"That other place has cheaper gas..."

I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue.  If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."

Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.

Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.

And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price.  For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.



Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.

If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢.  For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)

In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.

If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.

So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.



When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place.  In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

How important is redundancy in rigging?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode-island/2014/05/04/report-aerial-performers-fall-during-circus-act-providence/jONRVASHacmTEy106u394M/story.html

"It has been determined that a carabiner in the rigging failed"

The carabiner used in the stunt is rated to hold 10,000 pounds, the statement said, while the total weight of the rigging and performers was less than 1,500 pounds.

The carabiner was the lone piece of equipment between the apparatus and a cable tethering the performers to the rafters.

This is a good excuse to post a rant I wrote a while ago.

How important is redundancy in rigging?

That depends on what level of risk you're willing to accept. Would you be comfortable with a hypothetical piece of equipment with a 1/1,000,000 chance of failure? If so, that's fine. However, you'd better be damn sure that 1/1,000,000 is accurate and not actually 1/500,000 or even 1/1,000. You'd also better be ready to take full responsibility if you underestimate the risk and end up dropping somebody due to equipment failure.

Is 1/1,000,000 not enough for comfort? A lot of people think doubling equipment doubles the statistical safety margin. Well, I have some good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that doubling equipment doesn't double the safety margin. The good news is that it increases it exponentially.

Let's look at it mathematically.
A 50% failure rate (1/2) with a redundancy can be plotted out to determine the statistical probability that both pieces of equipment will fail at the same time:

• pass/pass
• pass/fail
• fail/pass
• fail/fail

That works out to be 1/2² or 1/4 chance of complete failure. Similarly, a 1/3 chance of failure with a redundancy can be plotted and the statistical redundancy benefit determined:

• pass1/pass1
• pass1/pass2
• pass1/fail
• pass2/pass1
• pass2/pass2
• pass2/fail
• fail/pass1
• fail/pass2
• fail/fail

That works out to be 1/3² or 1/9 chance of complete failure.

Having demonstrated how redundancy in equipment yields an exponential statistical safety benefit, we can calculate for more robust equipment as well:

• 1/4² = 1/16
• 1/6² = 1/36
• 1/8² = 1/64
• 1/10² = 1/100
• 1/100² = 1/10,000

and finally,

• 1/1,000,000² = 1/1,000,000,000,000

which, if you can hit odds like that, you can simply pay for any medical bills with your lottery winnings. Even if you're wrong about that original 1/1,000,000 chance,

• 1/500,000² = 1/250,000,000,000

and

• 1/1,000² = 1/1,000,000

so you're still not exactly tempting fate.

The reason for redundancy isn't necessarily that the risk of equipment failure is unreasonably high, but that it's so easy to reduce the risk of equipment failure so much.

So, how important is redundancy in rigging? You be the judge. Just be ready, whatever you decide, to take responsibility in the unlikely event something breaks and you find the person you're suspending on the floor, instead of in the air where they belong.

If you stretched out your intestines, they would reach all the way around the world.

Ever hear that line as a kid? That's what we were taught in elementary school.

We were also taught, "food takes 24 hours to pass through your digestive tract."

Let's assume both of those are true.

Since the circumference of the earth is estimated at 24,901 miles, that means food travels through your intestines at a minimum of 1,037.5 miles per hour. (and that isn't even setting aside any time for it sitting in your stomach digesting)

No wonder our educational system is producing such unintelligent people. They're teaching kids that food zooms around through their body faster than the speed of sound?

Math Is A Universal Language?

This is a claim that's thrown around a lot by scientists (and people who want to sound smart), but it seems the people who say this don't really understand what the term "universal" means.  Math, like any other language, is a learned system of communication.  If you don't have the specific learned cultural knowledge to decipher what somebody is trying to communicate, it's just a bunch of gobbledygook.

First, let's look at the symbols:
< = > + - x ÷ ² ³ √
These don't have any "universal" inherent meaning.  If you didn't know what these symbols meant, you wouldn't understand what was being said in the "language" of a mathematical equation.

"But wait!" you say, "It's not the symbols themselves, but the concepts they represent which are universal!"

Alright then, let's look at a mathematical language in common use:  Binary.

Computers use binary for everything, right?  Binary numbers have no inherent context beyond just being numbers.  Without knowing what patterns a computer uses to decode binary number strings, you can read the data straight from a hard drive and get nothing but a long string of 1s and 0s.  Sure, with enough time, effort and content, you could probably eventually figure out what they represented just like deciphering any other verbal or written linguistic system, but if math is such a "universal" language, shouldn't the meaning behind those numbers be intrinsically obvious?  There's actually a form of written language (Ogham) which is a bit like binary and the Trigrams from the I Ching are basically binary representations, but those are also not a "universal" language, as they require a translation key to understand what they represent.  This scene from Kyle XY simply wouldn't be possible, because not only is there insufficient context in a brief glimpse of the crash code on a computer screen to figure out the underlying patterns of information, but the intricacies of the binary information of an image file can't be properly represented by a standard ASCII text program in the first place - the format is different. (a keyboard doesn't have all the ASCII characters on it anyway)  Opening a non-text file in a text editor and then saving it, even without making any changes, will often corrupt the information within the file and make it unuseable for its original purpose.  Regardless of how smart a person is, they simply can't read and manipulate binary code from a display which isn't designed to do so and therefore is subject to fundamental interpretation errors.

Another example: Base-10 versus Hexidecimal versus Binary.
10 - 1 = ?

Base-10: 9
Hexidecimal: f
Binary: 1

If mathematics is a "universal" language, how does the same simple equation yield such staggeringly different results with such a simple modification of context?  If we assumed base-10 was the norm and sent that equation to somebody who assumed we were using a base-8 number system, there would be a big misunderstanding.

Imagine if you suddenly had to start calculating everything in the format of time.
1 x 60 = 100 and 100 x 24 = 10000 and so on.  It would make communicating with people who tended to use standard base-10 for everything not time related a bit more difficult, wouldn't it?  What if we had to communicate a concept of time with somebody from another planet, which might rotate at a different speed and orbit their sun at a different rate and where the people might have chosen to break up the increments differently?  It would be a bit like converting back and forth between Metric and Imperial measurements.  How often do you have to convert a measurement from one to the other when trying to communicate with somebody from another country?  Doesn't that require prior knowledge of the specific system they use?  That doesn't seem very "universal" now does it?

Last example: PEMDAS.
It stands for Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction - or, the official predetermined order of functions in an equation.  That's so if you have something like 2 x 3² + 5 ÷ 3 you know which order to work the functions within the equation, because that often changes the outcome.  If there was no predetermined order, two different people could often solve the same equation in different ways and get completely different results, even though neither was technically wrong.  The official order we use is something somebody had to decide at some point.  If we ever have to communicate with an alien culture like in the movies, they might have decided to do things very differently and we simply wouldn't arrive at the same result using the same equations.


So in conclusion, mathematics requires knowledge and understanding of specific cultural symbols, specific cultural procedures and specific applicable context in order to be a useful form of communication and therefore is not a "universal" language at all.

Re: Schrodinger's Rapist

A popular piece of rhetoric lately, "Schrodinger's Rapist" is the idea that every man should be assumed to be a sexual predator and treated as if they are a threat until proven otherwise, whether they do something to reasonably warrant such treatment, or not.  Women should be wary of a man approaching them or of being alone with a man and people should be wary of a man interacting with their children, etc.

Well, let's look at this from another angle: Schrodinger's Rapist, meet Schrodinger's Mugger.



Even if we were to discount the plethora of evidence that sexual predation is not a gendered crime, is there really any question that this is simply a bigoted, hypocritical example of garbage rhetoric?

And how ironic is it that the hypothetical experiment it is based on, Schrodinger's Cat, is actually intended to demonstrate the failings of such an assumptive theoretical approach when applied to practical scenarios.

The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, which states that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.

Isn't there a stereotype having something to do with "women" and "science"?  Perhaps it goes something like "every woman should be assumed to be bad at science and people should be wary of any scientific work done by women."  Doesn't seem so "enlightened" when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?

Leedskalnin On Education

You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct.

The misleading began when our distant ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of nothing to the coming generations and it went so innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are not educated.

Now I will tell you what education is according to my reasoning. An educated person is one whose senses are refined. We are born as brutes, we remain and die as the same if we do not become polished. But all senses do not take polish. Some are to coarse to take it. The main base of education is one's "self-respect". Any one lacking self-respect cannot be educated. The main bases of self-respect is the willingness to learn, to do only the things that are good and right, to believe only in the things that can be proved, to possess appreciation and self control.

Now, if you lack willingness to learn, you will remain as a brute and if you do things that are not good and right, you will be a low person, and if you believe in things that cannot be proved, any feeble minded person can lead you, and if you lack appreciation, it takes away the incentive for good doing and if you lack self control you will never know the limit.

So all those lacking these characteristics in their makeup are not educated.

- Ed Leedskalnin, 1936.

http://www.leedskalnin.com/