Multiple Redundancy

Try to Understand

2011-11-06T15:12:00.000-05:00

Cognitive Resources are limited. You only have so much cognitive energy to allocate each day, and how you choose to do so reflects powerfully on your personality. If you devote your cognitive energy largely to solving problems at work, you are likely to be driven, successful individual, for example, but you might have no energy left to deal with your family when you get home. It is obvious that people choose to allocate this scarce resource in widely divergent fashions. You may be far more interested in tracking your local sports team than in recent news on the possible dissolution of the Euro.

With this in mind, I am conflicted about the lack of empathy I observe among those around me. Note, here, the difference between empathy (the ability to understand and share the feelings of another) and sympathy (feeling bad for someone else's misfortune). When juxtaposed, sympathy is a comparatively selfish emotional response. In effect, when you feel sympathy for someone, you are saying "I would hate if that happened to me - therefore they must hate that it's happening to them." This is a simple reaction, requiring little in the way of cognitive resource expenditure. It doesn't push you to consider a different frame of reference or state of mind. You're simply projecting your own reaction onto other people, and assuming that theirs is likely the same.

Empathy, on the other hand, requires significant cognitive energy output. To do it effectively you have to re-frame your entire worldview and bring it in line with that of another person. Rather than projecting your own understanding of a situation out, you're pulling someone else's in. This involves first an identification of issues important to the other person, then an analysis of their state of mind (emotional, pragmatic, etc.), and a variety of other cognitive twists as well. It's not easy. Despite this, it is absolutely necessary for any meaningful connection with another person. Without empathy, you're stuck in your own bubble dealing with two-dimensional avatars, not three-dimensional human beings. Without empathy, there is no communication. Without communication, there is no connection.

I try to empathize with everyone with whom I interact. I don't succeed. I don't expect others to succeed where I, myself, cannot. However, I don't see even a moderate effort at empathy on most peoples' part. I see a theory of mind that stops at awareness that other people have distinct experiences; a theory of mind that refuses to acknowledge the validity of those distinct experiences, insofar as it doesn't push people to try to see things through the frames created by those experiences.

An ode to the incomplete

2011-11-06T13:57:00.000-05:00

The primary impediment I face in maintaining a blog is a desire to present only crystalline thought. The idea is simple: if I only present lock-tight perspectives, I will insulate myself from criticism. As it turns out, this is not necessary. Some critiques are valuable - they help present new avenues of thought that I had not considered. Likewise, freeing myself to present ideas that are not fully fleshed out will promote further thought - I don't need to have all the answers before I share. Having realized this, let's see if I can put it into practice and actually update this thing more than once in a blue moon.

2011-07-13T10:05:00.000-04:00

Today I saw a blind boy. He was climbing the stairs between two subway platforms, moving from one train to another. It was rush hour, and behind him writhed the thronging masses of rush hour commuters, desperate to be somewhere else. The boy seemed oblivious, patiently ascending one step at a time, his face radiating a pleasant smile, his hand gripping the railing. He was unable to account for those caught behind him on the stairs, and so he simply paid them no mind. They would have to wait.

The people behind him showed an altogether different awareness, both from the boy and from one another. The few immediately behind, close enough to see his tentative steps, his dark sunglasses, and his red and white cane, seemed distraught. Their faces were a mix of near anguish and utter frustration. Normally when someone holds up a line of eminently (self)-important men and women during rush hour there is hell to pay. Angry shouts would be heard reverberating down the tunnel as shoulders are shoved and quick feet dart through the tiniest gap. But for those few with full awareness of the holdup, they could feel only frustration and, correspondingly, shame at their lack of empathy for the boy.

Of course they would rather have moved unhindered to their train. Of course they are irritated by this unjust impediment. Yet they know there is not so great a rush as they would pretend, and so their irritation turns back on itself and becomes guilt for holding this boy responsible for his infirmity and their slowed progress.

Those further back had no such guilt. They lacked knowledge of the reason for the holdup and, justifiably or not, assumed it to be mere incompetence or insensitivity on someone's part. Here were glowers, frowns, glares, and a whole panoply of angry facial contortions more typical of rush hour delays. As I walked past them knowing, as I did, the source of their anger, I wished I could dispel it with a a simple gift of knowledge. "You are not in so great a hurry that the slow pace of the young blind boy ahead should cause you such anger. Let him travel as he does and, soon enough, you will be back on your way."

But in the hurried crush of rush hour there is no time for such conversation. I went on my way, the boy on his.

2009-08-13T00:34:00.001-04:00

We’re stuck on this tiny ball of rock. We can’t really get off, so, for the foreseeable future this is it. Look around you: left; right; down… but not up. That’s it. That’s everything we have to work with. All the oil, coal, and gas we can possibly burn lies beneath our feet. Sure, when you’re standing on the surface of this ball it looks awful big. But go up maybe 25 miles – a 20 minute drive on most highways – and you’ll start to see just how small it is.

While you’re up there, you’ll notice something else too –how large we’ve become. Did you know there’s not a single place on the surface of our world where you can’t detect the traces of humanity? Travel into the deepest heart of the Amazon and you’ll hear the whirr of chainsaws or the whoosh of jet liners flying overhead. There’s a reason some scientists claim we’ve entered a new geologic age – the Anthropocene.

Our world glows with the light of human invention. It’s a truly beautiful image, made possible by the incredible growth in knowledge we’ve achieved over our brief history. But it is still the image of a civilization in its infancy. Sir Isaac Newton – one of the founders of modern science – once said, "If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." It is a noble thing to give credit to one’s predecessors, and right to do so.

Today, rather than standing on the shoulders of our ancestors, we are burdened by their weight. So many trillions of man-hours, and so many millions of livelihoods, have been poured into legacy technologies and systems that we can barely conceive of doing away with them. This is partly due to fear of the unknown, but there is a more legitimate source of momentum to overcome as well – all that work has produced astounding results!

From one gallon of decayed plant matter we can propel ourselves and our belongings more than a day’s walk at a speed only the fastest of natural creatures can match. This is an achievement to be celebrated, as it has fundamentally changed the way we interact with our world. However, the fact that it works so very well is no reason to ignore the development of newer, better technologies – especially now that we know the side-effects of our ancestors’ ingenuity threatens all that they began.

No such legacy system has any inherent right to a continued existence. If it is truly the best at what it does, it easily will fend off all challenges. However, if there are other, superior ideas, it is positively criminal to hinder their development. Likewise, attempts to retrofit these antiquated ideas, rather than replace them outright when new developments show great promise, are foolish and short-sighted. When creativity may only flourish in pre-ordained fields; when truly new ideas are smothered by entrenched interests; we all lose.

The internal combustion engine is only one example of such societal inertia. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to suggest others. Particulars aside, the general principle remains true: stagnation of innovation will destroy our civilization.

The Bonuses are Just a Distraction

2009-03-25T18:35:00.001-04:00

This post is excerpted from a comment thread found here. I’ve pulled out the original post and made some alterations for clarity. The subject is the AIG bonuses and the bailout the company received.

About the current CEO:

He's being paid 1 dollar a year.
He gets no bonuses, either way.
He gets no stocks.
He didn't sign these contracts, he inherited them.

About the people who tanked AIG: (the CEO said it was only about 25 people within the AIG Financial Products branch that caused all this mess, and they’ve all left the company already)

They are gone.
They were few.

About the people who received the bonuses:

They did not kill AIG
They were offered these bonuses last year, to stay for another year, and clean up the mess.
They reduced $2.7 trillion of shit to $1.6 trillion of shit.

About the bonuses:

They are less than .1% of the bailout money.
They were offered last year, to retain people (NOT the people who caused the problem in the first place) until they cleaned up the mess.
They were NOT meant to retain people for next year.

What if we didn't pay them?

The people who are (successfully) cleaning up the mess, would leave.
Then, they would sue (rightfully so).
AIG would have to try to replace them, while trying to prevent losses on the suddenly 'unmanaged' accounts.
AIG might be forced into bankruptcy, for defaulting (aka: we lose).
AIG might survive, but take further losses, and need more help (aka: we lose).

Personal thoughts:

The current CEO deserves nothing but respect, but instead, he gets death threats.
The people who stayed on, and cleaned up the mess, deserve to be well paid. They saved us a ton of money, and the bonuses are marginal in comparison.

Analogy:

The people from FP (financial products) are the burger flippers at McDonalds. The people who got the bonuses work the counter at McDonalds. The burger flippers made some seriously shitty burgers. They got fired. The counter crew has spent the last year trying to find places to safely unload those burgers (worm farms, bacteria labs, etc.) It was a dirty job, and Mike Rowe wasn't available.

This post is made based on analysis of the full hearings on C-Span that occurred last week. I haven’t had time to watch them myself, but the above summary seems reasonable and I wanted to share it. Feel free to click the link at the top and see the rest of the discussion in the comment thread.

Update: I’ve been thinking more about this and wanted to make something clear. I, personally, make no statement as to the morality of giving out bonuses when AIG has become the world’s largest Welfare Queen. I’ve seen reasonable arguments on both sides (For bonuses: They’re the only payment these people are receiving, and they’re the only ones who can handle this mess right now; Against bonuses: they should be putting every dime toward maintaining solvency) and I see no clear answer.

The only point the above post addresses is whether or not the people receiving bonuses are, in fact, the ones responsible for nuking AIG in the first place. They do not appear to be, and as such are not deserving of our scorn on that basis.

Silly Graphics, Scary Politics, Uplifting Science

2009-03-18T17:39:00.001-04:00

Silly Graphics:

Herein lies a timeline of the internet, from it's genesis in Al Gore's brain, to its current incarnation: a clusterfuck of cute cats, illiterate teens, racist hillbillies, and militant atheists. Isn't progress grand?
After rejecting a twitter app for the app store, I'd thought Apple's censors were somewhat... suffocating. Well, looks like I was wrong! They let this little number slip by unhindered. So the key, apparently, is to be surreptitious with your vulgarity.

Some say the world will end in fire, others say in ice. I say it'll be crushed under the weight of its own stupidity if we let elect this woman.

This next image isn't particularly clever or funny, but it's cool nonetheless. It's a geographic map of New York City plotting the locations of a multitude of sitcoms. Anyone know how accurate these are? Most of the ones I'm familiar with seem to be correct.

Politics:

Diebold, a company capable of making top-notch tamper-proof ATMs, isn't competent enough to fix a 10 year old problem with the electronic voting machines. What problem, you ask? Oh, nothing major. Just deleted votes and erased activity logs. You know, the kind of thing that can totally destroy elections.
In possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 Military troops were dispatched to assist in law enforcement activities in Alabama on March 10th. After swirling around such paranoid haunts as infowars and prisonplanet, it now appears that there will be a legitimate investigation into this incident.
Some people call Barack Obama smug. I'm generally not one of them, but this gives me some reason to reconsider.

Science

Scientists have now developed a new (to me) definition of intelligence, along with a new way to measure it. Apparently, intelligence can now be defined as the 'processing speed' of the brain, which is determined by the thickness of myelin, a cellular insulator, around a certain part of brain cells called the Axon. Thicker myelin allows for faster transmission of signals along the axon, which leads directly to improved data processing capacity. Also, myelin thickness is genetically determined, so there may (eventually) be genetic therapies capable of improving inborn intelligence.
The Daily Show has an amusing clip titled: The US Ends its War on Science, the One War We were Winning. Amusing and snarky as always, but it brings to light an important point: we now have an administration in power that favors the promotion of technological and scientific advancement in areas beyond the best way to spy on/blow up/kidnap enemies. Even better, Obama & Co. appear to believe that it's our right as citizens to see, firsthand, what research our tax dollars are funding. To that end Obama signed into law a bill codifying a wonderful requirement: that all National Institute of Health research be made freely available to the public on PubMed.

Links in a new format

2009-03-17T18:29:00.001-04:00

I feel like experimenting!

In a fit of moral outrage, the genius cried tears of grief. “Texas has no right to launch such ridiculous, false accusations at our brave and wounded heroes,” he shouted. Only Jon Stewart’s razor wit could right such a wrong.

TBH, the above was as much about trying a new format as it was about writing less today. My head hurts and this seemed like a good excuse to be brief.

And now, a picture!

One more link

2009-03-16T18:38:00.001-04:00

One more link today. this warranted a bit of extra commentary, so it's being posted separately from my usual daily link list.

Here you will find an OpEd written by Senator Jim DeMint, the junior senator from South Carolina. In it he argues against the expansion of government-run health care. Specifically, he provides two tragic anecdotes about ill people in countries with universal health care. He claims that such systems are inherently flawed, resulting in poor standards of care and long waits for that care.

The piece appears to be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction inspired by more generalized fears of Big Government. DeMint makes no claim in support of the privatized system at work in this country. He makes no argument for the relative effectiveness of an alternative. All he does is attempt to poke holes in one system of health management.

Here, in his own words, is the crux of DeMint's argument:

Armed with its Health IT-based [Comparative Effectiveness Research] studies, the federal government can start rationing health care as it must to control the costs of a massive universal system.

This strikes me as a wonderful argument if your goal is to ironically point out the holes in a capitalist system. There are several notable differences between a government and a corporation. Both organizations have a strong incentive to decrease costs and increase efficiency, but those incentives differ wildly from one-another. Corporations strive to earn a profit however they can (within the bounds of the law, presumably). If this means denying those with a legitimate need because of some bureaucratic hiccup or an a rule governing 'preexisting conditions,' so be it. When profit is the only motive, and approving an insurance claim is viewed as a failure, the only result is an adversarial relationship between those who need help and those who are paid to help them. This simply makes no sense.

Governments have no such motive. Instead, their goal is to provide the service to as many people as possible, as effectively as possible, for a host of reasons: a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce; a healthier electorate is more likely to positively view those politicians responsible for their care... I'm sure you can think of others.

Socializing medical care is not a perfect answer, but that criticism only holds water if we knew of a perfect alternative. The system we have in place now is clearly not such an alternative. That said, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to attempt something different - something that will protect all of us equally, without regard for income or the vagaries of luck.

For the sake of wrapping up, here's my biggest reason for being in favor of socializing medicine: medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. That means that you, and everyone you know, are just one really bad doctor's visit away from the poor house. Does it really seem fair to penalize the sickest among us by heaping debt onto their already weakened shoulders? I say no.

Links Links Links

2009-03-16T18:01:00.001-04:00

Science

Apparently it is now possible to rebuild entire sections of brain tissue that were killed off during a stroke (in mice). Stem cells to the rescue yet again. Via Technology Review

Time is really a bizarre concept, when you stop and think about it. Don't believe me? Check out what Discover Magazine has to say about time.

Politics/Economy

Ben Bernanke is remarkably optimistic! He's now saying that an economic recovery will begin as soon as next year. Hope he's right... Via NYT

President Obama is trying to prevent the $100,000,000+ in bonuses that AIG plans to hand out to its employees. Good on ya, mate. Hope you find a way to pull it off. Via NYT

Honestly, the title of this opinion piece by Paul Begala can't be made any more concise, and it's too aggravating a subject to be snarkified: "Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal." Via CNN

Everything Else

Avon is trying to turn us all into zombies. Hasn't anyone there ever played Resident Evil? Well, actually, probably not... Via io9

There's an awesome-sounding comic that I was totally unaware of in which Superman and Batman team up to fight pretty much the entire USA, which has for some reason elected Lex Luthor as president. Also, there's a kryptonite meteor threatening to destroy the world. Bad. Ass. Via io9

I recently bought an ipod touch, breaking my vow to never purchase anything from Apple. I've been very pleased with the device thus far, and have tolerated the thought of giving my money to that company. Now... not so much. If you buy the new ipod shuffle, you're going to need to get yourself a new pair of headphones that's OKed by Apple. Read the article and fume silently, like me, or maybe vent your anger in the comments. Via Gizmodo

My friend Nick sent me this link, along with this short message: "Looks like it's time to move to New Zealand." Well said, sir.

Linkfest

2009-03-13T23:06:00.001-04:00

Glenn Beck thinks that Obama is trying to institute a eugenics program. This man is so paranoid it's scary. Via Bob Cesca

Spiderman is REAL! No exaggeration. Via CBS.

An awesomely cute dog got frozen to a lake and a bunch of firemen saved him. Pictures here.

This baby is FREAKING OUT. Animated gif here.

I found a bunch of cool color pictures from the 1930s and 1940s. Check them out here.

41 observations about the US by some British dude. Some are quite hilarious, others incisive, and a few downright confusing. Also, he mentions hoverboards. Sweet.

2009-03-12T18:03:00.002-04:00

Apparently the TARP money that's being used to bail out banks is really being used to fund politicians' campaigns. At least, some of it is, anyway. Via Open Left

There is a politician from Florida who thinks 'animal husbandry' means people marrying animals. I'm serious. I want to say something snarky here, but I don't think I can make this any more pathetic than it already is. Via AOL News.

Mr. T is the goddamn man. That said, I never thought I'd see him described as "sickeningly sprightly." That makes him sound like some kind of sugary breakfast cereal. Via Times Online

The entire New York State government needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. Apparently, thanks to the promise of new stimulus funds, new taxes on soft drinks and music downloads will be abandoned due to opposition in the state legislature. What about the tuition increases for state college students, or the MTA cutbacks and price hikes, you ask? Apparently our glorious leaders think those are just peachy. Via New York Times

Another breakthrough in battery tech that could lead to lighter batteries that recharge in seconds instead of hours. These 'breakthrough' stories crop up about once a week, though, so don't get your hopes up (but this one does sound promising! Really! I mean it!). Via MIT News

A Battlestar Galactica Panel discussion will be held at the United Nations. Now, if you'll excuse me, it's raining and I've got to gather up the donuts for breakfast tomorrow. Via Chicago Tribune

The nation's biggest nurse's union is pushing for a single-payer health care system. I think we should listen to them, personally. Nothing funny here - we need to fix the goddamn health care system ASAP. It's simply appalling. Via Democracy Now

Turtle Rapes Shoe. Yep. Via Youtube

And now a funny picture:

Multiple Redundancy Resurrected!

2009-03-12T17:43:00.001-04:00

I've decided to share all my wonderful links with the world. Also, I don't want to spam my friends' facebook news feeds with 10 links a day. Therefore, I will resurrect this old blog as a repository for all my awesome linkage. Enjoy!

2007-09-24T13:49:00.000-04:00

Now many not be the best time to invest in coastal property...

Perhaps it'd be a better idea to just leave this dimension entirely! Start fresh in a parallel universe!

2007-06-02T19:44:00.000-04:00

I found two hilarious old internet websites. Check em out:

How to get rid of a Telemarketer

and

Our secret weapon against the Taliban

2007-05-25T12:45:00.000-04:00

Hey y'all. The place I'm working at just put out a new video about Solar Two: a replacement for Solar 1 and, once constructed, NYC's first Carbon-Neutral building.

Go over to the youtube page itself and vote this thing up!
Also, go vote it up on its Digg page Here

2007-05-16T08:51:00.000-04:00

Jerry Falwell is dead.

I’ve never been a fan of the man or his actions, but I’m not quite sure how to take the rapid-fire venomous attacks on him that have been cropping up all across the blogosphere. On the one hand is my strongly held opinion that any death should be mourned. On the other hand is my relief that such a hateful person can no longer influence people.

At the very least, there should be some civility in the discussion for a little while.

I have no stomach for character attacks. I would much rather see the discussion center around statements like “Falwell’s message of intolerance was terrible,” rather than “Falwell was a heinous psychopath.” Unfortunately, the conversation about religion in this country has become so polarized that many will latch onto Falwell’s death as some sort of victory for non-religious, and the best way to make use of that is to demonize the person, not the actions… A face is easier to hate than an idea.

2007-05-13T00:41:00.000-04:00

Quantum Computing

Check out the article linked above. Briefly mentioned therein you will read about the potential of quantum computing... If this is the real deal it would herald an incomprehensible revolution in computer processor power.

2007-05-13T00:26:00.000-04:00

Skynet is Coming

The British are making a constellation of satellites designed to do...something... probably take over the world and kill Sarah Connor...

2007-05-09T19:02:00.000-04:00

RealClimate has posted a satirical piece in which they attempt to link the sunspot cycle with the number of Republicans in the US Senate. The piece, titled Fun With Correlations, has this to say about such spurious correlations of data:

Some readers may scoff and suggest that in the absence of any mechanism, these powerful correlations are numerological artifacts arrived at using post hoc fallacious reasoning that have no predictive capability.

Three cheers for this bit of razor-sharp wit.

2007-05-07T20:49:00.000-04:00

I've decided to begin posting all of the fun and interesting bits I find scattered around the internet here on my blog. Perhaps this increased activity will lead me to restart actual writing instead of just posting the work of others...

Anyway, here's my first fun/interesting bit. Click the link to see it. I gotta start learning coding so I can actually embed images and save you a click...



Update: I figured out how to embed images.

2006-09-12T13:07:00.000-04:00

I want to discuss something that’s been bugging me for quite a while. You see, I’ve been worried for the past… 6 months or so that my refusal to commit to a particular ideology wholeheartedly was problematic. In all the literature I’ve been reading, be it books, newspaper articles, or blogs, nearly everyone preaches an “us or them” framework for their religious beliefs. Or, rather, all of the loudest voices communicate in such a fashion.

I have always been reluctant to jump to conclusions based on relatively little information. For example, I would hate to consider someone an enemy just because they’re republican, or democrat, or Christian, or scientologist, or pastafarian, or whatever. Thankfully, I appear to be relatively free of that sort of snap judgment. When faced with someone with a philosophy presumably opposed to mine, my first reaction isn’t “what’s wrong with you,” but rather, “why do you think that?”

This is one of the few gut-reactions of mine that I’m genuinely happy I’ve got. It’s simply ludicrous to see someone of an opposed alignment in one area of thought and immediately assume that they are an enemy to be converted or reviled. So long as their thoughts and beliefs don’t harm others, what business is it of yours what they think?

Personally, my beliefs tend towards atheism and humanism. I see no evidence for god, and so I have no reason to expect that one exists scientifically. I’ve encountered no philosophical arguments which persuade me that a god exists, and so see no reason to believe philosophically, either.

As such, I’m more than happy to engage in a scientific or philosophical debate regarding the voracity of evidence or arguments that claim to prove or indicate the existence of god. Moving the argument beyond those strict parameters, however, is simply unnecessary and accomplishes nothing. In other words, debate but don’t argue. Debate has rules which must be adhered to (for instance, no ad hominem or personal attacks, a rule that has almost completely fallen off the radar in modern political debate); argument does not.

In a similar vein, debate can only be legitimate if both parties are truly open to considering the opposition. Being entirely committed to one side is foolish, and again serves no one. For instance, say you are 100% certain that you are an only child. You believe this because you have no memories of any siblings, and nobody you know ever mentioned or indicated the existence of a sibling of yours. However, one day your mother reveals to you that you are an identical twin, but that your sibling was put up for adoption for whatever reason immediately after birth. You could choose to deny the information, having seen no previous evidence of it. You could deny the information even if presented with a birth certificate by claiming that it is a forgery, or for some other reason.

Your commitment to idea that you are an only child prevents you from even considering possible evidence, let alone accepting it, and what’s the harm in having a sibling? You never need to seek out your brother or sister, and their presence will have zero effect on your life. There is obviously a little bit more at stake for your personal belief in the existence, or at least that’s what the extremes on both sides would have you believe.

But really, there are no repercussions in this world. At most, you’ll spend a bit more or a bit less time praying or worshiping. Most of the repercussions would come into play in the afterlife. I won’t address the possibility of divine intervention or god smiting you for your disbelief, because to my knowledge most people don’t really believe in that sort of thing anyway.

I suppose there are many more directions to take this train of thought, but for now this single-draft brain fart will have to suffice.

2006-07-15T12:06:00.000-04:00

God*Jesus is coming.

Or, at least, that's what the good folks over at Rapture Ready eagerly believe. It's sad that such excitement could be gleaned from the deaths of others, even others a half-world away. Aren't religious folk supposed to be eager to help others, and completely anti-death?

Looking forward to the rapture, when God*Jesus (see above) will return to Earth and establish a paradise for 1,000 years (or something like that, I get fuzzy on the details - end-time myths all seem so similar after a while it's hard to keep them straight), is unimaginably selfish on the part of these good "god-fearing" men and women.

Why is it selfish, you ask? Well, what would you call a scenario wherein you and those who happen to believe the same narrow interpretation of some 2,000 year old book get to live in eternal paradise, while everyone else gets to go burn in hell, but only after the world is engulfed in unimaginable pain and suffering? To me, looking forward to ragnarok so that you can go kick it old-skool style with the big guy upstairs seems a little unfair to everyone else.

Honestly, I would be worried if it weren't for the comforting fact that every single time someone predicts the end of the world, it just doesn't happen. Now, to be straight with you all, technically there have been a few "world-ending" events. One would be the meteor which took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Another would be the Great Dying 250 million years ago. Both of these events could, very legitimately, be considered "end times." They both destroyed an unimaginable amount of life; they were both very sudden; and they were both preceded by ages of decadence, culminating with the anti-christ (first in trilobite form and later as a dinosaur) and then 1000 years of heaven on earth which allowed for a flourishing of new biological diversity.

Well... maybe that last bit isn't exactly true - but there's no way to disprove it, now is there?! Perhaps our all-forgiving, all-seeing, all-powerful God*Jesus really will kill everything (almost), and then pave the way for some new dominant species to take over. If those past end-of-days events are any indication though, the rapture isn't something to look forward to. Sure, you'll get a millennium of fun-in-the-sun, chillin in God's paradise on Earth. But, what about after? Some new form of life will crop up, turn out to be waaaay better adapted to survive than little old Homo sapiens, and exterminate what's left of our race (which, by the end of 1,000 years of vacation time will probably be so bloated and lazy that a few monkeys with sticks could take us out).

2006-07-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

Ok, so here goes with my first list of funnies.

We'll start off with some choice YouTube videos:

A video clip from the first of Chappelle's Show's Lost Episodes. The skit lampoons Tupac and suggests that he's not really as dead as one might think.
A blooper reel in which Michael J. Fox forgets what movie he's in.
A clip from some news show wherein the reporter completely freaks out - almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one.

2006-07-14T13:09:00.000-04:00

For my inaugural post, I will explain exactly what the point of this blog is, what makes it special among the cornucopia to be found online. Well, I'm going to be straight with you, dear reader - there is not now, nor will there likely be for some time anything overly unique about Multiple Redundancy. What makes a blog special is the interest it generates from the myriad readers out there cruising along the information super highway.

What I hope to accomplish with my little blog is to find a constituency, a group of people with similar interests but perhaps not quite as much time as I do. For these people I will cull the glut of information that the web provides, process it, comment on it, and provide it in easy-to-digest posts for their reading pleasure. Every blog post should leave the reader's intellectual appetites sated.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Though I certainly find topics of scientific, political, and religious note to be fascinating, I will also endeavor to spread humor as well. The blogs I read typically keep their most irreverent postings confined to a single day of the week, usually Fridays. This seems like a reasonable way to go about things, and being as today happens to be a Friday, my next post will contain numerous links to a whole slew of giggle-inducing whoozits and whatchama-thingies.