creation of transistors. Yes, we have changed from junction effects to field effects, but the fundamentals are the same. Yes, the "newer, faster, better" items have led to innovations that were not possible using the "old" technology. But it is the same damned integrated circuits. My argument is that the fundamentals had not changed since WW II (or, actually, BEFORE). It can also be argued that even though the underlying technology is quite different, the products brought before the consumers reflect only a size & cost difference between tubes & transistors. Therefore, from that point of view, transistors are just a continuation (or progression) of tubes. Therefore, the technology invented by De Forest and Armstrong has not fundamentally changed since they invented it. Progressed to ever cheaper, faster, and smaller, but not a true fundamental change. Looking back to the early 20th century, many other fundamentals have not really changed. Marketing & advertising, manufacturing, home appliances, architecture, the workings of the economy, building (and home) construction, transportation, communication, entertainment. All these are using the same fundamentals since the beginning of the last century. I think that if you examine the fundamentals of other main aspects of our lives, you will find that they, too, have not really changed.

Don't get me wrong, there HAVE been some interesting, and wonderful, new inventions. The inventions that called for a change in "the basics" were simply not implemented. Too expensive, or not enough vision by the folks with the money. Radical new home designs, for example, contrasted so much with "stick built" homes, that for the most part they were ignored (in ground homes, earth covered, are one example). I'm sure, given a few moments, one can think of other examples.
[Hey, tell me what I missed, or where I'm wrong !!]

From my point of view, this last decade (first of the millennium) seemed to be spent changing everything we know into something new. Really. The way business has to operate (although they don't quite see it yet), the way government needs to operate (again, our leaders don't yet see it), the way the WORLD is functioning [I think Russia & China see it, but the EU, U.S., and Japan (the post-war "western powers") do not yet see what is happening], and even where technology is heading is changing. I can almost see (or imagine) some of the changes taking place in the 1990s, but only when I look back from "here".

I think "human momentum" has now pretty much settled into a general direction, and I'm sure it will change some before it "really settles down".

Two questions assert themselves. One is: "What is next ?".
I wish I knew. I will try to really think about this, but I seriously doubt I can come up with anything that has not already taken place. I'm not that smart.

The remaining question, of course, is how do we bend these new "rules of life" to suit us like we have learned to bend the rules we all grew up with. I suppose that depends on just what these new rules are.

One remaining point. In human nature, as can readily be seen from history, it always costs dearly to cling to something when it is past it's usefulness (when it is over). Throughout history, people, leaders, cultures, and societies cling to something that has been passed by the currents of time, and it always costs far, far, more than it would have to accept and adapt to the changes initially.

The point being that I think we may (yeah, I don't know for sure, so I hedge), be in or entering a "time of change". Much like at the beginning of the industrial revolution, only more encompassing and intense. I am SURE our companies and government do not see it. They do not even have a clue.

If so, we are sure to pay. Very dearly and for an extended period. Those that have the most to lose will cling the tightest to what they have. And we might all pay for the "transition".

Welcome to the new millennium. :-)

An Interesting Year.

WOW ! 2010 has almost passed. This year has been interesting. "Chinese curse" style interesting.
I've been out of work for 15 months. Partly because of the economy, partly because of a (I HOPE) mid-life crisis. This "crisis" pertains to the fact I no longer want to do what I have been doing. I need another career. Or some other type of stimulus. Either work in a completely different field, or a completely different role in my current field. Maybe bee-farming in Sussex Downs. :-)
I have worked with / on / in computers since 1978. Programming (Real Time & Userland), Systems programming, minor kernel mods, data communications (wrote a distributed processing API). Almost all in UNIX (with a little UNIVAC thrown in). Mostly in 'C'. Mostly on Solaris (BSD & SVR4). I then wanted to really know what, exactly, this "box" was that I was using to make things happen. I became a Systems Administrator. Sun / Solaris, Linux, & BSD (Intel). I also worked a bit in networking. Routing, TCP/IP, UDP/IP, Sendmail, DNS, RIP, OSPF, etc.. Never really a networking expert (IMHO), but can troubleshoot, setup & configure, manage, and understand all but highly technical networking discussions. I know Sun hardware pretty damned well, and also use Apple Macs at home (with BSD & RedHat boxes too). I have had Intel machines at home since 1982, and UNIX on Intel since 1986. I reconfigured sendmail to use UUCP and was regularly using email in (and since) 1986. I have mostly worked in trading environments, with a couple of web companies and massive data access companies as a "change of pace".
The point is, I need change. I no longer want to work 60+ hour weeks just to get a salary. Besides getting "my house" in order during this past year, I have decided I would either like to teach (tech or history) or manage/supervise a tech department. Obviously a Systems Administration group or possibly web development group. I have done systems design, software design, (some) project management, and managed several different Sys-Admin groups at different companies. I like that work. I like getting things done. I really like allowing younger folks to learn how to think (about the job).
So this next year will, indeed, be a new year. I will pursue my "new career" with zest, and find a new place to ply my (new) trade. It will be an interesting year.

John Lennon and me.

So. After 30 years of listening to other people dictate the meaning that this day has (and the meaning that was forced to pass because of this day), I have decided to foist my opinion onto the world at large.

I do not remember the time. I was already in bed, listening to the radio, as I was wont to do to fall asleep, and heard the news. John Lennon had been shot. The second report included more details, including "multiple shots". It was then I knew he was dead.

Unfortunately, and typical for humans, ** I ** felt. I mourned. I was angry. I was sad. I was 'empty'. Initially, it was all about me.
[Don't let anyone fool you. "Me" is not just boomers !]

At my age, the Beatles, and then Lennon alone, acted as my "early warning system". He had experienced life, internalized the experience, then wrote/sang about it. His vocalized experiences became another voice in my head, telling me of a possible way to look at things that were happening to me. His writing/singing also taught me, quite passively, to listen to others. That mine was not the only opinion that counted. Because of him, I became more open. I am more willing to really listen to someone elses' view on a subject.  To understand and even change my mind.

Is Lennon responsible for who I am today ? No. I have taken what I heard, saw, and read about Lennon and have incorporated my interpretation of that into my "being". Have I become "another Lennon" ? No. Apart from the fact that he was unique, Lennon, and others I have met or read about, have given strength to the (more or less) quiet voices inside me. Making me more plastic, more flexible, more open to outside ideas and influences. I am still me, nobody else. But I am different than the me I would have become had Lennon never existed.

So I missed him, much like the professor you had for your life sciences class. He lectured you, you had a few one-on-ones, and he helped you through some tough times with a few sage options as you traveled your path. It took a little while to realize that this loss I was feeling was most likely magnified by over a billion times, as the others around the world, affected by his life (like I was) would now be affected by his death.

Briefly, that is "John Lennon and me". What I think and feel of his influence & impact on me. Yes, it is a singular point of view. How can it be anything else ? [No. It does not mean that anyone else does, or has to, feel or think this way.]

As far as I can determine, very, very, few people knew John Lennon. Yoko, Paul, George, Ringo definitely did. As did George Martin. His kids & Cynthia. Only people who spent a lot of time with him could possibly know him. Everyone else just has opinions of what he was and was like.
This especially includes the "in crowd" and interviewers who spent 10 hours with Lennon out of his entire life. They could not possibly know him.

Limited exposure to him (as in my case) has left most of humanity with "fragments of Lennon" that have been filled in (like a jig-saw puzzle) with pieces of ourselves. We naturally call the resultant mosaic "the John Lennon we knew".

The easiest person in the world to delude is "me" (ourselves).

Dangerous RF ? My Opinion.

I hear, see, and read in a lot of different places about the "dangers of electromagnetic radiation". I also am informed from across the information universe that people who believe that electromagnetic radiation is affecting them are the next best thing to luddites.

What confuses the hell out of me is that BOTH sides of this discussion talk of "radiation". The side that refutes possibly damage from electromagnetic radiation always talks in terms of "Power", radiated power (they usually have scientists on this side). The side that insists that damage can happen always chooses to try to refute the "power arguments" of the other side.

There are two concepts here. One is the effect of a photon hitting something, the other is power.
The two measurements, "amount of effect" and "power" are unrelated. UNRELATED.

Electromagnetic radiation is carried in a particle called a photon. Light is
electromagnetic radiation. Light is carried by photons. Radio "waves" are actually streams of photons traveling away from the broadcast antenna. ALL radio "waves" (microwave, cell phones, TV, 'radio', X-Rays, RADAR, WiFi) are actually streams of photons. The "Power" of a radio (TV, cell phone, microwave) is actually a measurement of the NUMBER of PHOTONS carried in the "radio wave". This is a fact of physics. I no longer remember the exact equations involved (36 years way from radio engineering). BUT, you can look it up on the web. I'm right (as far as I go).

There is another factor here. Each photon is a "packet of energy". ALL photons are are considered packets of energy. Since photons make up radio waves, microwaves, light, and X-Rays, they "fit in" across a wide band of electromagnetic radiation (called 'EM' from here on). EM radiation is divided into 'sections', to make it easier to describe. These sections are grouped by perceived common behavior. The entire range of EM is divided by frequency into "bands" (we know this, FM, AM, Short wave, etc.).

As it happens, this banding by frequency is not arbitrary, there is an equation for describing the amount of energy in a "packet of energy" (photon). The energy contained within a single photon is expressed: E = hf where 'f' is the frequency of the EM radiation, and h is Planck's constant. In common terms, the amount of energy contained in a photon increases as the frequency of that photon increases.  They are directly proportional.
This "energy of the photon" is (to a great extent) what "counts" when considering the interaction of a photon with other particles. In other words, a low energy photon (radio wave) can hit an atom and nothing will happen. The photon will bounce off. [There is the effect of "hop over", where the low frequency photon has such a long wavelength that it "hops over' the atoms and molecules. Which is why lower frequency radio waves penetrate into buildings, etc..] Even at frequencies up to that of light, photons mostly bounce off. Microwave radiation (like in your kitchen) also mostly bounces off of individual atoms. The difference with microwaves (and any frequency up to ultra-violet) is that while the energy of the photons is not enough to knock "pieces" off of individual atoms, they DO carry enough energy to move the atoms a bit upon impact (they heat up the atoms). This is how microwave cooking works (only with continuous streams of photons, heating noticeable numbers of atoms and molecules).

O.K., so we have the effect of radiated power, which is the amount of photons in any given "stream" of EM.  Brighter light, better cell phone reception (more bars), higher heat level in your microwave oven, all these are variations of power. We also have the size of the effect a single photon has when it hits something. The energy carried by the individual photon. This effect can, and does, mostly decide what happens when matter is exposed to EM radiation. It is not the amount of energy packets hitting you, it is the size of the energy packet. [You can let 10 2 year old kids hit you all at once, and you would worry about the kids getting hurt.  Letting George Foreman hit you ONCE, and you will be worrying about how close is the nearest hospital.]

Which leads us to the "matter" in all the preceding statements being organic in nature.

We can safely say that at any frequency below about 1 Giga-Hertz a photon will either "step over" most of the atoms and molecules in an organic body or will bounce off them without having enough energy to move them or alter them in any observable way. At frequencies from around 1 Giga-Hertz and up, the energy contained in a photon can, *if* it hits a certain type of atom in a certain place, cause the atom (or molecule) so change its chemical properties. In an exceedingly small number of cases, this molecule or atom will be part of something critical (DNA, for example).

So, in my estimation, considering the over 6 billion humans on this planet, and the trillions of cells in the human body, PLUS the trillions of photons traveling through (or into) our bodies that are over 1 Giga-Hertz in frequency, there can be some negative health effects from prolonged and frequent exposure to Cell & WiFi wireless signals. Maybe one person out of 100 million, but the odds are that someone, somewhere, at some TIME will be affected.

As of 02/22/2011, it seems like I am not the only one considering these ideas: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract/

As of 05/31/2011, it seems like the WHO (World Health Organization) has data from some studies done that are backing up my theory.  The WHO has NOT, however, made a direct connection between cell phone usage and cancer, they have so far stated that it is possible (not probable).
 

This blog entry WILL be further edited by me to correct errors and clean it up. Just not now. This is to be considered a second draft.

A Matter of Perspective.

One of the more interesting philosophies embraced by the "counter culture" of the 1960s was the alternative concept of success. In general, it stated that the normal measures of success (wealth, power, and position) were invalid. It held that success was to be measured by either the good you do, the love you create, and/or the amount of affection you have for your pursuits. Idealistic and impractical, but not an altogether unattractive way of looking at the world.
As the number of these "hippies" grew, by incorporating converts (with a converts zeal), their message changed and became self centered (MY fun, MY 'space', etc.). These highly self centered kids went back into society and became the highly self centered managers and executives we have today. The same management that now requires total dedication to their cause (their bottom line) and eliminates anyone who happens to have the same attitudes that they were attracted to as kids. The two greatest weapons they wield are their self centered arrogance and a filing cabinet full of "shoulds" that they apply to everyone but themselves.

An aside here, if you do not already know this be WARY ! "Should" is the most evil word in the English language. It is ALWAYS used in the context of one person (or a group) defining, without permission, the actions, behavior, or beliefs of another person (or group). It is, by definition (and usage) a word that IMPOSES one persons (or groups) will on others. EVIL, EVIL, EVIL !!!!

We now find ourselves in the present, with almost a whole generation of these hippies now converted to the pursuit of Power, Wealth, and Control. These folks are also old enough to have attained much of the wealth & power they pursued. They have inculcated their offspring with their methods and goals. Armed with their array of "shoulds", these folks are now in a position to impose these "shoulds" on everyone else. They have done so with surprising alacrity.

Which leads to "me". I have never really dreamed or planned for monetary success. I have never really cared. I have pursued my profession with great zeal because I LIKE it. It is FUN. My problem is that I have never subscribed to the modern version of success. I have always thought of success in the terms of the original hippies.

As a result, I have tired of 14 hour days. Months without a real break. Years without a vacation. In living my profession, I have burnt out.
Which is kind of interesting, because up until two years ago, I attacked my profession as voraciously as anyone. Worked quite a few 24 hour and even 48 hour "shifts". Not complaining, but solving problems and having FUN. I have led teams in certain projects, been the "responsible" guy, even "the answer man". But I never wanted to move up the corporate ladder. Which put me at odds with "the system". I technically have become a failure. Not a successful man.

But as I stated in the beginning, it is all a matter of perspective. The hippies avoided the capitalistic trappings of our society (their faults are the subject of another, LONG discussion, which I will avoid here). The convert hippies embraced the wealth & power road to success. They both consider themselves successful.
==

As to my personal situation, I blame my "life coach". He has convinced me to make some dubious choices. I have considered firing him, but what would I do without ME.
:-) :-)

"Land" of Equality.

I never realized what an equalizer the various "Social Nets" are to the world.

I have always been one to readily extend my hand in friendship to whomever I happen to meet. Only when someone tries to take the hand, spit on it, or break one of my fingers have I backed off and wiped the memory of their existence from my mind. I have recently discovered that on the Internet, I need to be more circumspect in acting on my instincts. (Silly me.)
I guess the best way to treat the various "Social Networks" is to imagine them synonymous with walking down a long dark alley at 3 AM. You pretty much want to keep both hands in your pockets, and not do a lot of "interfacing" with the folks you meet. Thereby keeping your hands intact and unspoilt.

The Internet Equality stems from allowing folks of all "races", creeds, nationalities, and religious beliefs equal access. Unfortunately, this also includes equality for folks of all the various mental states, as well. The paranoid, the righteous, the "me first (and only)", and the "well adjusted" all have equal access.

Well, after a couple of recent episodes of almost losing my hand, I have finally "got it". I am chastised, and am currently allowing my hand to rest, hoping for a complete functional recovery.
:-) :-)

Not all "Social Nets" are alike.

I have grave reservations about Facebook security. I have therefore started using Orkut (and this blogger). It seems, though, that I can only post "messages" to this blogger, and not to Orkut. I was looking to just "say something", without "sending" it anywhere (forcing folks to read it), but apparently only through a blog can this be accomplished.

Alas, I will have to curb my desire to communicate in non-sequiturs.

Free Money.

I have this habit of every day, taking whatever coins I have in my pocket and putting it in a container. It started out as coffee cans, then went to empty gallon "bottles" of Arizona Tea. I have been doing this for quite some time, since I moved into my current house (20 years). There have been times I have been out of work, and I have raided the jugs several times, for an approximate total of $ 150.00. Well, THIS year, I have been a bit hard pressed, and was forced to cash in all the coins to pay bills, etc.. I am still surprised to find that the total amount left in the jugs has been right around $ 330.00. This won't buy you a new car, or a "big ticket item", but it will buy several trips to the grocery store, or pay a month's electric & gas bill.

Not bad for "free money".

Awakening.

Well, it looks like I'm becoming a "social creature". In the last two months, I've signed up on twitter, and started making changes to my old (but unused) orkut account. I think it is a good idea to get and stay more 'connected', but also to start using all this as tools, instead of the tech-weenie approach (Tech for the sake of tech).

Considering my past dedication to my online presence, I doubt I'll be contributing anything on a regular basis, but I intend to TRY. We'll see how THAT goes. :-)

Of course, in the past, my job was sucking up 14 to 16 hours per day, so my desire to be online was significantly dampened by the time I got home. We will see how THAT turns out, also. I am not sanguine about any frequent or long blog (or other) posts coming from an employed me.

:-)