Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Oil Addiction

Wordle: Oil Addiction (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)Wordle: Oil Addiction (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)Wordle: Oil Addiction (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)

So oil hit a high at over $96 per barrel. This means trouble for everyone. It has to do with many factors, but one of them is the oil supply and the peak effects either the real peak or perceived peak that is occurring which is going to trickle down into higher prices and inflation everywhere. Remember the oil crisis of 1973? Oh yeah, most of us weren't alive then. Well, oil prices skyrocketed because the Arab nations cut supply to the United States among other countries. This isn't happening by way of political powers, but natural effects because the oil supply is perceived as dwindling quickly. Basically, the demand is growing steadily and the supply and production of it is at its maximum value and is perceived by the financial world to gradually fall over the next 20 to 50 years. Many people say 20 to 50 years, well we have plenty of time to figure this out, but that is not the case because the financial market reacts to forecasts and the price of oil is already very high.

It will continue to rise and resulting rises in prices of food, products and anything that requires gasoline to bring the goods or services to you. The anticipation is stronger than the actual effects, at the present time at least, therefore gasoline will most likely hit $5/gallon by the end of the decade (2 years and 2 months until 2010), and will continue to rise. Economic inflation and recession from this increased oil price will result. It happened in 1973 and will happen again. This is the beginning of the effects of the peak oil crisis we are facing. Thank goodness a few car companies have finally realized that and have hydrogen powered cars ready to be put into full production. If only we could get some government mandate to the oil companies to help set up the hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

The "peak oil" energy crisis is a major concern of the 21st century. If you don't know what I'm talking about go here: (slightly slanted website, but still good information)

GET READY EVERYONE for the nasty future we have in store for ourselves unless we do something to switch our energy usage!

Think global warming is a threat? Try peak oil production and future political powers fighting for economic and political stability because of stock crashes due to the price of oil and the scarcity of a disappearing drug that constituents of large industrialized nations are addicted to like heroin. What happens when a heroin addict quits cold turkey? Withdrawal anybody? We are addicted to oil. That is an inescapable truth. Think gasoline is expensive right now? In a couple decades you will wish that the Iraq war was for the oil because that conflict is minimal over what will happen!

Thursday, October 25, 2007


Wordle: Myopia (Thursday, October 25, 2007)Wordle: Myopia (Thursday, October 25, 2007)Wordle: Myopia (Thursday, October 25, 2007)

The huge problem with anthropological global warming is very complicated. Humans are pumping CO(2) into the environment because the industrialized nations are addicted to oil and the problem of proving the direct connection of global warming to the human impact is very murky at best.

Political power is swayed easily by lobbyists and the oil industry pays for their share of the political power. Our political system was also designed as a weak government so it is unable to really handle the problem of the addiction. Breaking addiction is always a tough thing for any agent addicted to any substance, but this one is especially difficult.

Many people view the situation as inevitable and have given up cause; many view it as fallacious and have stubbornly stuck to their viewpoint. Many people see the convenient way of putting it off until tomorrow or ignoring the situation because it doesn’t necessarily need immediate response because the effects are not immediate, but yet the problem continues to grow. Our planet is getting warmer, we continue to pump CO(2) into the environment and the sun continues to heat it up.

The misnomer that we are inside a greenhouse is false. The CO(2) molecules are heated up when the sun's radiation reflected off the planet excite the molecules which in turn makes them warmer. The warmer the planet gets the more ice that melts, the more that sea levels rise. Everyone that disagrees with the situation is essentially looking for a way to escape the burden that we will have to face. The planet is melting and we are responsible. There is nowhere else to go and we must face the music.

The ice melts faster because water acts as a lubricant flowing down below the ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica creating a viscous layer that allows the ice to slide faster towards the warmer ocean water. When the ice in Greenland melts into the North Atlantic the ocean salinity will be diluted causing a cease of the ocean current conveyor system that has been in place since the last ice age. This current system keeps Europe abnormally warm for its latitude. When the current is stopped, the warmth will cease to exist there. Moscow, Russia is not affected because its climate is appropriate for its latitude, but consider the fact that Moscow is level with the area just north of Edinburgh, England.

The climate changes are happening such as stronger hurricanes, extreme droughts, wildfire conditions running rampant in the western United States, but no one can directly blame human impact on the climate. People have tried to prove the aspect that we are changing the environment when it is so very apparent to some people. Al Gore pushes his Inconvenient Truth to the masses and wins the Nobel Prize, but then people say it is political because Al Gore is a political figure.

The mental image that electricity comes from a fantasy place that does little or no harm to the environment is rampant through society. People also view the impact of their cars is minimal on the environment. The catalytic converter is a double-edged sword. It helped reduce CO(2) production from cars, but it also made the gas emissions invisible rendering it invisible in everyone's mind. No one can actually see the gas being emitted from their car. They know it occurs, but don't think it is harmful because it is clear and because they don't think it is much. If you ask someone what they think of 18-wheeler diesel truck emissions they might say wow that's really bad for the environment because they see thick black smoke in clouds that hit their cars and go into their A/C where they can smell it. This mental distortion is evident, clear as day to me, and prevalent throughout modern society. People need a visual cue; people need an alarm bell telling them exactly what is happening. If a reporting system was given alongside the electric bill explaining how much CO(2) was expelled for each customer, people might think twice about their usage. People might also think twice about their usage if the same was true with their cars. Instead of worrying about fuel efficiency for economic reasons because gasoline is expensive, they should be worried about their CO(2) output per mile driven. Doesn't that make more sense in a moral standpoint? Whether CO(2) emissions effect global warming or not, it's very clear and evident that the particulate pollution is not healthy for the environment or for people.

I remember a time when it was a joke to buy bottled water. I remember a time when it was a joke to get a ticket for smoking inside a restaurant. I remember a time when it was a fantasy idea in a movie that you would get a ticket for smoking in public places or cussing in public places. I remember a time when canned air was also a comedic situation in a parody of a Hollywood blockbuster. Now we have pricey air purifiers for sale. People buy bottled water by the truck load. Smoking is against the law in many major cities in restaurants and bars. Smoking on my campus quad area is against the law and fresh air is getting harder and harder to find. Look at the haze in any major city and tell me that people are not causing that and try to feel morally good about yourself. Are you kidding me? There is scientific proof that hot spots are caused by mankind's impact in urban areas. Tell me that there isn't a possibility that we are causing this on a global scale and global consequences will arrive one day.

People are myopic about the thickness and volume of our atmosphere. People are myopic about the volume of gas emissions from their vehicles thanks to the catalytic converter which makes the emissions less harmful, but also invisible. People are myopic about the fragility of our climate and world ecosystems. People are myopic about the multiplicity factor of millions of people doing the same wasteful habit. People are myopic about waste. People think waste before efficiency because for them it saves time and money. People are self-centered and don't change their habits necessarily because it would burden them and not help them out immediately at all. People are lazy and choose to sit down before acting because it is easier to do and doesn't have an immediate consequence or consequence at all. People are blind to the effects of doing their bad habits every day and the multiplicity effect. The scale of someone's imagination about the impact of their actions and the multiplicity effect among time and people is way underestimated by everyone. You must really consider the concept of what a million people really look like and the amount of waste that a very small habit contributes when applied to millions of people for thousands of days. Oh yeah, a thousand days sounds like a lot, but guess what that's essentially 3 years. Now that doesn't sound like a lot. It's 798 days until January 1st, 2010. It's July 21st, 2010 that is exactly 1,000 days from now. That seems really far in the future, but that is basically right around the corner. People are myopic. Why is that so much of a concern? Well, the people are you and I and we vote for political leaders who control the government which controls the world. We are the one's responsible for choosing leaders who impact policy. We are responsible for our own actions. We control the key to change by choosing political leaders with environmental concerns at the forefront, choosing consumer goods that are environmentally friendly, choosing habits that are environmentally friendly, and choosing to learn about the details of our actions and choices. Ignoring it for the sake of procrastination or out of convenience to not give any attention to the problems at hand is an immoral decision when the consequences are very morally relevant.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The Case for Intelligent Design

Wordle: The Case for Intelligent Design (Saturday, July 21, 2007)Wordle: The Case for Intelligent Design (Saturday, July 21, 2007)Wordle: The Case for Intelligent Design (Saturday, July 21, 2007)

I was a strong believer of the organization by lightning or atomic energy into small basic assembly blocks of computational capability when life began. Now I am less sure, as a computer scientists that understands the Turing machine concept and the architecture of the modern CPU as well as the encoding and complication necessary in information message sending and transcription as well as having a small background in formal language creation and interpretation, there seems to be a few, if not many unanswered questions in the realm of DNA and the information that those intensely complicated molecules contain. Heck, we can't even create a molecule nearly as complex as the DNA molecule. Maybe one day we will have those capabilities, such as within the realms of nanotechnology. I have met Dr. Smalley that came up with the "buckyball" and nanotube ideas. My grandfather used to be the physical plant director at Rice University and he took me to meet with Dr. Smalley as well as see his laboratory in full action. I was young at the time and wasn't totally sure of how important that handshake would be. I was shaking the hand of a Nobel peace prize winner. Someone who's research may lead to the creation of a molecule more complex than DNA itself. We will just have to sit back and see.

With DNA being as complex as it is and richly encoded with information that it is, how on Earth (pun slightly intended) did it come to be of such a strong caliber of force for life? Well, I don't have many answers and this blog entry is more to start the debate and prelude my own research and contemplation about such things, but the following two links have given me enough to question my originally strong held beliefs and assumptions about evolution. I don't doubt that natural selection and survival occurs and that this leads to the evolutionary process, but I now have doubts about the primordial soup and the creation of DNA and the intricate machines contained within the biology of a single cell. What the world needs are computer architects, computer programmers, computer scientists, to analyze the mechanisms and code behind the DNA and to figure out how the device functions. We need to "hack" or in better terms reverse engineer the DNA molecule and code to decipher what really is behind life. Is it an intelligent design or a self-organization that exists throughout the universe such as the Tao in Chinese culture says exists as the strongest unnamed force of all?

The Elegant Republic

Wordle: The Elegant Republic (Saturday, July 21, 2007)Wordle: The Elegant Republic (Saturday, July 21, 2007)Wordle: The Elegant Republic (Saturday, July 21, 2007)

If everyone was politically diverse as statistics say we should be, then there should be many people with combinations of diverse views such as pro-abortion, yet also a believer in intelligent design or someone who is a strong evolutionist that is pro-life. Why is it that everyone adopts a political party's ideals as their own without giving much thought to their own beliefs? Why is it that people adopt religious ideals as their own without processing the information and discerning the facts and the truths and giving a fair survey of all the religions in the world? How can you choose a religion without having taken a class surveying all the religions in the world to understand their differences, their beliefs, their postulates on science and such? If you disbelieve in one certain aspect of a religion, should you hastily decide the entire religion is false? With all these rhetoric questions aside, even science and philosophy adopts and adapts everything we know into some sort of schema that is pre-existing or built upon.

I think social pressure and the ease of letting other people do our critical thinking on subjects that we don't care so much about in our daily lives has led the populous to adopt certain political and religious views on life without giving critical thought to everything that exists or at least all the possibilities. Many people adopt political views and say they are republican or democrat without considering all of their beliefs. People become polarized by their choice alone in the naming of their beliefs under one party or religious ideal. If you believe in a few ideals that are similar to a party such as the GOP, but you don't agree with everything that the GOP resonates, then by using the nomenclature of political parties you begin to brainwash yourself away from your own beliefs. You stray farther from your contrasting ideals much more and more because you vote and support leaders who have different view points on some subjects. Yes we have to choose someone, but why? It's the pigeon hole principle of discrete mathematics where you have a certain finite amount of choices and you must pick one closest to your views. We however cannot be represented equally in society by making a decision to have a leader who stacks up to our beliefs and concerns 100 percent. Yes, our system of government is not perfect, but it works well.

No one has given much thought to the fact that we should reform our system. We have come to the conclusion that the republic is the ultimate form of government. Mankind rises out of the jungles to form tribes and then small cities of trade. We then progress to states of government ruled by kings and feudal strength. We begin to progress to military dictatorships and eventually to the oligarchies and democracies that originate from the population's anger with totalitarian control. Finally, we arrive at a republic where interests are represented for the people in the most ideal situation that we can think of that can sustain stability in the social order. Communism as we know it really is a republic in government forms. It's just a socially centered form of republic control, however, soviet style communism is more susceptible to the evils of tyranny than that of a checks and balances Americanized republic. All economy is capitalistic because that is natural. Communism is against the grain of Darwinian survival and natural selection. What is most interesting to me is that red styled communism such as China includes capitalism as well as communism in a semi-hybrid state of government. It also has a strong tyrannical form of government simultaneously with checks and balances. Maybe China will reveal itself as the ultimate form of government in this 21st century. It will become the superpower of the world because of its economic strength and sheer size. What remains to be seen is if China can realistically stabilize and become an accepted superpower of the world and not fall under its own weight. In any case, the American republic tries to prevent Darwinian laws in the rights of man, but it does not economically. The soviet communistic republic tries to prevent Darwinian laws in economics, but does nothing in the rights of man. The question for the republic is does it work well even if China was to figure out the balance between the two major components of government, that being economics and social control. Will China realize that the republic should be both economically and socially Darwinian and yet not Darwinian at the same time? The American republic works on a certain scale of government, but at some point it breaks down! The populous grows stronger and eventually, there becomes a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of some sort through lobbyists and capitalistic economic strength. Sheer numbers become forces among our social ideals and representation becomes a system that is worthy of governing itself as a republic. Can there be a form of government that protects mankind from all aspects of Darwinian forces? The USA has become powerful because the Darwinian forces were carefully harnessed by the industrial age, but we didn't try to harness much of the Darwinian forces in social and political control. Our founding fathers attempted to construct a government based upon the intricacies of checks and balances which would attempt to control the tyranny of the majority. It's a mildly complex system, yet elegant in its simplicity, but it still lacks the luster of advancement in political innovation. We don't normally think that technology advances in political control, but it does and it has since the first cave man used force to control another individual. The state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes moves us to understand that we politically and socially progressed from the beginning. Therefore, what is the next progression of society that will represent the diversity of ideals, beliefs, facts, and understanding of each other considering that all mankind are citizens of the great social state of Earth in this new century and millennium? Are we going to progress to more globalized or continent governments such as feeble attempt called the United Nations and the growing European Union? Are we going to continue to place republics as the forefront in social order? Heavy handed communism is rising in the east as a strong force in the world and the 21st century may yield itself to a strong influence in days to come, but what will come of government in the future? We should put our thinking caps on and try to formulate the most ideal situation of a governing body when we now know the facts that everyone wishes to be free, wishes to live, wishes to pursue happiness, and wishes to see beyond the tyranny of the majority.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is simple and elegant, but lacks the prevention of forces of evil among other things. Good and evil is a strong backbone for existence. Since the beginning, there has been a story of good and evil played out so many times, that it almost seems as if the struggle of good and evil are meant to be the ultimate drama of divine entertainment or existence. There are an infinite number of scenarios and an infinite number of combinations and historical possibilities concerning good and evil. This struggle contains the underlying fact that evil can occur even in the most utopian society. A truly utopian society in itself may be evil because in order to keep utopia, individualism is lost and mankind must subscribe to certain beliefs and truths, however inconvenient or however inopportune they might be. We begin to adopt and adapt or force the adoption and adaptation of ideals by forcing people to subscribe to the utopian ideal. Similarly, we currently do this in a semi-similar way by choosing political parties, but this may fall apart in the future. The Electoral College and political system will fall victim to the power of the people. The complex system will need to become more complex and restructure based upon the globalization of the world social order and the needs of every individual. We need a form of government that is in essence, a representation of the minority as an equal majority in the golden mean of political and social order.

As entities of life, we should be given the following rights:

1. Life - The ability to live, the essence of choice, the essence of nurture and nature.
2. Liberty - Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of action.
3. Pursuit of happiness - To be interpreted on what happiness might be.
4. The protection against evil - Such as tyranny of any sort including natural selection and survival.
5. The protection of individualism - The marvel of nurture and nature.
7. Equal opportunity - In the ability to learn, think, and believe in our philosophy.

Oversimplification is a critical fallacy of logic that is widespread in choosing a political party or in choosing a philosophy such as a religion. When you subscribe to a choice of a certain ideal, you are in essence surrendering your individualism and differences for stability between you and society. However, your individualism is your only separation from everyone else because nothing truly exists except your mind and your philosophy. Therefore, your physical being isn't even separate from the world. You are made of dust and will become dust, but your inner thoughts are sacred from anyone else. At least until a form of mind control beyond outside influence becomes available such as restructuring your brain, if that is truly where your mind exists. I have always been a proponent of the brain being the mind, but new science has led us to believe that sub-quantum structures may exist in our neural networks that are beyond organizational essence of a biological type. This is news to the scientific community who will now have to battle the philosophies of religion and the soul, scientifically!

Anyway, nature and nurture actually are quintessentially the fallacy of our existence and yet our existence at the same time! Our individuality, like a snowflake, stems from our genetic code that was influences by all of nature like how a snowflake forms into a distinct and statistically improbable to be identical to any other snowflake within the realm of realistic thought. Infinite thought leaves us to believe that the individuality could be duplicated eventually, but the unlikely events of reality and the position of all the molecules and unfolding individualism and complexity expressed in our world if viewed as an unfolding fractal of mathematically intricacy says that it is impossible to duplicate. So, our nature stems individuality impressed upon us as a force and action of the preceding events. Nurture is the social pressure and knowledge that is impressed upon us as a child of a mother and father or society; that we are to become individual, yet similar to those who breathe life into us for existence in this world. We adopt and adapt their beliefs into our own as we progress in life. We become syncretically divine in our nature and our nurture. Our society thus also becomes more complex and individual in its "poeme mysique" as the violin sonata plays on. The harmony of adoption and adaptation on the grand scale of evolution and natural selection plays through. The physical world, the chemical world, the biological world, the political world, the economic world, the social world, the emotional and intellectual world continue to persist and that harmonic overtone that resonates is the mystical note that many have described in so many ways. All aspects become syncretically divine. We all merge and melt our ideals together and adopt and adapt our ideals in a continuous stream of consciousness that I would like to call our supreme entity of life breathing in our governments and our ways of controlling mankind and its growth. We are not man anymore, we are mankind. We made that evident the day that Neil Armstrong stepped upon the moon. We are now divine, we created our society. We created our beliefs, we created our Gods, and we created our cultures. We have now become divine amongst the heavens. We are the truly syncretic divine being in this world that can be tangibly touched, yet we were forged out of it in much the same process. Evolution is apparent, natural selection and survival are inherent, divine creation is not errant, but parent. We are truly merging our mind and transforming into divinity. We progress through the struggle of good and evil as we define what good and evil are, as we define and name the universe. As we define and name our creation, we are creating our own creation by uncovering the mysteries that actually created us. We don't know for certain anything except our own beliefs and ideals. Our existence is like an isolated prison where we continue to think and experience our world. Our mind is our computational circuit that is bent on understanding the somatosensory input and output that we put forth and receive. We try our hardest to make some sense out of the chaos. We say there was a big bang, that there might have been many big bangs and that we have freedom of will and yet there are those who say we don't have freedom of will, that the big bang was God's only touch into the world, that eternity doesn't exist because time doesn't exist. There is only one philosophy that should be held as true. That is that philosophy exists. If philosophy didn't exist, then you couldn't say that statement nor could you say that philosophy doesn't exist. Therefore, philosophy is the only certainty in everything. We are our only proof that we have a philosophy that we as a sentient being can perceive and believe and make true to conscious and possibly unconscious self.

Elegance is everything we consider to be, we try to find the most elegant philosophy that we can find, we try to adopt and adapt it to our nurtured and natured individuality and yet as our syncretic divine mankind bleeds on through existence, we are still searching for the elegant philosophy that our society as a whole can believe in. We adopt our governing structures like how our mind as Nietzsche said is a governing body that is made up of many individuals in a society that eventually believes that it is in control, yet the final device in control is the philosophy of whether you think you are in control or not. This applies to our society as a whole as well, mankind is really just as in control as our philosophy tells us that we are. We should try to create a philosophy that uses governing structures that can access the elegance of what we strive to seek and we should implement the scale and immensity of the universe, the grandiose, into our philosophy.

The scale is immense, and with the recent discoveries that the amazing possibility of the soul scientifically existing. What can prevent us from anything? We are in a world where philosophy is the only force that truly exists. It is the underlying force behind nature and the elegance. Why is the universe so elegant? Why do we all hastily make assumptions on things which we know not of? Life exists because of philosophy. Without philosophy there would be no existence to question, there would be no elegance, there would be no force behind nature. Philosophy is the ends to all means and quintessentially the means to all ends.

Who would have thought? That pun WAS intended!

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

BOINC and Electricity Consumption

Wordle: BOINC and Electricity Consumption (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)Wordle: BOINC and Electricity Consumption (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)Wordle: BOINC and Electricity Consumption (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)

Yes, I realize that it uses more electricity, but I'm willing to use my CPU for the BOINC client to help further the BOINC causes with a little bit of electricity expenditure. If I get my electricity from wind power, then it really doesn't matter too much in the end, not saying that it doesn't completelly matter because the goal is not just to use green power and waste it, but to use all electricity efficiently thereby reducing the demand for power.

Here is a link to information regarding BOINC and electricity consumption:

The difference in power consumption of current processors from when they are idle to full load is varying from chipset to chipset and manufacturer to manufacturer. The wattage increase on some of them is over 100 watts, while some is much less.

Idle CPU versus full load CPU:

To explain my actions that day, I have BOINC installed and I let it run when I'm doing tasks that have less intense CPU consumption such as email, Internet, and word processing. Yes it uses more electricity, but by switching all my lights to CFL technology, the electricity I use to perform BOINC calculations is minimal.

What I was saying is that I left my computer on unintentionally when I left my aparatment for many hours, but at least that electricity consumption was not wasted. Had it been idle, it would have wasted over 100 watts at all times amounting to about half a KWH for the 5 hours I left it, but because I had BOINC running in the background, it may have consumed more wattage of about 150 to 200 watts amounting to a total of 1 KWH over the 5 hours, at least it was
benefitting science.

So to look at my mistake, instead of losing 0.5 KWH to nothing but idle computer time, I used an additional 0.5 KWH to total my consumption at 1 KWH for science. Not a huge trade-off, but definitely not a total loss either.

As a computer science major, I am aware of the electricity consumption at the architecture level as well as how software can affect the consumption rates, however minimal they might be, enough to amount to more than minimal rates over time and per millions of computers.

Idle processing uses 99 percent to 100 percent of your processing power, but doesn't use much memory or anything else that requires much electricity. It basically is a process that uses assembly code to keep the clock cycles running on the CPU and maintaining the status quo of the computer. While it doesn't completely reduce the power consumption, it does however lower it from a process that might be more memory intensive and not call specific assembly (machine code) instructions to the processor in an architecture like CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing). In a CISC system, there might be an instruction that idle's the processor at a lower consumption rate.

Here is a good analysis of some other PC's running at idle and under loads:

Another idle versus load electricity consumption:

Here is a BOINC article on idle time for those who don't know what we are discussing:

Here is a link about idle CPU time and electricity consumption across the US:

A good link with comparisons of software, operating systems, monitors, and CPU's and their electricity consumption:

Enery Star's energy efficient office:

Awesome analysis of a typical house and it's electricity consumption:

After reading that, it would be useful to do the following:

1. Unplug your wireless router when not in use.
2. Unplug your network switches when not in use.
3. Unplug your TV when not in use.
4. Turn off your monitors when you leave a room.
5. Turn off your monitors frequently when you aren't looking at them. (Only if you have LCD because they can be turned on and off many times without a problem)
6. Turn off the computer speaker system when not in use because the amplifiers draw electricity whether it is being used or not.
7. Turn off the printer when not using.
8. Unplug your fully charged devices such as battery chargers and cell phone chargers once they are done charging.

If you don't do those steps, you are consuming on average about:
1 watt (per cell phone charger)
3 watts (per battery charger)
3 watts to 5 watts (per TV)
4 watts (per printer)
11 watts (per wireless router)
3 watts (per ethernet switch)
3 watts (per computer speaker system)
2 watts to 4 watts (per LCD computer monitor)
30 watts to 34 watts (assuming only one device of each kind)

That is the "phantom" electricity effect. It would be better to just turn that stuff off.
Each year, if you leave those plugged in and on standby mode you are consuming 262.8 KWH to 297.84 KWH.

That's roughly $20 and lot of carbon dioxide output wasted.

Well, that's not very large for just one person, but to see the effect of the population and why it's important to conserve every bit, that's roughly about $20,000,000,000 each year for the entire country of the US.

The effect of killing a watt here and there over the entire US electrical grid snowballs into serious numbers when everyone does it:

Here is an awesome software to reduce power consumption for offices that are using multiple machines just to do email and word processing. It's a good idea because it's basically the concept of Mainframe servers and terminals. I like this idea for low CPU power consumers such as office only users and internet only users.

Awesome low power consumption software:

Google and Intel among others team up to make computers much more efficient:,130061702,339278516,00.htm,1000000308,39287516,00.htm?r=1

Monday, July 9, 2007

Energy Independence: Addiction to Oil

Wordle: Energy Independence - Addiction to Oil (Monday, July 9, 2007)Wordle: Energy Independence - Addiction to Oil (Monday, July 9, 2007)Wordle: Energy Independence - Addiction to Oil (Monday, July 9, 2007)

Global warming or not, an energy crisis looms in front of us. It will be a much greater doom than anything we could imagine if we are still addicted to oil when we run out of oil.

There are a few countries on this world like Brazil, but one of the most distinguishing marks about it is that the country is now energy independent from the world. If oil were to run out today, I would move to Brazil (on foot of course...yes, no oil means no planes, cars, or buses). Maybe I would take a ship with sails, but that's more dangerous than walking.

Anyway, energy independence should be a main reason we are seeking to become green. Not necessarily for global warming, as many suspect that global warming isn't really happening. They might need to take a look at melting icebergs and what not, but even so.

The ebb and flow of the world could be such that the warming temperatures of our planet have little to do with human effect and more to do with natural progression of our planet's atmospheric cycles over long periods of time.

Heck, the magnetic north pole is on the verge of a 10,000 year old switch where compasses will point to the south pole instead of the north pole, so who is to say that global warming is or isn't really happening. It's a debatable question, much like that of evolution.

It all deals with perception and scientific evidence as well as emotional attachment to the planet. Whether you subscribe to global warming or not, energy independence should be your main goal in helping reduce our energy consumption, so that if a catastrophic event occurred and we were forced to tap into the oil reserves, we could feel comfortable knowing that the oil reserves would last longer because of our conservation efforts.

Also, by pouring money into the "green" efforts, we also can pour money into building the infrastructures needed to harness green power such as "windtricity" and solar panel technology. Such infrastructure like that is needed to make us energy independent and able to sustain after the last drop of oil is consumed.

Make that your number one priority that your children and grand children will not look back on you as avoiding the call to arms about fighting energy dependence and our addiction to oil, but that you helped overcome the addiction and helped build the infrastructure necessary to carry our energy independence to the 21st century and beyond.

Energy Crisis:

Energy Independence:

There Is No Crisis?

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Here Today, Green Tomorrow

Wordle: Here Today, Green Tomorrow (Sunday, July 8, 2007)Wordle: Here Today, Green Tomorrow (Sunday, July 8, 2007)Wordle: Here Today, Green Tomorrow (Sunday, July 8, 2007)


My current carbon footprint: 19 TONS of carbon output - ECP Score: 348
What's yours?

Find out at one of the following Carbon Footprint Calculators:

( , , , )



The future will be green only if you start today! Don't put it off for tomorrow or hope that other people will figure it all out. You have the power for change. If everyone else is thinking just like you, then no one is going to do anything, so you need to act now!

Whether you believe in global warming or not, energy crisis is a main concern of the future of our country and the world. The amount of oil left in the world is very limited if not declining. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not say how much oil they actually have in their reserves, so we don't know for sure how well off the world is, but in any case we need to be energy independent and many steps can be taken today to make this happen and not by politicians, but by you the consumer and every-day person. Conservation of energy is the biggest concern, so begin with the pledge and go from there...



Take the pledge here (Quick and simple!):

and or do the following...

I will plant one tree. (Plant an actual tree that will grow in my climate, or purchase a planted tree through an organization that plants them for me.)

I will switch to green power. (Either through the electric company or by purchasing an REC.)

I will change at least 4 light bulbs to CFL's. (Buy these bulbs at Target, Walmart, HEB, Lowe's, Home Depot...)

I will carpool at least twice per week or ride the bus. (Mass transit, or bicycle, or walk...)

I will check my tires every three months to make sure they are properly inflated. (Every time you get an oil change have them check your tire pressure.)

I will buy carbon offset the next time I fly anywhere. (Available when purchasing your ticket.)

I will turn off my monitor when not in use and other devices such as the computer, stereo, and TV.



1. Sign the FREE and EASY pledge.

( )

2. Invite your friends to sign the FREE and EASY pledge also.

( )

3. Invite your friends to this facebook group.

( , )

4. Switch your light bulbs out to CFL bulbs. It saves on energy costs too!

( , , , )

Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent lights (CFLs). Look closely at labels when buying light bulbs, buy CFL light bulbs with a low color-burning temperature of less than 3000K (warm colored light like incandescent bulbs). CFL's use about 1/6th of an incandescent light bulbs power to generate the same, if not more, light output in lumens. They last much, much longer and don't burn as hot (Only about 160 degrees versus halogen bulbs which can burn up to 500 degrees Fahrenheit hot! This makes your A/C work less hard also.)

5. Turn up your A/C at least 2 degrees to 76 to 80 in the summer months.

( , , )

6. Use fans instead of more A/C. Get a "whole house" fan, if possible. Less electricity is used than A/C if you use fans alongside A/C. Reverse your fan blades in the winter time to keep energy costs down by blowing the hot air back down.

( , , )

7. Turn off your A/C when you leave.

(,CST-EDT-CINDY20.article , )

8. Turn off your lights when you leave rooms or not in use.

( , (Google's cached page because EERE servers are not working correctly) )

9. Turn off your computer when you aren't using it, or at least make it hibernate. Great details on computer usage in following link.

( )

10. Inflate your car tires to their proper inflation level. Don't under-inflate or over-inflate! Pumping them up can improve your gas mileage by about 3.3 percent – a savings of about 7 cents per gallon. It‘s the right thing to do for your wallet and the right thing to do for the Earth.

( , )

11. Bank Online - Saves paper and the production of carbon emissions from making paper.

( , , )

12. Get catalogs emailed to you instead of mailed to you or view them online at the Google catalogs website.

( )

13. Recycle all of your envelopes and junk mail from the postal system.

( )

14. Recycle all batteries.

( )

15. Recycle all paper waste, cardboard and paperboard, glass bottles, aluminum cans, tin cans, plastic bottles. Just get a few plastic bags from your local grocery store and keep them in your cabinet below your sink. Recycling is easy, just think before you toss!

( , )

16. Turn down the water heater setting to about 120 to 130 degrees to cut your energy bill down about 10 percent.

( , )

17. Turn your fridge settings to cool instead of really cold. Don't turn it down too much, but turning it down a little will reduce your energy usage.

( )

18. Conserve water by turning off faucets when brushing your teeth or in between rinsing dishes.

( )

19. Eliminate "phantom electricity" from your living space and office. ( )

Kill "phantom" electricity. (Put your TV and other appliances and devices on surge protectors that you can flip the switch when not using.)

Unplug your cell phone charger, put your TV and electronics devices like stereos on a power switch to turn off when you leave so they don't drain unnecessary power (however little it might be) when you aren't using them. Yes it may not be much power drained, but over a year's time it consumes a considerable amount.

About 20 watts of power can be leaked at all times when you aren't using the devices. That is the same as turning on a 60 watt incandescent light bulb for 8 hours a day, everyday and for no reason! In the United States alone, “phantom electricity” emits roughly 12 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Avoid this by plugging office equipment into a power strip and turning it off at night and on weekends or weekdays, whenever you are not at home much.

( , , )

20. Avoid running large appliances such as washers, dryers, and electric ovens during peak energy demand hours from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

( )

21. Close shades and blinds during the day to lessen A/C usage in warm climates.

( )

22. Use mass transit at least twice a week. Ride the bus or carpool with friends. Available during the fall and spring semesters. Priority will be given to carpools of three or more coming from outside the San Marcos area.

( , , , , , , )

23. Walk or bicycle to work or school.

( , )

24. Plant twenty-four (24) trees each year to offset your carbon footprint. Either plant them all yourself, or invest in companies that will plant them for you with your tree purchases. This can completely offset your carbon footprint.

( )

25. Buy household plants for your balcony, patio, and inside your living space to reduce some of your carbon emissions.

( )

26. Opt to purchase wind-power ( ) or other green sources of energy if available by your electric company. You can also purchase green energy certificates to pay your electric bill to help electric infrastructure for green energy.

Green energy cost a little bit more than regular energy, but if we start now by flowing our funds into green energy the costs will come down and eventually help us build the massive infrastructure needed to provide the enormous demand for green energy.

( , , )

Get that's all you have to do to's really easy...
( )

27. Purchase new showerheads and faucets that use less water. The new showerheads and faucets aerate the water to provide the same force as normal ones.

Install a motion sensor faucet in high use areas only if you have the money to purchase one as they are not cheap yet. Retrofitting just one showerhead and two faucets will reduce water usage by 50 percent to 70 percent, while maintaining the same user experience. The cost savings you’ll see on your water and electricity bills will pay for the retrofit in only three to 12 months.

( )

28. Purchase local meats and produce to reduce carbon emmisions - ( )
(San Marcos Area - Kyle, TX - Peach Trees: )
(San Marcos Area - Kyle, TX - Organic Farm: )

29. Drink less bottled water and drinks. It reduces plastic production and carbon emissions from production and shipping.

( , , )

30. Buy canvas bag to get groceries at store instead of plastic and paper.

( )

31. Repair and reuse items instead of throwing them away.

( )

32. Use the stairs instead of escalator or elevator. It saves electricity, provides good exercise.

( )

33. Purchase Recycled Paper

( , )

34. Buy carbon offsets anytime.

( , , )

35. Buy carbon offsets when flying.

( , )

36. Buy a hybrid as your next vehicle

( ):

SUV: Chevrolet Tahoe, Dodge Durango, GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade, Honda Ridgeline, Lexus RX-400h, Saturn Vue, Mercury Mariner, Ford Escape ( ), and more coming soon...

Trucks: GM Silverado and Sierra, Dodge Ram, and more coming soon...( )

Sedans: Chevy Malibu, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, Saturn's Aura (Cheapest Hybrid in the USA w/ $1,300 tax credit - ) and more coming soon...

Learn how hybrids work: ( )

37. Grow your own tomatoes and food. If you have the means to grow them, it is easier on the environment and brings you a connection back to Earth by growing your own food. Growing your own food reduces carbon emissions from your driving to the store and the food being shipped to the store from its long journey from the farm.

( , (refresh page once you click
because the website doesn't accept redirection links from
facebook or other sources which is very lame!) , , )

38. Buy two stage flushing toilets - These toilets have two settings for flushing to lessen the water usage when light flushing is all that is needed.

( )



Recycling Basics - The Four R's:

( , , )

Find a recycling center near you:
( )

DIY Green Living:

At Home:

At The Office: ( , )

At The Market Place:

In The Outdoors:

General Green Living Information:
( , , , , , , , )

Tree Planting - Carbon Offsetting:
( , , )

Free Shade Trees for Sacramento California Residents:

Hydrogen Cars (Scientific American with Alan Alda):

Alternative Fuels:

Former Vice-President Al Gore's Recent Campaign:

List of Top Countries with CDO (Carbon Dioxide Output) per GDP (Gross Domestic Product):

Recycled Clothing Apparel:
Purchase Recycled Shoes:
Bamboo Bike:

Hot Alaska (Scientific American with Alan Alda):

Hot Planet, Cold Comfort (Scientific American with Alan Alda):

Heat Islands (Cement Jungle Raising Temperature of City):
( , )

News of Amazing Green Achievements:

Technology Embracing Green:

America Is Slowly Turning Green:

Aliance For Climate Control:

Green Building Design (Glossary):

Electric Grid:

Track Your Green Living Transformation:

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

My Personal DNA Report

Wordle: My Personal DNA Report (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)Wordle: My Personal DNA Report (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)Wordle: My Personal DNA Report (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)

This was a very neat personality test that seems to be rather accurate. Yeah, I'm very masculine and a benevolent creator!

Click to view my personalDNA Report that I created based upon extensive questioning using a pscyhological online test.

Family and friends, I invite you to assess my personality with the psych you/psych me function with PersonalDNA: Psych You/Psych Me

Thursday, June 7, 2007

The Green Machine

Wordle: The Green Machine (Thursday, June 7, 2007)Wordle: The Green Machine (Thursday, June 7, 2007)Wordle: The Green Machine (Thursday, June 7, 2007)

A plant isn't normally considered a machine, but it should be. By what do we define a living organism or a machine? The words are semantically narrow, but should be a bit more broad, so that our perspective on life can change.

If you define a living organism as an organism that survives, procreates, and functions by way of organic processes involving organic material in a cellular structure that is very advanced at the microscopic and molecular levels, then can't you also define it as a complex machine that is made up of organic chemical compounds. That it uses organic material and energy from sources such as nutrients and the Sun to maintain itself by creating advanced structures on many different levels of scope including the molecular to the microscopic and larger in an attempt to maintain the advanced structure and cycles of the overall machine. All this done based upon the blueprints defined by a code contained within the advanced organic molecular structure called DNA.

This highly advanced process includes the reproduction of more machines in order to produce further generations because the current machine gets old, unstable, and less reliable then a newly produced machine. This process also includes the ability to self-manage the input (nutrients and energy) given to the organic plant in order to use it as the fuel driving the multitude of mechanisms that lead to the survival of this machine which based upon the DNA mechanism includes the survival of the species (the specific model of the machine) because each machine is capable of producing newer machines.

In this view, a plant becomes a manufacturing device. It manufactures more machines capable of the same processes based upon the blueprints contained within, simultaneously subsisting on the input given to it by outside forces such as nature (the Sun's energy and nutrients within the soil) in order to survive and ensure survival of future generations or productions of the same machine.

The terminology is just semantics. If you could describe this as a method to explain everything that has machine characteristics living and non-living, then all machine-like devices in the physical world are machines. Each has a function to which it performs until it breaks down.

If a machine has the capability of fixing minor breakdowns and persisting based upon a very advanced parallelism structure where multiple functioning mini-machines ensure that if one becomes disabled others can take its place and perform the duties, then we call it living.

We call it living because it is born by seed, duplication, egg, mammal birth and then it lives (performs its functions) and then eventually becomes unstable in its ability to fix the minor problems it incurrs and the machine becomes old or more difficult to maintain and thus ceases to function or dies.

We define living based upon this overly told process of birth, life, and death. Can we name one living organism that does not die? There is no immortal organism. However, many lower-order (lower on the echelon of complexity among all "living organisms") are able to survive extreme temperatures, die and be given life again, become frozen in its state and then reawaken into life after it is defrosted many years later.

It then appears that as a "organic machine" becomes more and more complex, the ability of dying and then reliving becomes more difficult and less statistically likely and frequent. It's as if the machine's complexity has something to do with the maintainibility of the machine much like our non-organic man-made machines that we are more familiar with calling machines.

So, in my paradigm, any functioning machine that has the ability of birth, life, and death is what we consider living. That is the term living, but yet viruses and prions are not normally classified as living.

Is life based upon the size and complexitiy of the organic machine and does it only have to be organic to be considered living? Isn't that restricting the definition of the word "living" by excluding a small portion of the spectrum of complexity of organic machines and excluding all inorganic machines from this classification?

I believe that is prejudgemental and close-minded, if not a myopic view of what the definition of a machine is versus a the definition of a living organism.

Mechanisms as advanced as a single unicellular organism all the way to a human being exist, and some machines exist as "systems" even beyond the scope of the most advanced machine, humans.

Ecosystems are systems which dervive from many units or machines or cells of living organisms functioning in a close proximity which we call an enviroment to help each other function, live and die. That system itself is alive by definition except that it doesn't seem to procreate. It only continues to change and age, just like the machines it contains within, just like the unicellular organism becomes old and its mechanisms change and age.

Ecosystems can have death, but their lifespan is much longer than the organisms it contains within, much like that of a multicellular organism, and sometimes can have eternal life as long as the resources providing it with life continue to persist, for example the Sun.

Ironically, the multicellular organism has a much longer lifespan than each individual cell contained within it, which makes one ponder how a multicellular organism is any different from an ecosystem with individual organism living within it.

Another thought to pensively consider is why do we exclude cells from being considered a living individual organism and not distinguish them as a colony of cells contained in a higher order living organism such as a human?

Individual tissue cells are technically all organisms, and multicellular organisms are just complex ecosystems or colonies of the cells contained within. There is a blueprint for the overall structure of this ecosystem and that is what differs from the ecosystems we are familiar with semantically on an Eartly scale such as the rainforest and other climatically influenced ecosystems. So maybe there is a difference, but there is quite a similarity that using the human perception and the terms to redescribe a system so differently based upon our inferences of the systems is a bit short-sighted.

What makes a virus not a living organism and what makes the collaborative efforts of all the ecosystems in the world one large living organism that is the mother Gaia we call Earth so much different?

OK, back to the definition of a machine. Structures and mechanisms in motion make up our description of a machine. The scientific definition of a machine includes the terms that it is a device that transmits or modifies energy. We commonly accept this to only include devices made of non-organic material that have rigid moving parts which accomplish some sort of work and require some sort of input or energy source.

A power drill is a machine, it's made of non-organic material, it plugs into the 120 volts of alternating current voltage and uses that energy to rotate the drill bit when a trigger is pulled. If the trigger could be self-pulled, and the energy source received from the sun such as installing solar panels upon the machine, then the machine would need less input. This is a hard concept to explain beyond the scope of a power drill, but the idea is that anything that performs a function or has some sort of physical world interaction and duty is considered a machine.

We narrow the definitions for our semantics and easier identification and classification as humans interacting with machines of all sorts and living organisms of all sorts. A virus is excluded from being living because it does not self-replicate. A live organism is opposite a dead organism in that it is still functioning as that organism was designed (by G*d or by evolution or both) to function, but if you broaden the definition of life to include non-carbon based biology, and artificial life such as in vitro and in silico creations of man, then why should the definition of a machine be any different.

Machines, living organisms, both exhibit functions of input, output and function. Living organisms live. Machines are turned on and off, or in other words are utilized or not utilized. Self-procreating organisms continue their species, and sustain their life.

So, let's revisit the idea of complexity. The complexity of something determines our order of description. If something is very complex that we are unable to discern how it works with our humanistic techniques for reverse engineering the grand process of organic evolution, we marvel at its ability to function and sometimes turn to our descriptive words like magic and divine. Once we learn the inner workings of the complexity we decide to call it scientifically understood and we reach a conclusion about everything we can or cannot visibly observe.

We know it's structure and complexity and we give it a level of complexity among the echelon's of complexity in our animal kingdom. With living organisms, we haven't exactly kept to the orders of complexity so much as non-organic technology, but we discern mammals from reptiles and amphibians, plants, fungii, bacteria, and viruses.

To classify an animal based upon charateristics is obvious, but does this allow for us to not only to consider the underlying definition of intelligence, but also the complexity in the "organic machine's" capability to interact and function?

What is an omniverous creature versus a carnivore? We base our decisions on certain ideas of thought such as muscle tissue, brains, skeletons, and other more advanced designs of living machines. Can we take this view and elaborate on intelligence from a neural perspective and bring intelligence into a broader definition that is main point of this entire discourse?

Intelligence is normally measured with only humans. We view it that way, because we are the only beings capable of self-thought and human-speech that we can perceive. And as humans, we size people up unknowningly based upon their ability to speak. It's your mental view into someone else's intelligence. You only know how a person thinks based upon their vocal opinions and visual behaviors. Too often, people with speech impediments are viewed as less smart and people who are not very well spoken seem less educated.

This is a generalization and isn't necessarily true. A mentally retarded or mentally impaired person may sound less intelligent in their vocalizations and their intelligence quotient may reflect our perceptions correctly.

However, someone who speaks with bad grammar might not be verbally intelligent, but might be very mathematically intelligent or mechanically intelligent. We judge intelligence illogically, and we cannot see intelligence for what it truly is, the capability of problem solving, the ability to perceive, the complexity of our knowledge and our ability to use our brain (CPU) to interact and run the software that we are given.

A brain injury inhibits the intelligence of a person because those portions of the brain's function are lost or irrepairable. We determine the intelligence quotient on the ability of a person to solve these problems.

OK, so that's very, very advanced intelligence. Let's break down intelligence and bring it to its primal counterparts. Human intelligence is mainly a few components of memory, learning, and problem solving. Memory is storage of information. Learning is redefining the software in the brain, the ability of the brain to reprogram itself for the sake of adding a new function to its repertoire. Problem solving is using the memory and software and tools learned to solve an actual problem.

Intelligence, in general, is similar; it's the information and the function. Learning is something brains do and do quite well. If you exclude learning from the formula for intelligence which is actually not included in the IQ test, then advanced structures of the brain are not much different then anything else with the same properties, however basic they might be.

Take potential energy and kintetic energy for instance. These physics terms have a relation which is a known law of the universe that the law appears to always be in effect. It never breaks down, the law is there, the function is there, the information is there.

If a heavy rock is on the top of an edge of a cliff, it's potential energy is very high, but the kinetic energy is very low. It's physical intelligence is basic, but existent. If the rock weakens the gravel and sandstone around the cliff's edge because time alows the heaviness of the rock to push on the atomic and molecular structures of the inorganic materials enough that the sandstone reaches its breaking point and the heavy boulder begins a journey down the side of the steep embankment of the cliffside, it picks up kinetic energy and loses its potential energy.

This is a function of the rock on the edge of the cliff. This mechanism is always in effect due to the laws of nature and the physics of the rock on the edge of the cliff.

A lawn mower has intelligence also, it has gasoline in a gas tank that is flammable and could ignite when systematically injected into the cylinders of the engine and combusted with the mechanisms at play.

The intelligence of the machine is based upon its design, but if its a 4 stroke engine with 4 pistons, there will always be two pistons in the up position and always two pistons in the down position so long as the machine works. If a piston was not in the correct position, the metal rods connecting it to the crankshaft might have broken and the machine would cease to function. We would call the lawn mower broken and attempt to fix the machine.

The machine has intelligence though because it has an innate knowledge of where the pistons are even though it doesn't consciously have any knownledge of the positions of the pistons. The physical mechanisms at play (when the machine is working) allow for the mechanical intelligence of the lawn mower to have knowledge of its pistons and combustion stages. This is the basis of the mechanical intelligence quotient that should be a building block for other intelligence quotient ideas.

Other intelligence quotients can exist, such as economic intelligence quotients, political IQ's, all the way to higher level quotients such as the IQ we are normally familiar with.

All in all, more discussion in this topic will be considered in future posts and I will revise my idea for better comprehension and understanding with better visualizations to further explain my alternative way of viewing all things.

"Divinity is the perfect machine." Jason Samfield, 2007