just giving it all away

From about 1990 to about 2003 I spent most of my spare time working on artificial intelligence research. The last few years I have gotten away from that to work on some other interests, but lately I have been looking through and re-reading some of the thousands of pages of notes and tens of thousands of lines of code I wrote back then. And, I've been thinking, it would be a real shame if all of this work were to simply be lost, if I were to not work on it anymore and nobody else knew about it.

So, I've been giving serious consideration to simply publishing all that work right here on this blog, and letting others have a look, critique, and take whatever they find useful for their own work.

This raises some serious questions for me. Is it dangerous to let just anyone have access to something with the potential to be used as a terrible weapon? Is it even ethical to do so? Would I have spent over ten thousand hours working on what amounts to my masterpiece, only to have nothing to show for my efforts except a series of blog posts and a stack of notebooks?

Well, after a lot of thought on the matter, I have decided that the ethical questions are irrelevant - what I have created is merely a tool, and whether others use the tool for good or ill is up to them. And as for personal reward, well, while I was doing it the work was reward in and of itself, and if the ideas I came up with spread to the right minds then it is possible that everyone's life will benefit. Hey, it could happen.

So, I'm going to do it. I'm going to just give all my AI research away on my blog.

Since most of my readers would have no idea what I'm talking about if I just dove into the middle of it, I'll start over the next few weeks with some of the history and basic concepts of artificial intelligence. After that, I'll start putting forth my own work.

When is a recession not a recession?

For several months now, I have heard plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the supposed recession. But is it really happing?

First of all, let's start with the definition of a recession: two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the economy. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper conceeded that Canada could be "technically" in a recession, he was absolutely right - that could indeed be the case. He could have said the same thing two years ago and still been right, even though the economy was booming at the time. When you are in the middle of a recession, there is no way to know for certain if you are or not - it is only by looking back at the previous two quarters that one can say with certainty that a recession has occurred.

So without that data, how come the press has been screaming "recession!" for several years?

Yes, the housing market took a beating over the last six months or so, but the housing market is not the entire economy. Anyone paying any attention to the housing market over the last few years would have seen that the housing prices were well above the actual value of the homes, and would put off buying until the housing bubble popped. Yes, GM and Ford are treading water and slowly sinking, but does that have anything at all to do with today's economic conditions?

Sixty percent of the economy is consumer spending - everything from home furnishings to beer to bubble gum. Housing and cars and other big-ticket items are not part of that. So, if enough people finally start to believe that there is in fact a recession, then their spending will drop and you will indeed get your recession. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as long as the press screams recession! long enough and loudly enough.

So is there really a recession going on? For the answer, we'll have to wait at least until the end of the quarter. But, until then, I think that one needs to look at the "canaries in the coal mine" of the economy.

If there is a recession then the ones who will go bankrupt first are the ones who live the closest to the edge of bankruptcy all the time - farmers. Go for a ride in the countryside and look for the "For Sale" signs. How many do you see? I have driven thousands of kilometers around the countryside in my area over the last few months, and I have seen a grand total of two for sale signs.

Another canary to look for is trains. Count the number of cars in the next train you see. Compare that to the number of cars that trains were hauling two years ago. See any difference? See any difference from 1981? I sure do - back in '81, there were a lot fewer cars being hauled at any one time, and there were fewer trains. The last train I saw a few nights ago was pulling over a hundred cars. Can a railway afford to do that unless there is demand to move that amount of goods? Does that sound like a recession to you?

One more canary is the Help Wanted ads. Here in the Edmonton Alberta area, there are so many jobs available - good jobs - that many companies have taken ads out on the radio advertising positions. Not just oil companies either, but all sectors of the economy. Is that a recession?

What are the canaries like in your area?

Evening update: I am betting that you are seeing the same things that I am - very few farms for sale, lots of cars on the trains, plenty of jobs available. That doesn't look anything like a recession to me. It certainly doesn't look like the recession of '81, when over half of the farms in this area were for sale, trains were pulling 40 cars, and there were no jobs available.

So, why has the press been screaming recession! for years? Who benefits from frightening consumers? Who benefits from ramming an $800 billion "stimulus" package through Congress and the Senate, and similar bailout packages in Canada and other G7 countries?

Well, it certainly isn't average people. That stimulus package is costing every man, woman and child in the USA $2600 apiece. There goes a big chunk of your kids' college fund, poof gone. And where is it going? To prop up GM workers making overpriced union wages and benefits, which will sink the company in a few years anyhow? To expanding the power of government over your life, in the amount they will increase your taxes and regulations controlling your life, to adding to the debt load the baby boomers are leaving their great great great grandchildren?

The people of the USA (and by extension the people of every country with economic ties to the USA, in particular Canada) are being frightened and swindled and glibly accepting the most massive intrusion into their finances in history - all based on a supposed recession for which there is no evidence until the end of the quarter. Who benefits? Who has a vested interest in frightening average people and forcing through this huge increase in government spending with little debate?

Look for yourself, check out the canaries in your area. Has the press been telling the truth about the economy? Or have they been telling you deliberate falsehoods in order to benefit their friends in the unions and Leftist political parties?

I'm back

I've kept pretty silent over the course of the US and Canadian federal elections. Often I've thought of something that would make a great blog post, but just didn't sit down to do it for one reason or another. Time has been a factor, of course, but so has my frustration - I didn't want to sit down and write anything about the American election in particular, for it was obvious what was going to happen, and no amount of reason or logic would change the result.

At any rate, I'm back now and will be posting regularly again.

the Retroencabulator

Engineers have a sense of humour, too.


Related: the MSDS datasheet for dihydrogen monoxide.

barrelling down the slippery slope and gaining steam

The Human Rights Commissions in Canada are under the microscope right now due to the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant trials (to call them trials, even though they take place in buildings with the word "court" written on the door, is preposterous) proceedings. And while public attention is focused on those two, there are still other proceedings going on all the time. The latest ruling, in the Rev. Stephen Boissoin case, states in part that

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund [the complainant] or Dr. Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current websites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

The ruling goes on; it is fascinating reading, if one is fascinated by venality.

The ruling admits that "...there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward seeking redress", and yet Boissoin must pay Dr. Lund $5000 because "Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harrassment as a result of his complaint." [emphasis mine] Boissoin is also on the hook for up to $2000 of the complainant's witness's expenses.

Boissoin said some nasty things in his letter, but did not incite violence; he did not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater where no fire was present; he did not write that homosexuals ought to be killed; he did not do anything but express his opinion in a letter to the editor of a small-city newspaper. And for that, he is not only out of pocket for up to seven grand to someone who was not harmed in any way by his words, but he is forever prohibited from exercising his right to free political speech. If the text of the ruling is followed to the letter, then if Boissoin even says in private email correspondence that "Lund is an asshole", Boissoin will go to jail for contempt of court!

These Human Rights [sic] Commissions are an abomination in a liberal democracy. In these hearings there is no presumption of innocence; truth is not a defence; fair comment is not a defence; freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a defence; all costs for a legal defence are borne by the defendant but the costs for prosecution are borne by the government; no harm must be demonstrated in order for a conviction and subsequent financial compensation to the complainant; no rules of evidence apply; the cases may be tried in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously (Mark Steyn was exposed to of all things triple jeopardy, being tried in Ontario, BC, and soon in the Federal HRC); the complainant need not reside in the jurisdiction where the proceedings take place, nor even show up for the proceedings;"expert" witnesses do not need to have expertise in the field in which they testify, nor must their testimony actually be relevant; and the tribunal "judges" need not have any legal training at all, nor apparently any familiarity with the rule of law or the operation of a courtroom; there is no such thing as a speedy proceeding (Ezra Levant's case has been ongoing for over 800 days; Boissoin lost his case in November and the ruling came out on May 30). These HRCs are nothing short of kangaroo courts.

At one time, the HRCs were charged with redressing discrimination in things like housing and employment, but like a cancer they have spread to suppressing free political speech: Steyn's, Levant's, Boissoin's, and potentially even my own (I published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, like Levant, as well as an image of the Piss Christ "artwork"). Once, just once, I would like to have the slippery slope argument proven wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Taking the long view for conservatism in America

In discussing the upcoming US elections, Rachel Lucas exhibits some short-term thinking:

I do not believe you’re going to teach anyone a “lesson” by sitting this one out or writing in Fred Thompson or Sunny Lucas. I believe that way too many people are ignoring the forest for the trees and that in doing so, they’re going to have a hand in electing Obama. Some say that’s fine because if the country’s going to be “ruined”, better that it’s ruined by a Democrat, and somehow magically we’ll come up with a fantastic, “real” conservative in 4 years even though there is no one like that on the horizon and everyone knows it. Like I said, I think that’s a super-crappy plan.

This is perfectly reasonable, but only if one is operating from a certain set of axioms:

1) there are now and will only ever be two viable political parties in the USA, the Republicans and the Democrats

2) given the choice between a greater evil and a lesser evil, it is better to choose the lesser evil (or at least to try to prevent victory for the greater evil)

Joining the argument is Francis Porretto:

Shouldn't we act to preserve as much freedom as we possibly can, even if it means voting for Republicans who've collaborated in the expansion of the Omnipotent State?

In a word, no. The tipping point is upon us; further support of the GOP in its present configuration will produce net damage to what remains of our traditional rights. The idea that supporting the lesser of two evils is somehow morally obligatory has never enjoyed less logical or historical support.

...If conservatives want to compel the GOP and its candidates to conform to conservative principle, they must defeat the party's strategy. That means defeating the party overall [Porretto's emphasis], not merely any one candidate. Nothing else will get the party's kingpins to question their strategic decisions.

In response to those conservatives who are considering sitting this election out, and letting Obama (or God forbid, Hi!!ary) win the presidency, there are those who point out short term possible losses, such as a precipitous pullout from Iraq or immigration amnesty or the signing of Kyoto (by the way, the latter is extremely unlikely, as the Senate unanimously(!) voted against that during Clinton's last term in office) should the Democrats win this election. They also point out medium-term possible losses such as the appointment of left-leaning judges to the Supreme Court.

Those fears are valid, but shortsighted. America has been a slowly-boiling frog for the better part of a century, and one election is not going to reverse the bad decisions of the past century; certainly none of the major Presidential candidates inspires hope for a change of direction away from disaster. As far as I can tell, each of them will merely heat up the water a little more.

Instead, take the long view: if you have young children, what sort of America will there be by the time their children start voting? If Americans continue this gradual slide into larger "entitlement" programs, more intrusive governmental control over their daily lives, more artificial impediments on the economy, more porkbarrel spending, higher and higher taxes, more and more assaults on Constitutionally-protected rights - then their great-grandchildren will inherit a bankrupt country where freedom is something that their senile great-grandparents kind of remember but of which they cannot even fathom.

Continuing to reward the major political parties for their ever-leftward tilt, by continuing to elect them to office as the lesser of two evils, does nothing to prevent the nightmare scenario for your grandchildren. In fact, it assures that outcome.

Also, a merely symbolic abstention from voting on the part of a small but significant percentage of conservatives in this election isn't going to change the calculus. In four more years, after whatever havoc that either of the Democrat candidates may wreak, the Republican conservative base will find itself right back where it is today, with a choice between one or another set of crooks. Porretto's idea of shaking up the Republican Party by handing them an electoral defeat isn't enough in and of itself - they've suffered electoral losses before. So has the Democrat Party, including some huge losses, and they're still around.

However, all is not lost, at least not yet. The axioms that I inferred above from my interpretation of Rachel's point of view are not immutable laws carved in stone. Francis Porretto has a point about the invalidity of the second axiom; and indeed, if that first axiom is demolished then the second one has no validity at all - the choice would no longer be between the lesser of two evils.

So, to invalidate that first axiom, let's look at a little history. In the mid-1800s the Whig Party (whose members included Daniel Webster and a young Abraham Lincoln) candidate became president on two occasions, in 1840 with William Henry Harrison and in 1848 with Zachary Taylor. Obviously they were a major political party, capable of attaining the Presidency - and the Whigs are gone. The Republican party rose out of its ashes - two years before the Whigs were wiped out.

More recent history provides another example: let's look at what happened in Canada from the late 1980's to the present. The Progressive Conservative (how's that for an oxymoron) party had been sliding further and further left for decades, and was becoming indistinguishable from the Liberals. In the West, a new party - the Reform Party - was established as a grass-roots effort to restore true conservative principles to federal politics.

Reform's first MP was elected in a byelection in 1989, and support continued to grow as the party outlined and stuck to its conservative principles. By 1993, Canadians had had enough of the Progressive Conservatives, and obliterated the party at the polls - it dropped from 151 seats in the House of Commons down to 2 seats. Reform went from 1 seat to 52, nearly all in the West, and vote splitting between the PCs and Reform in Ontario handed control of the government to the Liberals. It took 13 more years, and some coalition building with the remnant rump of the PC party (which involved the merger of the two parties into the Canadian Alliance Party, and later into the Conservative Party), but in 2006 the Conservatives won a minority in the federal election.

In all it has taken nearly 20 years for the process, from a leftward-lurching-and-gaining-speed "conservative" party in power to a more rightward-leaning (and thankfully much friendlier to the USA) party in minority power; it is entirely possible that there will be a Conservative majority Parliament after the next election.

Of course, the analogy isn't perfect; the existing Conservative party is still to the left of the Democrat party - which should tell you just how far left the old PCs had swung. However, it can be done. It takes a lot of hard work to do it, and there are growing pains which involve weeding out some really extreme fringe elements that tend to latch on to new political movements.

But, it can't be done by a half-hearted effort, which is where I think that first axiom has tripped up Porretto - it isn't enough to defeat the Republicans to make them change their ways, you have to defeat them utterly and also have a conservative alternative waiting to take over the Republican base - you can't wipe them out and "fix" them, expecting a long term change, you have to wipe them out completely and be ready to start over before they are wiped out. If the conservative base in the Republican party actually wants to have a conservative representation in Washington, then they will have to form a conservative party and drain the lifeblood out of the Republican party. It is too late to do that before this election. However, if they start their grass-roots movement now, then by 2012 they will make serious inroads into the base of the Republican party.

The hardest part is convincing people that the nominally conservative party has truly abandoned its conservative base, and that a fresh start is needed. After that, you have to keep people's attention long enough, and consistently apply conservative principles along the way, to build your new conservative party up into a party that stands a chance of electing a President and/or a majority of seats in Congress and the Senate. If the USA follows Canada's example, that could take twenty years or more. Even if it takes two generations, the results for your grandchildren will be worth the effort.

Liveblogging Mars Phoenix landing

4:35 pm PST: The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has started the software that will allow it to track the Phoenix during Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL)

4:37 PST: expecting the MRO to start receiving data in 2 minutes 30 seconds

4:38 PST: why the hell is Mike Griffin at the JPL mission control, wearing a blue t-shirt and looking like he's doing something?

4:39 PST: cruise stage separation, a UHF signal has been received by MRO Mars Odyssey.

4:43 PST: MRO now has signal as well. Atmospheric entry in 1 minute 35 seconds

4:45 PST: by the way, all these times and signals received are about 20 minutes late due to light speed delay. If the Phoenix landed safely, then it already happened and we just won't know until 20 minutes after the fact. all those folks in JPL aren't actually doing anything right now, they're just watching

4:48 PST: peak heating, and yet we are still seeing a signal from Phoenix via Odyssey, even through the plasma generated by the ablation of the heat shield

4:50 PST: parachute deployment. The next big thing is separation of Phoenix from the parachute and ignition of its landing rockets

4:53 PST: it's plummeting

4:54 PST: touchdown signal detected. The numbers being called out by the guy at mission control suggested that it was falling much faster than it should have been, but so far it looks like it didn't lithobrake.